"There is no indication of any change in the near future regarding the current state of competition. Market forces have not yet met the challenge of controlling price increases."

Here are just a few of the ways competition has benefited consumers:

• AT&T no longer lets you make five free 411 calls per month. Now it costs $1.50 for local numbers and $1.99 for all others.
• Verizon won't let you make four free 411 inquiries anymore. Now they charge $0.95 for local listings and $1.50 for all others.
• AT&T boosted the price of daytime calls by 34%, evening calls by 93%, and nights and weekend calls by 233%
• Call waiting is now 86% more expensive.
• Keeping your name out of the phonebook now costs 346% more.

In a recent briefing for investors, AT&T boasted that its average monthly revenue per primary household line "ramped steadily over the past several quarters," to $60.16 in the first quarter of 2008 from $57.08 a year earlier.

So much for all that competition between Verizon, AT&T, Frontier, SureWest, Vonage, Skype, and others.

The telecoms have repeatedly proven that their version of the "free market" is a scam that harms consumers and enriches shareholders. California's Public Utilities Commission has recommended the only reasonable measure: reinstating price controls.

Getting the 411 on phone charges [The Los Angeles Times]
(Photo: Getty)

"When AT&T provides broadband service by speed, it will do so in discrete, non-overlapping tiers," Quinn said in written testimony. "We will strive to provide service within the speed tier purchased by the customer and, if we find that we are not providing service within the ordered speed tier, AT&T will take action either to bring the customer's service within the ordered tier or give the customer an option to move to a different tier."

There's actually no word on pricing yet, but we're going to make a bold, brave prediction that you'll pay more than your current package for the better tiers.

"AT&T To Create Tiered Internet Access For Subscribers" [CNN Money]
(Photo: Getty)

Maybe her friend, Mr. Moneybags, can shower Congress with cash and buy some of that tasty warrantless wiretapping immunity! Whoops, too real!

So who are the other members of the Online Liberation Movement, you ask? The ironically-named Ms. Proof and Ms. Forgetful, obviously.

Isn't this so !@$% fun? It's like we're living in a book!

AT&T's Latest Ad a Sick Joke [Reading For Dummies via Boing Boing]

The iPhone itself may be cheaper, but the required flat-rate data plan now costs $30 per month, a $10 increase. Over the mandatory two-year contract, that works out to an extra $240. AT&T also now charges $5 per month for 200 text messages, which used to be free. That adds up to another $120.

Before you apply your generous $200 discount, you've already agreed to fork over $360. Two years from now, your new iPhone 3G will have cost $160 more than a current-model iPhone.

We're usually not ones for math, but our tech-drunk brethren over at Gizmodo confirmed the numbers:

Gizmodo believes that the iPhone's nifty new features justify the price bump. They may be right, but in unveiling the new iPhone, Apple zen master Steve Jobs argued in his keynote address that the reduced price was aimed at buyers who couldn't previously afford iPhones:

Everybody wants an iPhone, but we need to make it more affordable. And we know this because we go out and talk to people who didn't buy iPhones, and the number one reason, by far—they all want one—is they just can't afford it. Some of them can't afford it. So we need to make the iPhone more affordable.

The new iPhone is not more affordable. Anyone deceived by Apple's lower price point is going to get a nasty wake-up call when they read their first bill.

(Photo: respres)

Will this bring an end to cramming on the AT&T network? Maybe it depends on how many customers demand refunds, although it seems that AT&T is taking steps to rein in the worst of the third-party companies:

[AT&T] now requires customers who sign up for third-party services with recurring fees to confirm by replying to a text message. It also requires the content providers to send monthly reminders with instructions on how to unsubscribe from such services.

"AT&T has taken aggressive action to put industry-leading safeguards in place to protect our customers from unauthorized changes from third parties. We believe this settlement is consistent with that approach," Richter said.

Richter had no estimate for how much the settlement will cost AT&T. Given that the company already let customers contest spurious charges, he said the number who will get refunds through the settlement will be small. The company will pay the plaintiffs' lawyers $4.3 million.

Notifications will soon go out to 70 million current AT&T Mobility customers.

Here's more info on cramming to help you protect your cellphone bill from exploding.

"AT&T settles suit over 3rd-party cell phone fees" [Associated Press]
ThirdPartyContentRefund.com

RELATED
How To Fight The Phone Cram Scam

David wanted a refurbished unit to test-run iPhone applications he was developing for work. AT&T gave him a a mishmash of conflicting information after he placed his order. One CSR said the unit would ship that day. Five days later, another CSR said the unit would ship within 3 days, but that was also wrong, and the package shipped that night with DHL.

DHL delivered the package the next day:

My wife calls to tell me she found the DHL delivery, but it's not a box. It's a shipping envelope. She asks if she should open it. I tell her please do.

"It's just a bag."
"It's a what?"
"It's a bag. It's an empty plastic bag."
"Well, um, er, is there anything else in the package at all? A note or anything?"
"There's a shipping label. But this is just a bag like you'd get if you bought something in their store."

When David called for an explanation, a supervisor explained that "there was a memo telling him that refurbished iPhone shipments had a technical glitch in shipping and would be delayed for a few days."

David isn't alone. AT&T's heavily moderated forums are littered with similar complaints. When David tried to post contact information for AT&T's executive office (877-734-0766,) he received the following reprimand:

Hello,

We'd like to ask that you not post contact info for the Office of the President in posts or PMs until an AT&T moderator can PM you. Failure to follow moderator directions can result in loss of posting privileges.

regards

David only wants the iPhone he ordered. The applications he designed just don't work the same on AT&T's Empty Plastic Bag ®.

AT&T is shipping empty plastic bags to iPhone customers [Where's My iPhone?]

Well the AT&T refusing to sell a go-phone isn't a isolated incident. I go in. Me: "Ya, can I get the CG180 go phone?" First Guy: "Just the phone, No SIM?" Me: "Ya."

waiting....

First Guy:"What's your current AT&T phone number?"
Me: Like an idiot I tell him.
First Guy to Shift Supervisor: "Can he buy this?"
Shift supervisor:"Sorry sir you can't buy this phone your not a go-phone customer."
Me: "Well...maybe I want to be one now, can't I just buy the phone?
Shift Supervisor:" Well if you want, but you have to buy 100 dollars worth of credit with it."
Me: "It doesn't say that anywhere in the store, isn't that why its called pay as you go?"
Shift Supervisor: "New Go-Phone customers don't need to, but since you already have an AT&T account you have to."
(The account isn't even in my name. Its in my mom's.)
Me: "Well, let me get this straight. if i came in and didn't tell you I was an AT&T customer I could get it?"
Shift Supervisor: "Yes, but you are, so you can't. But you can buy a better phone for a little bit more, as long as you do it as a qualified upgrade."
Me: "No...I want this phone. my friend has it and I really like it."
Shift Supervisor: "Well you would have to buy it at Radio Shack or Best Buy, corporate stores don't do it."
Me: "But isn't the online the same as the corporate stores? I can buy one on there."
shift Supervisor: "I suppose you could."
Me: "Fine...I will."

Leave

What a bunch of BS. I called AT&T because I was that pissed and asked. They said "the shift supervisor must have been misinformed about policy, she should have sold you the phone."

Store was 6th ave in NYC

-Dan

(photo:dabby1)

Want to pay your wireless bill in an AT&T store? That'll be $2 extra for the "privilege" of handing it to a clerk. Want to pay your credit card bill over the phone? That will be $15.

The disparate impact of policies designed to discourage consumers from paying in cash—like the AT&T's in-store charge—falls squarely on the poor, many of whom do not have bank accounts. (Bank accounts are not particularly useful if you never have any money to keep in them.) AT&T says the poor should just suck it up and get pay-as-you-go phones.

But these policies are also an indication of how many companies really make their money these days: not from providing the service they purport to provide, but by nickel-and-diming customers with fees at every turn. Heck, some credit card companies have chucked all but the pretense of lending money and turned entirely to generating fees.

Maybe AT&T was just frustrated with its customers who paid their bills on time, and decided this was a good way to squeeze a bit more money out of them, too.

Richard writes:

I went and purchased me an iPhone, then went home to activate my service. I was then advised that I needed to go to one of the retail locations to pay a deposit. So I drive 15 miles to the nearest retail store to have my services activated. I was told that I had to pay a $750.00 deposit....wow did not know that deposits could be that high. Anyway I paid it because I wanted the service. I took the activation receipt back home and attempted to activate the service. The registry kept rejecting me stating the my information was wrong and the address did not match. I contacted ATT customer service and spoke with Tasha who told me that the representative at the ATT store ran my credit in the wrong market because the address was not matching the activation code that was given after the deposit was made.

I returned to the store that same day and spent 2 hours while the two representatives were trying to figure out the problem. I felt like I worked there after being there for so long. The store closed and I was still trying to get the problem resolved. After 3 days of problem solving, phone call to customer service and making the same 15 mile drive back and forth to the ATT store and the problem not being resolved, I lost interest in having the service.

I asked the store for a refund of my 750.00. I was told that the money they demanded on the same day that I was supposed to get service, I was going to have to wait 7-10 business days to get in the mail. This was on February 12, here it is March 5 and I still have not received any refund. I was then told by store managers Karen and Joe that the check was in the mail and the hold up was address information, which was how all this started because someone was not doing there job and making sure information was entered in correctly. I was not even notified that there was an address error. I gave them a contact number for that reason. I called again today March 5 and was told the check was in the mail and I should receive it in 7 days. Are you serious! Why should I be required to wait for something that was taken, yes taken and nothing was bought. As far as I'm concerned that's stealing. So now I don't have a iPhone because I could not get service and I don't have my 750.00.

Yes, I know. Trust me thats the same thing that I said. I know my credit is not great. I believe it is somewhere around 560 - 580. My thing was that as all this was going on I could not even get an explanation as to why the deposit was so high. Most are 500.00 tops. But I just want people to know that this kind of service should not go on. I have reported them to the BBB and the Attorney Generals Office as well.

After another 2-3 weeks I received my monies back but no compensation for time off work and inconveince that all that has caused me. ATT stated that they have no control over the deposit and cant offer me any service because I dont have an account with them. Well thats obvious, the reason that I dont have an account is because they were screwing things up when I gave them the money to set it up.

PREVIOUSLY: Contact AT&T CEO, Randall Stephenson
Reach AT&T Wireless Executive Customer Service
(Photo: afagen)

"AT&T to pro-rate early termination fee" [Seattle PI]

RELATED
"Carriers Promised Congress They'd Pro-Rate ETFs; Senator Asks Them, 'When?'"

Tom's email:

Hi Consumerist -

I recently disconnected my AT&T home phone and DSL service. I received a final bill in the mail shortly thereafter for $118. Checking the due date, I noticed that it says "due upon receipt," and I thought, "Wow, I'd better run IMMEDIATELY to the nearest AT&T store and pay this bill because I received it 2 hours ago and IT'S ALREADY PAST DUE!"

Just kidding. What I actually thought is, "Due upon receipt, my big fat white ass." And I scheduled it for payment 27 days later. Since AT&T was not capable of indicating a reasonable due date, I came up with my own, and for no particular reason, 27 days seemed about right. Seemed like the outer limit of right, but still right, still OK, still within reason.

Exactly three weeks after getting that bill, I received an extremely aggressive "collection" notice warning me that I was a delinquent and a menace to society. I honestly assumed I must have missed an earlier payment, because I couldn't fathom receiving such an aggressive collection notice only 21 days after receiving a bill from a company I've never paid a day late in my entire life (I have perfect credit).

I called AT&T and was, indeed, transferred to their collections department. FANTASTIC. A collections specialist named Barry picked up and wanted to know if I've called to make a payment over the phone to settle this unpleasant matter. And I tell him, no, I did not. I tell him I'm calling to complain about getting a rude collection notice a mere 21 days after getting a bill.

And he says, "Sir, many times we send collection notices 10 days after the bill has been sent."

And I say, "Wow, really? Doesn't that seem kind of rude and stupid?"

And he says, "Sir, I apologize but apparently you are not on our schedule, and that's when we send collection notices."

And I say, "No, Barry, YOU are not on MY schedule, and when you fail to give reasonable and specific due-by dates, I make up my own."

The Consumerist website has rightly counseled its readers never to be rude or disrespectful in situations like these, and I completely agree. I have always followed this advice and it's worked well, and everyone should always follow it. You can't always blame the underlings for the moronic and offensive decisions of its brainiac executives. There is never any excuse for abusive language, and nobody should every use it under any circumstances, ever.

But in this case I thought, screw it, enough with the executives hiding behind of the underlings who invariably tell me it's not their fault. And I let loose with an offensive and totally inappropriate insult that surprised me even as I began to speak it.

[offensive and totally inappropriate insult]

My question is, what is the official Consumerist position on bills that are "payable upon receipt" for no reason other than vendor churlishness? Do your readers actually feel obligated to snap their heels, salute, and rush out a payment immediately? What's a reasonable period of time?

A couple of days ago I submitted a tip regarding my sudden inability to order a new GoPhone through the AT&T online store; my orders went through successfully, but were then later cancelled under mysterious circumstances no one I spoke with at AT&T could explain.
 
After several more calls and nearly an hour on hold I finally got to speak with supervisor Cheryl Johnson in the web store order processing department. Ms. Johnson then informed me that my orders were being cancelled because they had been unable to verify my credit history. This raises two interesting questions for which she had no answers:
 
1) What is suddenly wrong with my credit history in AT&T's eyes? I've ordered from them without any problems in the past, and my score is in the upper 700s.
 
2) Why is AT&T performing a credit history check on a GoPhone purchase in the first place? Everything is prepaid and there is absolutely no chance that anyone attempting to establish a new prepaid account could possibly defraud them in any way. That's kinda what "prepaid" means.
 
Ms. Johnson blatantly refused to answer either of these questions and simply read some pre-prepared rejection script that was obviously coming up on her computer screen as rudely as she could in an attempt to interrupt me in mid-speech. Once she finally ran out of things to parrot I asked why it was that a supervisor in the AT&T order processing department did not know how the AT&T order processing process worked well enough to explain to me why my orders were being cancelled, and she said that this was something the credit department handled. I asked for their number, and of course, they don't take inbound calls and Cheryl refused to transfer me. I asked her if she was in any way motivated to find out what was wrong with their system and help me, and, to her credit, she answered honestly with a simple "no."
 
So, beware: if you buy an AT&T GoPhone online they will make some ham- handed attempt at accessing your credit history.

Card & Payments writes, "The report, dated this month and drafted by a lab hired by U.S.-based mobile phone maker Mobicom Corp., clearly shows the Citi logo on the front of the tiny handset." They say Citigroup tested a similar technology last year in partnership with AT&T, and that the report indicates the phone is for the U.S. market.
 
We can't think of a single way this could be used to steal money from a Citibank account. Oh wait, yes we can.
 
"Citigroup Developing A Citi-Branded NFC Mobile Phone" [CardForum] (registration required)
(Photo elements: Getty and Mobicom)

"Carrier ETF plans targeted" [RCRWireless News]
(Photo: Getty)

"The circuit was tied to the organization's core network," Pasdar stated in the affidavit. "It had access to the billing system, text messaging, fraud detection, Web site, and pretty much all the systems in the data center without restrictions."

House Commerce Committee leaders said Pasdar's allegations echo those previously made by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T Inc. More than three dozen lawsuits have been filed against top telecom firms, including parent companies of national mobile-phone operators AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless.

"When you put Mr. Pasdar's information together with that of AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein, there is troubling evidence of telecom misconduct in massive domestic surveillance of ordinary Americans," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Congress needs to have hearings and get some answers about whether American telecommunications companies are helping the government to illegally spy on millions of us. Retroactive immunity for telecom companies now ought to be off the table in the ongoing FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] debate."

"Whistleblower links wireless carrier to warrantless wiretaps" [RCRWireless News]
(Photo: Getty)

Saw your GoPhone post. I work with AT&T Corporate Communications, and wanted to clarify our policy related to this.

There is no activation fee with GoPhone. Customers can buy the GoPhone and activate but they cannot use service until they add airtime to their account. Customers can buy airtime for as little as $15 in over 200K locations. We do offer a promotion where if you buy $25 worth of airtime to start we will give you $10 in bonus airtime.

Customers also have an option if they are looking for a replacement device for postpaid to buy a Nokia 2610 for $39.99 in COR and not sign a contract extension. That program launched in mid-January.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Brad

RELATED
"AT&T Says They'll Charge $25 'Activation Fee' To Move SIM From A Broken Phone To A GoPhone"

My daughter's AT&T phone went bust yesterday. We went to the AT&T store in Palo Alto, CA to either fix it or get a new one. Apparently the only option open to us (according to the sales rep) without either canceling her plan for $175 or extending her plan another 2 years was to buy a "GoPhone".

However, even though we just needed to swap the sim card from the old phone to the new phone we would still need to pay the $25 "Activation Fee".

Either the information we received was inaccurate or AT&T is again playing monopoly. But it really doesn't matter. I still smell a rat and I'm glad I personally made the switch to Verizon.

Your other option is to bypass AT&T and buy your daughter an unlocked phone—I can move my SIM to any network-compatible phone I like as often as I like, and AT&T is cut out of the loop. Of course, freedom like that comes with a price, and it'll probably be more than the price of a GoPhone and a $25 activation fee—but AT&T won't be able to tell you what to do with your phone anymore.

(Thanks to Dave!)

Here's his full email:

I have been working for ATT (Cingular, before SBC bought ATT Wireless) and starting March 11th, they are going to be doing a trial in the Southeast Market in charging customers who call in to make a payment. $5 is the charge to be exact, and they expect it to roll out nationwide by May.

I would be forwarding you the official internal memo, but they do monitor our emails with Nazi prowess...so no official email from them..

This upsets me as two fronts, as first, a customer. Why the fuck would they CHARGE their customers for taking their payments?

"So, you're telling me I have to give you MORE money for giving you my regular payment?"

"Yep"

Secondly, it upsets me as an employee. I feel this is taking advantage of our customer's trust, because even when we put it on all of their bills, and let people know, there will be tons of reps that won't let the customer know they're being charged for taking their payment.

I feel that if this gets enough word and bad press, maybe this shit ball of a company will change its mind.

We doubt they'll drop the fee, though—it sounds like a classic case of a company deciding to no longer foot the bill for what was formerly an included customer service.

Prediction: someone will introduce "live operator" surcharges in the next 24 months.

(Photo: Guillermo Esteves)

McCollum said the main culprits are third-party companies that advertise ringtones and other services on the Internet, often promising that the service will be free. When customers—often teenagers—sign up, they or their parents are then surprised to find charges on their wireless bill.

"They will download this thinking it's free because the advertising on the Internet says it's free," McCollum said. And when the charge shows up on the bill, it's not always clear what it is, either, he added.

"This advertising is wrong, it's deceptive ... and it's all over the Internet," he said.

AT&T (T: 35.06, +0.23, +0.66%) Mobility has agreed in the settlement to police such agreements with third-party providers and make it clear what the charges are for.

"It's going to say 'ringtones,' and it's going to give them an opportunity to cancel," McCollum said.

"AT&T to repay Florida customers" [Orlando Business Journal]
"AT&T Mobility Agrees to Pay Consumers for 'Free' Ringtones" [Fox Business]

Was there a change to the terms of service? Something along the lines of, "We have decided to greatly reduce, and perhaps entirely disable, a part of the messaging package you pay for."

(Thanks to Sorin!)

"ATT, N95-3 and mms issues" [HowardForums]

Rick points out, "My problem is that AT&T isn't communicating anything—I would be strung up at work if I handled major outages this way."

(Thanks to Rick!)

Overall rating / Company / Rating for Internet / TV / Phone
250 Verizon FiOS 84, 84, 82
222 Bright House 75, 69, 78
222 Cox 74, 69, 79
221 Verizon/DirecTV 73, 74, 74
221 Qwest/DirecTV 72, 74, 75
221 AT&T/Dish Network 72, 70, 74
214 Cablevision 72, 65, 77
208 Time Warner 71, 63, 74
199 Comcast 66 ,62, 71
188 Charter 61, 59, 68

Despite occasionally setting a house on fire, Verizon FiOS is clearly tops, while Comcast and Charter are scraping the bottom.

Internet, TV, phone [Consumer Reports]

Cleaveland.com reports:

The batteries came from Avestor, a Canadian company that went bankrupt in October 2006. AT&T stopped installing the batteries in early 2007, after the first incident, Coe said. AT&T also hired a consultant to investigate their safety, but was told the batteries posed no greater risk than alternative batteries from other suppliers.

Here's what they look like before they explode:

Your World Delivered . . . On Fire [Save Access]
AT&T Begins Massive Battery Replacement [Light Reading] (Thanks to Danger Mouse & David!)

LTE is what you expect from a next generation of communications protocols: it can fit more information into less bandwidth than its predecessors. It is meant to reduce the complexity of wireless communication by converting both voice and data communications into packets using Internet Protocol. Loosely speaking, it competes with the WiMax standard being promoted by Sprint and Clearwire, a startup founded by Craig O. McCaw, the cellphone entrepreneur.

They key fact isn't anything technical here. LTE is the format that has been endorsed by the GSM Association, which coordinates the wireless standard used in most countries. And it has been endorsed by AT&T. What it means is that in a few years, you will be able to buy phones and switch them between the two largest wireless networks in the United States—Verizon and AT&T—as well as carriers in most of the world.

It could just be us, but Verizon seems a little less evil lately. The decision to open their network coupled with the move to GSM will undeniably benefit consumers - unless, of course, Verizon lets their usual profit motive mangle their seemingly good intentions.

Verizon's Real Move to Openness [NYT]
PREVIOUSLY: Verizon To Open Its Network To Any Compatible Device
(Photo: Maulleigh)

ISPs want to block BitTorrent, ban political text messages, and censor concert lyrics. The only political solution to bad faith is to strip of ISPs of their right to discriminate.

Net neutrality advocates want two things: hearings in the Congressional Commerce Committees; and for the FCC to join them at the woodshed to slap Comcast with a massive fine. Now is the time to write to your Members of Congress, write to the FCC Commissioners, and visit SaveTheInternet.com.

Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
(Photo: SuziJane)

We said, for one thing, you're not going to get an apology. That's an admission of wrongdoing and legally that's a bad place to be for a company. Secondly, it has no place. You're having a dispute with a business about a business transaction. Inserting a request for a written apology just elevates your letter to "probably crazy" status, encouraging them to ignore it.

Let's say you did get a written apology. There's no guarantee the company meant it. There's a story about a business exec who sent a complaint letter after bedbugs ate him up all night on a train trip. He received a moving letter from the rail company, saying how sorry they were, and the steps they were taking to ensure it never happened again. His original letter was included in the envelope. Across the top was written, "Send this jerk the bedbug letter."

All you should be concerned about is that you're getting the goods and services for the price you paid. If you want someone to care about your feelings, get a dog.

Industry scores dropped 12 points on 1,000 point scale. Verizon has the highest ratings at 726. Sprint scored the lowest with 679. The average is 709. According to the survey, the four most important factors driving customer satisfaction are sales staff (51%); store display (17%); store facility (16%); and price/promotion (16%).

The study's authors claim in the press release that the biggest thumb on customer satisfaction scores are employees in big box retail stores who using high-pressure sales tactics and not accurately conveying product and
service information. Gee, I wonder who that could be...

2007 Wireless Retail Sales Satisfaction StudySM-Volume 2 [J.D. Power and Associates]

AT&T Adds Two More Customer-Friendly Policies [AT&T]
(Photo: epicharmus)

Sprint phones will only work on the CDMA networks used by Verizon and Alltel, not the GSM networks run by AT&T and T-Mobile.

The settlement covers all customers who bought Sprint phones between Aug. 28, 1999, and July 16, 2007. It should allow those phones to be switched to competitors whose networks are compatible with Sprint's, such as Verizon Wireless and Alltel Corp.

Sprint, whose operational headquarters is in Overland Park, has denied wrongdoing but said it agreed to settle the cases to avoid the uncertainties and expense of litigation.

"We think this is a fair and reasonable settlement," said Matt Sullivan, a spokesman for Sprint.

Sprint Nextel will provide code to unlock cell-phone software [Kansas City Star]
(Photo: Maulleigh)

"This customer initially called AT&T to discuss other communications services. After she was transferred to Dish, the disaster policy Dish has in place was not followed. This customer will not be charged for service cancellation or equipment fees—--that is our policy, and the policy of Dish, in times of natural disasters. We have spoken with this customer to clarify our policy, and we are committed to taking care of all customers affected by the fires."

PREVIOUSLY: AT&T Asks CA Wildfire Victims If They Remembered To Pick Up Satellite Receiver As They Fled Their Burning House

When this Azola couple got back from their honeymoon, they had about an hour of matrimonial bliss before being forced to flee as their house was engulfed in flames. So you can understand they had some things on their mind other than the status of their AT&T | Dish receiver as they ran for their lives. When they called to cancel service, the customer service rep asked if they had "remembered to pick up the receiver" as they left the house...

After the couple said no, AT&T told them they would have to pay $300 for the receiver and would not put any forbearance on the bill as the couple tried to get their life back together. Escalating to a supervisor yielded the same result. You would think AT&T would allow for some extenuating circumstances CONSIDERING THE WHOLE PLACE IS ON FIRE OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY PROPORTIONS! Still, AT&T has a right to recoup it's property... which makes us wonder if the couple's homeowner's insurance will cover it, as the receiver isn't actually theirs. Just an unfortunate situation all around.

In contrast, Washington Mutual is refunding overdrafts and ATM surcharge fees to wildfire victims.

(Thanks to Desiree!)

His editorial is a laundry list of problems readers here are too familiar with. Verizon blocking politically charged text messages; AT&T slipping "we'll terminate your account for speaking badly of us" language into its terms; carriers pushing for a tiered network so they can charge different amounts for different types of data; or, carriers being hostile to consumer-friendly peer-to-peer and file sharing technology because it can't be controlled by the entertainment industry; the fact that the baby bells and their siblings are gradually reassembling like the Blob. He even drops in the fact that the U.S. lags behind far too many regulated countries in broadband capabilities, despite carrier claims that a hands-off approach will make us superior.

He closes with, "The hands-off approach hasn't served consumers well. And the Web is far too important to entrust the free flow of information to the shifting whims of a few big companies. Government must step in and tell them to leave our content alone." It's like a giant momma bird ate up all the complaints and documented misbehavior posted in The Consumerist over the past 12 months and spat it into the mouths of Business Week's print edition readers. Hooray.

"Get Your Hands Off the Web" [Business Week]
(Photo: Getty)

My concern is over another fee that I get nailed with every month that I had never noticed... Not only do I have to pay a federal universal service charge, but the District of Columbia, where I live (obvs), charges me another time - to the tune of $8.90 a month. That seems exorbitant and arbitrary! Not a good combo! What the hell is this and who do we complain to?

Even though you might think otherwise by the way one is plastered to everyone's ear there, the District of Columbia considers a cellphone a luxury. So, they assess a luxury tax on it, determined as being 11% of your bill, pre-taxes and fees. Contact the Mayor's office and ask to be directed to those in charge of local taxes so you can file a complaint.

We were about to get down on Kimberly for not calling customer service herself but she may not have had much luck if she tried. When we called AT&T, they weren't very helpful. What is this tax? "It's a telcom tax...it was decided by the representatives of the District of Columbia. All the carriers in the area charge it." What is the tax for, where does the money go? "It's a tax...AT&T doesn't charge any taxes unless the government makes it." Gee, thanks. When we called Verizon, we just gave a DC zip code and our rep was able to run down all the extra wireless taxes for the area and come up with the answer. In this customer service scrimmage, Verizon wineth.

"I politely protested," writes Jack, "saying how silly it was for them to charge me to extend a contract and the CSR kindly rescinded the charge. Still, it should not have been imposed in the first place."

If you end up extending your cellphone contract, be sure to check your bill to make sure you're not being charged a fee for the service they're providing you by locking you into contract with them another two years. Full bill scan inside...

People in the comments who work for cellphone companies say this is a standard charge. Guess what? That makes it even more ridiculous. What "cost" are they trying to recover? None, it's just a bullshit way to squeeze out more money that they figure most people won't notice.