AT&T Charges $27,788.93 To Watch A Bears Game On Your Laptop
Wayne has an AT&T wireless card that he uses in combination with his Slingbox to watch TV while he travels. It's normally a good system, but he recently got a shockingly huge bill after watching about 2 1/2 hours of a Bears game while waiting for his cruise to depart Miami.
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
So there I was at the Port of Miami. It was 1 p.m. Florida time. The Bears game was starting. The ship was not leaving Miami until 4 p.m., so I slid in my wireless card and brought up my Slingbox and watched the game on my computer.
I watched for about 2½ hours. Then I shut down my computer and cell phone, because it's expensive to use your Internet or phone when you sail out of the country.
Anyway, I got home from our cruise, and about two weeks later I got my cell phone/wireless card bill, which is usually about $220, and it said I owe $28,067.31.
I called AT&T and told them there was either a mistake or fraud and to please take this off the bill. That's where the fun starts. They told me that the bill was correct and somehow I was charged international rates for Internet use, and the cost is 2 cents per kb. That came out to $27,788.93.
I explained that I was not at sea but in port and my cell phone was still working without roaming, and that I should have still been on my unlimited wireless card. I have since been in contact with five or six different people at AT&T, and the best they could do, even though I am not at fault, is to bring the bill down to $6,000.
I have confirmation from the cruise line that we were still in port and I provided that information to AT&T.
The Sun-Times' Stephanie Zimmermann (AKA The Fixer) called and retold Wayne's story to AT&T and, oh my gosh, suddenly they were able to fix the bill. Isn't it amazing how that works?
Apparently, Wayne's card was picking up a signal that it shouldn't have and the mistake was entirely AT&T's fault.
$27,000 to watch a Bears game?!? [Sun-Times](Thanks, Keith !)
(Photo:Señor Codo)
Post a comment
Comments:
It would be worth $27,788.93 to watch the Bears kick Packers ass. That is all.
The Sun-Times' Stephanie Zimmermann (AKA The Fixer) called and retold Wayne's story to AT&T and, oh my gosh, suddenly they were able to fix the bill. Isn't it amazing how that works?
When newspapers all go out of business, I guess people will have no other alternative than to just pay the bill.
Yeah, there was something wrong with the way the card connected for sure. First, what country was it connecting to from a port in Florida? Second, I know with my EVDO card through Sprint warns me whenever I roam before it connects, not sure if ATT does that or not.
This is why I just steal the internet. I don't get any type of service if I get disconnected but I don't have to put up with crap like this.
Off topic but I wish I was an investigative journalist for consumer issues. Would you ever be out of work?
ahhh, the monolith that employs me, i cannot comment using my work computer!
Its his fault, he should have checked what signal he is on. its pretty easy, just hack into the firmware of the wireless card, issue commands #MBDV382& at the +++ATH0 prompt and it'll be the 17th or 18th out of the 220 carrier options.....
Ok, blaming the op is over. :)
Anyways, typically these boats have a sat uplink and a wireless (cellular) point on their ship along with agreements with a few major carriers. When the boats are in port and still in national waters they are supposed to be shut off. Seems like in this case, it was more the boat technical operator's fault. However, its definitely not this guys fault.
Sounds like time for either courtroom fun, or a media campaign...
@Brian Johnson: Yes. Because so many media groups are now desperate for ad dollars and being very selective about who they go after.
I'm not sure that going to the press was the most effective move -- any corporation is going to be defensive about their billing. He could have just said he can't afford $28,000 -- but can pay $280. If they won't negotiate, then dispute the charges either by talking up the ladder, or calling atty general, or court. This article is going to cost him more than he realizes.
What I don't get is, does AT&T think someone would actually choose to rack up a $28k bill for one month? Even if you desperatly needed some data, or to wach a football game, wouldn't their be alternate methods beyond spending $28k? Like fly back home, watch it, and fly back...and save $27k?
@cynical_bastard: And by courtroom I'm sure you mean Binding Arbitration. And by fun, I assume you meant being raped in the ass by the arbiter, and then paying for the privilege.
I had AT&T for about 4 years and almost every month I'd have to call and get them to adjust my charges back down to normal level. Always something retarded with their billing system.
@Brian Johnson: I hope you don't expect any of the networks you connect to to be remotely secure. they probably still have the default router password and can easily analyze/spy on everything you are doing with easy to find software- no skills needed.
@Hoss:
Going to the press got the job done...
Also, Why would he pay anything?? He is already paying for unlimited internet... Paying $280 would be unreasonable in my book
@Hoss: If he tried saying he couldn't afford it they'd send him to collections with no hope of getting it fixed. I don't see how this article is going to cost him anything.
@Hoss: How is it going to cost him more than he realizes? They refunded his money only because he got the media involved.
What are they going to do to him now?
@slim150: They can't if you use SSL and verify all the certificates to make sure there are no man-in-the-middle attacks going on.
Apparently public shame in the media is about the only way to fix problems like this now.
@Amy Alkon: We'll bitch and moan to the Consumerist and hopefully this blog will get enough coverage to have the same affect and effect.
When I'm in the Rio Grande valley my cell phone sometimes switches to Mexico, but what foreign country would you switch to in Florida? Cuba?
Still a bargain! Go Bears!
-Chuck Bolanowski, Jefferson Park
@egoods: I was just on a cruise. There was full mobile and data access directly from the ship, and at international (i.e., ridiculous) rates. His phone was probably "accidentally" connecting to the ship transmitter/receiver.
I wonder if the cruse ship has some sort of device that tells the phone companies (or wireless devices) that they are now in international waters. That way they can charge more money for the same service.
Just a thought.
I was slammed with hundreds of dollars in "roaming" fees by Cingular when I was working offshore in Louisiana. Had I been using my cellphone when I was at sea, I could understand the charges, but I was 4 miles inland at the dock when I called. The claim was that I was connecting to the offshore oil rigs' cell network.
Unfortunately this was long before I discovered Consumerist.
Haven't we learned not to use your cell phone anywhere around a cruise ship by now, even if its in port. They've got their own astronomical rates and will ding you if you connect through their tower.
This is what I hate about companies like ATT. Obviously they didn't even try to figure out if there was something wrong to cause this. Instead they just tried to negotiate it down when in fact the person didn't owe anything. Not until some reporter called did they even investigate and thin discover - *SURPRISE* - they were in the wrong.
I would report them to the FCC for billing fraud anyway and let them answer to an FCC inspector. Cost them some money for their incompetence.
X2. I would also like a copy of the internet. There's a great place above my fireplace mantle I'd like to put it.
@AlteredBeast: Very true. ATT should know that no non-business customer, whose bill is normally $200, would be able to afford even a $5000 bill...why don't they simply cut off service at a certain point and verify the use with the customer? Hell, credit card companies do this all the time!
@tbonekatz: If he was waiting for a cruise, then chances are it picked up the ship's network, which is extremely overpriced -- but is also not supposed to be the active network in port.
You know it's Cingular's fault when they reduce your bill 78.4% from $27,788.93 to $6,000 and make it sound like they are doing you a favor. Even credit card companies are not that nice.
@AirIntake: "I find it hard to believe that cell phone company networks can't be linked together for a similar cost."
Maybe, but cost and retail price are two completely different things.
@AirIntake: The "international" system on the boat would have to use satellite to work. So they charge a huge premium. The issue here is the equipment and software.
Does the driver for the wireless data card allow you to deny roaming? Does the software have a way to notify you if you are roaming?
From the lack of info, one can assume it does not allow either. That makes this AT&T's problem. I knew someone who was roaming the whole time with their new phone and got the bill removed because that was the way it was sent to them. AT&T told them how to set their network to take precedence on the phone and the problem was fixed. Of course the reception was crap since AT&T had no towers nearby yet. Which is probably why AT&T ships phones out to roam. They will credit your first bill and now you are past the 30 days so you can't cancel without a fee.
I know its AT&Ts fault here, but I can't believe people honestly take risks with these per usage plans... as in, if you are wrong about what rate you are being charged, it can cost you thousands. In this case it was the company's mistake, but that's not always the case.
We had a local cell phone provider that did something like this but on a slightly smaller rip off scale. You had unlimited calling in the metro area, but only if your connecting to one of the towers they lease use of. They don't mention that when your obtaining a phone with them. So if your in the middle of town and another tower is closer bam your roaming in the middle of town. Roaming not included in the unlimited your unknowingly racking up huge additional call charges on your unlimited account. They were having phones open to roaming by default without telling people.
We turned them into the PUC with the facts and they quickly caved. If this guy wasn't able to get the media to shame them into doing the right thing he should have gone to the PUC in Florida.
I thought cruise ships had free Wifi. Why wasn't he using that?
Probably not accidental at all. It connected to the location with the strongest signal.
@ouphie: Sounds like the phone connected to that network and would not switch back as long as it was still in range. Definitely a scam. But that is how the phone company wants it. They easily could add pricing data to a roaming metric to help the consumer.
This is NOTHING compared to what the NFL is going to do when they see this story. They'll sue him and fine him. I guarantee it.
Morning;
When I worked for Cingular I ran into this a few times. Neither the cards or the phones would indicate what network you were on, just the connection strength. Seemed to mainly be a problem with cruise ships, but occasionally people close to the Canadian border would be on Rodgers without knowing. I didn't follow the company line on either of these problems and instead followed the rule of common sense... if you were in port obviously you had an expectation of being on the regular network. People that were hundreds of miles from short... well, they had to have some clue that they weren't connecting to a landbased network and had a responsibility to obtain more information.
When I was in college I had Verizon and worked in Blaine, WA. Since Blaine is on the border of Canada all phone calls would connect to a tower in Canada and I would get roaming charges.
Every month I would have to call them to fix the bill. The only way they would fix this would be to call them before I paid otherwise I would owe the full amount..So glad I do not have verizon or live there any longer.
@Corporate_guy: Even if the person had set it to no roaming, the phone didn't detect roaming - it was ATT's glitch. Presumably, even if settings had been in place to deny roaming, the glitch would have still occurred and the customer charged a huge fee.
Alltel did the same thing to me while in El Paso. I have the "Total Freedom" plan which is supposed to never have any roaming charges. With their roaming plans, you can not set the phone to "home only". It must be set to automatic or you do not get service. I had $700 in roaming charges for picking up towers in Mexico.
They wouldn't reduce the charges at all because (they say) it was my responsibility to make sure I am not roaming. Since my roaming indicator blinks all the time, I'm not sure how I am supposed to tell whether or not I am actually roaming).
I am now on Sprint Sero. However my parents cell phone company was bought out by Alltel so they are temporarily stuck!
To make things worse, the local "Alltel" store will not help them with warranty issues. They say they are now part of verizon so my parents were told they have to drive 180 miles for any type of Alltel issue.
@bohemian: You think cruise ships have free wi-fi? That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Internet access is expensive enough that even my workaholic brother wouldn't use it to check in at the office. Of course, even at two dollars a minute, it would have been much cheaper than the $27,788.93 data rate he got charged.
@Canino:
Good thing Bush isn't in office, or else the FCC would likely tell this sap to take a flying leap.
Plus, no matter what system you're connecting to, there's no way that $28k is even close to a fair price. Considering the internet can connect to anywhere on the planet for virtually free, I find it hard to believe that cell phone company networks can't be linked together for a similar cost.