 |
 | 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 / Sprint PCS / May 2008A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html > http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html I have a simple way of disputing bills: Always use a credit card. This puts more power in your hands. Waste little time with the front line people. Politely request a supervisor. If the supervisor refuses to help tell them that you plan to dispute the charge. Remind them that it takes a lot more work on their end than on yours. Tell them that when the company replies you will tell them you disputed it because ________was unwilling to help. Never accept "I can not do that". Tell them you believe they will not do it but you know that they can. If they disagree ask what they would do if their boss told them to do that. If all else fails get the companies main number, not the toll free customer service but corporate headquarters (yahoo finance usually has that under "profile"). Ask for the executive offices or the legal department. You will not get a CEO or senior v-p but you usually will get someone whose job includes keeping problems away from upper management. >> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > department. You will not get a CEO or senior v-p but you usually will > get someone whose job includes keeping problems away from upper management. P.S. Two things that often get their attention: Consumer fraud. Small Claims Court. > http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html Never had any problems with AT&T until Cingular took over. Big difference when AT&T was just AT&T with billing issues resolved quickly over the phone. My experience with Cingular is you just go around and around and nothing would be resolved even after they agree to it verbally. I just don't do business with Cingular or Sprint. Wish the old AT&T were back though. >> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > don't do business with Cingular or Sprint. Wish the old AT&T were back > though. Where have you been the past year? There is no Cingular anymore. ATT bought them out. If you're getting lousy service you're getting it from ATT which normally doesn't give 'lousy' service. Their service is usually 'abominable'. > Where have you been the past year? There is no Cingular anymore. > ATT bought > them out. If you're getting lousy service you're getting it from ATT which > normally doesn't give 'lousy' service. Their service is usually > 'abominable'. *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed themselves and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand recognition. >> Where have you been the past year? There is no Cingular anymore. >> ATT bought [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand > recognition. Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular... > > *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC > > (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed themselves > > and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand > > recognition. > > Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular... Almost- SBC (now AT&T) bought BellSouth who owned 40% of Cingular (SBC owned the other 60%.) I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was always a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T and BS, SBC was free to rename Cingular to AT&T. >>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. >>> Cingular's parent company, SBC (Southwestern Bell) >>> bought (what was left of) AT&T, >>> and renamed themselves and their "Cingular" wireless divison, >>> to "AT&T" for the name-brand recognition. And things then come full circle. I started with AT&T Wireless, which then became Cingular and is now AT&T Mobility. It's all to keep the sign-makers in business to keep making new signs for the (remaining) stores :-) >> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular... > Almost- SBC (now AT&T) bought BellSouth who owned 40% of Cingular > (SBC owned the other 60%.) > I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was always > a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T and BS, > SBC was free to rename Cingular to AT&T. > I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was > always a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T > and BS, SBC was free to rename Cingular to AT&T. A tangled web we weave.....(c; BTW, the correct reference achronym for BS is actually B$, at least in South Carolina.... Bell$outh.... ,,,,sorta like Micro$oft. >> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC >> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed themselves >> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand >> recognition. > >Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular... That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole owner of Cingular. >>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC >>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed themselves [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole > owner of Cingular. Cingular was originally AT&T wireless. The name changed when it was sold to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle except for the fact that AT&T is AT&T in name only. >>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, >>>> SBC [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle except for the fact > that AT&T is AT&T in name only. Yup, in 20 years we've gone from "ATT" through seven baby bells right on back to "att"....Karma I suppose.... I wonder how much the logo design firm was paid who told them go from all CAPS to lower case? > >>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, > >>>> SBC [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I wonder how much the logo design firm was paid who told them go from all > CAPS to lower case? Except now the HQ is in Texas, and we all know how well Texans can manage large organizations...hint $4 gas...JG In article <0d8bfaa2-c90e-46e4-b8b6-0b068338ef24 @m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, jgrove24@hotmail.com says... > > >>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, > > >>>> SBC [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Except now the HQ is in Texas, and we all know how well Texans can > manage large organizations...hint $4 gas...JG AT&T gives your info to the US govt Why don't you wake up? > > That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of > > Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC > > and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole > > owner of Cingular. > > Cingular was originally AT&T wireless. No, it wasn't. "Cingular" was created by the consolidation of regional wireless carriers SBMS (Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems), BellSouth Mobility and PacTel. AT&T Wireless was a separate wireless company that existed contemporaneously with those regional carriers and was once owned by, then spun off of AT&T (the long distance company leftover from the Ma Bell breakup) long before Cingular acquired it. > The name changed when it > was sold to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle > except for the fact that AT&T is AT&T in name only. Kinda sorta- Cingular was created as a seperate company owned by SBC (60%) and BellSouth (40%.) Cingular bought AT&T Wireless (which was no longer part of AT&T, but had a license to use the AT&T name, which expired when Cingular bought them.) When SBC later bought AT&T (the long distance company) they renamed themselves AT&T, but didn't rename Cingular, due to BellSouth's objection. When SBC (now calling themselves AT&T) bought BellSouth a year later, that eliminated the objection to rename Cingular "AT&T Mobility." Ironically, the old AT&T Wireless (which Cingular bought) was only months away from having to rename themselves- their two-year license to use the name AT&T was about to expire, and AT&T (the LD company) was about to launch their own new wireless service as a Sprint MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator.) SBC's purchase of AT&T scuttled that deal. >> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would be resolved even after they agree to it verbally. I just don't do > business with Cingular or Sprint. Wish the old AT&T were back though. You haven't been keeping up. Cingular is gone and the remake of the original AT&T (not the AT&T previous to cingular) is back. Here is a helpful video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZErXFuNR6U&feature=related > http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html A brandy new webpage devoted to a "wrong" committed four year before? No offense, but while I don't put huge billing errors past companies like this, I do think they have better ways of making money than outright fraud, particularly when I've never seen anyone ELSE complain about "redated calls" either on Usenet or HowardForums. Unless this is a particular fraud they only committed on the web page author? Sorry- this story smells way too fishy- billing systems are all automated- no one is "sneaking" extra calls to any one person's account, and it concerns a company, frankly, that's no longer in business- the "AT&T Wireless" complained about in the article (that had no relationship with "AT&T" other than licensing the name) was bought by Cingular years ago. The fact that Southwestern Bell (the owner of Cingular,) years later, also bought AT&T (the long distance phone company) and renamed itself and it's wireless company "AT&T" is essentially coincidence, and not the same company our author is whining about. Ironically, BTW, is there a reason you didn't add the AT&T or Cingular newsgroups in your scattershot list? It would seem they have better need for this "warning" than Sprint or Verizon customers. (Of course, there it'd only generate a bunch of "funny, that's never happed to me" responses...) >Ironically, BTW, is there a reason you didn't add the AT&T or Cingular >newsgroups in your scattershot list? It would seem they have better need >for this "warning" than Sprint or Verizon customers. (Of course, there it'd >only generate a bunch of "funny, that's never happed to me" responses...) For younger readers who might not perhaps be aware of the history, the name AT&T is an attempt to invoke the feelings of quality, reliability, and high standards of telephone service that existed since before 1900 and lasted well into the 1970's before the big break-up. The AT&T Corporation provided something like 80 to 90% of the local telephone service in this USA and near 100% of the long distance service. Everyone from the operators to the local installers were long-term experienced employees rigidly drilled in providing good customer service. It was a bureaucracy to be sure, but the people sure did know their stuff. These new AT&T companies exist as AT&T in name only. I've found that many of the service people at AT&T Wireless don't even know how to work the features on their own cell phones. > For younger readers who might not perhaps be aware of the history, the > name AT&T is an attempt to invoke the feelings of quality, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > many of the service people at AT&T Wireless don't even know how to > work the features on their own cell phones. I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and built was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant. Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began. Cheap imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing service quality degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on both the hardware and customer support side. We all know the state of the landline telephone service today. No wonder most young people don't even get a landline phone, what with the costs of owning one. Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes, and charges for options like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for free. FWIW, the only landline phone I have is for my business. The main house phone is VOIP, and my family uses cell phones for other calls. > Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began. Cheap > imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing service quality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > FWIW, the only landline phone I have is for my business. The main house > phone is VOIP, and my family uses cell phones for other calls. It's the arrogance that AT&T has that will kill them. The landline providers could have offered us the same options that the VoIP providers offer now--and could have done it 15 years ago. The landline providers still have their heads in the sand with respect to competition. >> For younger readers who might not perhaps be aware of the history, the >> name AT&T is an attempt to invoke the feelings of quality, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built > like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant. They were built to last because in most cases the phone company owned them and had to replace/repair them. > Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began. Cheap > imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing service quality [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and charges for options like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for > free. What many people do not understand is how that anti-trust case changed. Originally,under Carter, the plan was to separate the manufacturing and the dial tones. AT&T controlled most of the local telcos and overcharged them and the telcos simply passed those costs on to the customers. The Reagan Justice Department altered the case to have AT&T spin off the local carriers. There have been some advantages. When I first moved west I would look at my clock before making a long distance call as rates dropped at 5 p.m. and again at 11.I made most of my non-business calls on weekends. I used to be in the phone card business ands,of course, at one time the only cards were AT&T. What has not changed is on the local end business customers subsidize residential users. > FWIW, the only landline phone I have is for my business. The main house > phone is VOIP, and my family uses cell phones for other calls. George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in news:eoYVj.3501$3O7.3272 @newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: > There have been some advantages. When I first moved west I would look > at my clock before making a long distance call as rates dropped at 5 > p.m. and again at 11.I made most of my non-business calls on weekends. > I used to be in the phone card business ands,of course, at one time > the only cards were AT&T. The Bells did everything they could to prevent ham radio operators from connecting their ham radios to the phone system. Then, when that didn't work, they got with their FCC buddies to make sure most any call was against FCC regulations. It's still that way, even today. Back in the days you're talking about, we'd make a collect, person-to- person, long distance call to Mr Melvin Schultz to the ham's house phone we wanted to get on our favorite 75 meter frequency, 3903 Khz. Melvin, of course, didn't exist and was never home to take the call, and the Bell operator terminated the call, but not before alerting the ham the call was to that someone wanted him on the air. Sometimes, this scam backfired. Someone would call you and forget to make it COLLECT so YOU'd have to pay if you accepted. The usual response to those not-collect calls was, "This is Melvin Schultz, who's that calling? Hello? Hello?".....which would cost the caller about $5/second for the person-to-person long distance scam, operator-assisted (Miss Tomlin of the Telephone Company) call. Of course, the joke would be all over 3903 Khz most of the night ribbing the caller for the faux pas...until something else diverted their attention or they were too drunk to talk any more...(c; 73 DE W4CSC Anybody ever play with a Blue Box? > I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out > of college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes, and charges for options like > voicemail that cellular carriers offer for free. How'd you get an engineering degree without learning how to spell? What university was that, anyways? Didn't anyone at Bell Labs notice?? > CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote >> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right >> out of college and can support this statement. All equiment we >> designed and built was to meet an operating life of 20 years >> minimum. The Bell telephones used at home and in phone booths also >> met this standard. They were built like a brick. Service was >> great, and call clarity was excellant. >> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began. >> Cheap imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> owning one. Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes, and charges for options >> like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for free. > How'd you get an engineering degree without learning how to spell? Plenty of engineers cant spell for nuts. Me included. > What university was that, anyways? > Didn't anyone at Bell Labs notice?? Anyone with a clue has always noticed that with engineers. "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:68sib8F2tdhobU1 @mid.individual.net: > Anyone with a clue has always noticed that with engineers. Someone musta proofread Bill Shockley's papers.....(c; > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:68sib8F2tdhobU1 > @mid.individual.net: > >> Anyone with a clue has always noticed that with engineers. > > Someone musta proofread Bill Shockley's papers.....(c; It wouldn't surprise me. Using a preefrooder is the smart thing to do; particularly if you are an engineer! Of course Word checks both spelling and grammar. Go Engineers!!!! >> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out >> of college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > How'd you get an engineering degree without learning how to spell? > What university was that, anyways? "Equiment" was a typo and I have been known to misspell "excellent" University of South Carolina? <G>. > Didn't anyone at Bell Labs notice?? No, we were all too busy figuring out ways to screw our customers. CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote in news:1ctxawp1f67yn $.mzi912ctzmpj.dlg@40tude.net: > University of South Carolina Ahh.....NOW I understand....(c; Gamecocks in the ENGLISH department can't spell! > I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of > college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and > built > was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones > used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built > like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant. And right now, I use a VOIP provider which more or less is accross the street from Bell Labs and its Vonage. I grew up a 20-30 min bicycle ride from Bell Labs Holmdel. >> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of >> college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > street from Bell Labs and its Vonage. I grew up a 20-30 min bicycle > ride from Bell Labs Holmdel. Isn't there a discussion and what to use the Holmdel facility for? One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem you called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring or outside they fixed it. > One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem > you called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring > or outside they fixed it. True. But then again, with what we used to pay, we should've each had our own personal repairman on standby. >> One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem >> you called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring >> or outside they fixed it. > > True. But then again, with what we used to pay, we should've each had our > own personal repairman on standby. Agreed. At one time you had to rent everything from the phone company. They also charged monthly fees for things like an extension phone on the same line. Now that I think of it the cable people used to charge for a second tv getting basic cable. When they were forced to stop the practice they warned people about imaginary hazards of hooking up a second tv on your own (they are allowed to charge for doing the cabling). ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > Agreed. At one time you had to rent everything from the phone > company. They also charged monthly fees for things like an extension [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > up a second tv on your own (they are allowed to charge for doing the > cabling). And for rental of extra converter boxes and remotes (I think our extra box is $5/month and the extra remote is $2).  SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > Agreed. At one time you had to rent everything from the phone > company. They also charged monthly fees for things like an extension > phone on the same line. Yeah, I remember as a kid we had one phone that rang and two extensions that didn't (that we weren't paying for.) My Dad worked for the local gas company and he and his co-workers would pinch any phones left behind when they were sent to shut off the gas at abandoned apartments (if they beat the phone company guys there, of course.) Then they'd disconnect the ringers so the phone company wouldn't detect the extra load from the extension phones. I remember having a heck of a time convincing my folks when I was a teenager in the 80's that you were allowed to own phones and it was okay to let me reconnect the ringers! (And an ever bigger sell-job to get them to turn in the stupid banana-yellow wallphone they'd been renting since the Nixon administration!) > Now that I think of it the cable people used to charge for a second > tv getting basic cable. My cable co was even worse. In addition to the $6/month extra outlet, we signed up for "cable radio" for $2/month extra when the cable company first came to town back when I was 12 or 13 years old. (They rebroadcast local FM stations, as well as MTV's and HBO's audio in stereo, on unused radio frequencies for people in bad reception areas.) The installer put a $2 cable splitter on the line and was about to run a wire to the stereo's FM antenna terminals. I told my parents to tell the installer they changed their minds and didn't want the radio service, and we ran to Radio Shack later and bought the necessary parts to "roll our own." (We did get a knock on the door several months later when they detected a "leak" caused by my jury-rigged extra-outlet cable run to my brother's bedroom. As a precocious teen, no one had told me I wasn't supposed to use a leftover piece of 300-Ohm antenna twin-lead wire with coax adapters on the ends as a cable line! ;-) > When they were forced to stop the practice they warned people about > imaginary hazards of hooking up a second tv on your own (they are > allowed to charge for doing the cabling). And for box rental, of course- back in the good old days, cable-ready TVs were still a rarity. I remember trolling garage sales and flea markets for old converters because my folks didn't want to rent any additional boxes at $6/month. For a buck each out of a flea market junk box I scored an old cable-to-UHF converter (upconverted the cable band to UHF channels) and a very old 36-channel converter with a "remote"- a 12-button panel (with a three-position switch to select which group of 12 channels you wanted to select from) on a 20' cord that connected to the actual converter hooked to the TV! Ah, the good old days... ;-) ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > And for box rental, of course- back in the good old days, cable-ready TVs > were still a rarity. We still rent two boxes for our two cable-ready TV's because we get premium channels and occasionally watch pay-per-view. However, I don't rent a cable modem (I own one that is DOCSIS compliant), and I'm eventually going to get a couple universal remotes and give the other ones back to the cable company and stop paying monthly for them. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
|
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
|
©2008 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.