 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / August 2004BREAKING NEWS: Get out of your contract early. Only a few days to beat the clause!!
Taken from a post at http://www.fatwallet.com/t/18/348849/ Here's how - I've done it - so I know it works - you might have to call in a supervisor and fight it out - but legally you can cancel From August 18th AT&T Wireless is increasing their call charge for 411 calls to $1.50 from the current $1.25. The July bill has this mentioned as notice. This is considered 'Change of Service Terms' - and here's how the AT&T service contract refers to it: Changes to Agreement or Service. We may amend the terms of this Agreement, including the Sales Information, upon advance notice provided to you in any manner we choose, including by notice contained with your invoice for the Service. In the event that we make such a change that has a material adverse impact on your rights or use of the Service, you may terminate the Agreement by giving us notice within 20 days of the date we notify you, and you will not be charged any cancellation fee. If you use the Service more than 20 days after we notify you of a change, you agree to that change. Stick on to the fact that you received the July invoice in mail only around the 25th of the month - that'll keep you within the 20 allowable days to conflict this change in service terms All the best with your way out of the most horrible customer service in the world Thanks for the heads up!! > Taken from a post at http://www.fatwallet.com/t/18/348849/ > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the > world And this increase of $0.25 is considered to have "a material adverse impact on your rights or use of the Service?" Not likely.... but give it a try. > Thanks for the heads up!! > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > the > > world >Taken from a post at http://www.fatwallet.com/t/18/348849/ > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >All the best with your way out of the most horrible customer service in the >world Thnaks for the tip. I do not receive a paper bill and have looked over my last statement emailed to me and saw nothing about this outrageous and unwarranted increase. I'll try this and see if it works. Will post back and let you guys know. >>Taken from a post at http://www.fatwallet.com/t/18/348849/ >>From August 18th AT&T Wireless is increasing their call charge for 411 calls >>to $1.50 from the current $1.25. The July bill has this mentioned as notice. >>This is considered 'Change of Service Terms' - and here's how the AT&T >>service contract refers to it: >>[SNIP] >Thnaks for the tip. I do not receive a paper bill and have looked over >my last statement emailed to me and saw nothing about this outrageous >and unwarranted increase. I'll try this and see if it works. Will post >back and let you guys know. Outrageous and unwarranted?! It's still less than other carriers (e.g., Cingular, and the $1.99 charged by AT&T 00 INFO), and I doubt ATTWS is making much if any money on it. (MCI is getting out of the $0.99 directory assistance business at the end of the month.) The charge is avoidable (you don't have to use it), so I think the case for breaking the contract without penalty is a bit weak. (I personally use WAP over GPRS to look up numbers.)  SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Outrageous and unwarranted?! Outrageous and unwarranted = I want out of my contract and I'll phrase it in a way to help me do so. >>Outrageous and unwarranted?! > >Outrageous and unwarranted = I want out of my contract and I'll phrase >it in a way to help me do so. Indeed. :) SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > The charge is avoidable (you don't have to use it), so I think the case for > breaking the contract without penalty is a bit weak. It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the change. A change in terms is a change in terms. And whether I use the service or not is also immaterial. It's not weak at all. The law is black and white. The issue is black and white. >> The charge is avoidable (you don't have to use it), so I think the case for >> breaking the contract without penalty is a bit weak. > >It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the change. A change in >terms is a change in terms. It's actually a change in price, not in terms. >And whether I use the service or not is >also immaterial. > >It's not weak at all. The law is black and white. The issue is black >and white. I disagree on all counts, as noted in my earlier post. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > >It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the change. A change in > >terms is a change in terms. > > It's actually a change in price, not in terms. The terms of a contract include the price. >> >It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the change. A change in >> >terms is a change in terms. >> >> It's actually a change in price, not in terms. > >The terms of a contract include the price. Where? SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > >The terms of a contract include the price. > > Where? What the f.ck are you talking about, Navas? What contracts do you enter into in which the price and costs are not spelled out? >> >The terms of a contract include the price. >> >> Where? > >What the f.ck are you talking about, Navas? What contracts do you enter >into in which the price and costs are not spelled out? As I wrote, where in the actual ATTWS service contract is the price for directory assistance spelled out? If you don't know, just say so. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > As I wrote, where in the actual ATTWS service contract is the price for > directory assistance spelled out? If you don't know, just say so. Interestingly enough, I never signed a contract. So I can leave at any time. >> As I wrote, where in the actual ATTWS service contract is the price for >> directory assistance spelled out? If you don't know, just say so. > >Interestingly enough, I never signed a contract. So I can leave at any >time. Not without breaking the contract -- as a matter of law, by using and paying for the service, you have agreed to the service agreement, which is available on-line or at any ATTWS store. (Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.) SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > > >It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the change. A change in > >terms is a change in terms. > > It's actually a change in price, not in terms. True, however, pricing of ancillary services are generally in all the brochures. You could make a preety good case that this is a sort of rate plan change, albeit a minor one. Way back when I was a Cingular dealer, Cingular Changed the price of call forwarding, and we were instructed that that constituted a change of terms and contract customers were therefore free to walk w/o penalty. > >And whether I use the service or not is > >also immaterial. > > > >It's not weak at all. The law is black and white. The issue is black > >and white. > I disagree on all counts, as noted in my earlier post. I think it's more "dark grey and light grey" than black and white, but it's likely good enough to get out of a contract. Of course, AT&T could simply agree to credit the above disgruntled posters 25-cents for each DA call between now and the end of their contracts and make the issue moot! ;-) > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of terms and contract customers were therefore free to walk w/o > penalty. But in John's world, where he's already made up his mind, this isn't the case (even though he's not a lawyer--right, John?) John has declared it not to be a change in terms, therefore it isn't. In fact, what you say is probably to against what John has declared, it's like the frog thing again--he won't even see it. The words will go by his eyes, but his brain will refuse to process that they're even there. >[SNIP] Yet another off-topic content-free ad hominem post. Have you nothing constructive to contribute?! p.s. Does acting like a jerk come naturally, or do you have to work at it? ;-) SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ >> >It has nothing to do with the magnitude of the change. A change in >> >terms is a change in terms. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >brochures. You could make a preety good case that this is a sort of >rate plan change, albeit a minor one. I agree. >> >And whether I use the service or not is >> >also immaterial. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I think it's more "dark grey and light grey" than black and white, but >it's likely good enough to get out of a contract. Different issue -- I was referring to his argument that he wasn't bound by the service agreement just because he hadn't signed it. On the directory assistance increase, I agree that it's at least a grey area. >Of course, AT&T could simply agree to credit the above disgruntled >posters 25-cents for each DA call between now and the end of their >contracts and make the issue moot! ;-) Indeed, which is what many carriers do, since it's better than losing a subscriber. When I was with Cingular, I was almost always able to get some sort of credit like that. When I switched to ATTWS, the sales rep tossed in a free phone even though my plan didn't qualify for one. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > posters 25-cents for each DA call between now and the end of their > contracts and make the issue moot! ;-) But then you can argue "Everytime I make a DA call I have to call you guys and wait 30 minutes just to get a 25 cent credit. I'm sorry, I'd rather take my business elsewhere. Can you go ahead and cancel the account and guarantee me I will not be charged the termination fee? Also, this call is being recorded ;-)" Yes you can, no you can't blah blah blah. Does anyone remember a couple of years ago when AT&TWS changed the rate from--what was it?--.99 cents to 1.25? At that time they offered US the right to terminate our contracts without penalty. Seems there's plenty of past practice on this, and it does in fact seem to be a change in terms. Now, let's hear from those who have successfully used this to end their contracts without penalty. >Yes you can, no you can't blah blah blah. Does anyone remember a >couple of years ago when AT&TWS changed the rate from--what was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Now, let's hear from those who have successfully used this to end >their contracts without penalty. Count me in. Just got through and cancelled. Wahoo! No more AT&T, no cancellation charge. They did not even argue. ---- Time for some thrillin' heroics. ---- > >Yes you can, no you can't blah blah blah. Does anyone remember a > >couple of years ago when AT&TWS changed the rate from--what was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No more AT&T, no cancellation charge. They did not even argue. Yet another tidbit that will pass through John Navas's eyes without touching his brain. John will fail to remember this particular post as early as--now. In fact, he'll deny that anyone ever posted any such thing. Because, like the frog and the fly, he literally doesn't "see" anything that doesn't jibe with the little world he's created in his autistic head. >[SNIP] Another childish, content-free, posting. Have you nothing to contribute? Does acting like a jerk come naturally, or do you have to work at it? SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > >[SNIP] > > Another childish, content-free, posting. There was plenty of content there. You're the fly, and the "I got out of my contract" post didn't look like a fly to you--therefore you quite literally didn't see it. Right? And you snipped it because...why? Because you didn't want to have it on record that you were aware that someone got out of a contract because the terms changed in a small but nonetheless significant way such that the "we changed the contract, therefore you may leave" clause was relevant. Any post that can expose you for the arrogant fraud that you are, Navas, is chock full of content. >> >[SNIP] >> >> Another childish, content-free, posting. > >There was plenty of content there. [SNIP] None there either. SignatureBest regards, John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ > None there either. And he's off, folks, countering what he claims are content-free posts with--you guessed it--content free posts. John Navas truly lives in his own little world, where things make sense only to him. The problem is, there's a door to the real world--but it's only a one-way door, where his words go out. Facts from the real world can't go in. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.