 | | bet the lawyers get 64,999,999.99 | |
|
 | |
| | |
| | |
|  odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| Re: bet the lawyers get I hear a rumbling... it's the sound of thousands of MO customers cutting the landline and going to cable VOIP. Or more likely, just dropping it completely.
Come on AT&T you made 10 billion last year, eat the 65 million and fire whoever made the mistake. | |
|
| |  rolandeCertifiablePremium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Columbus, OH
Linksys
AT&T Midwest
| Re: bet the lawyers get said by odog:Come on AT&T you made 10 billion last year, eat the 65 million and fire whoever made the mistake. The assumption here is that it was actually a "mistake". Maybe someone high up decided to adjust the numbers intentionally thinking it would not be discovered. Those cost saves would have gone in part into said person's fat bonus check. They were probably seen as a corporate hero and have too much political muscle to be fired for such an ingenious plan to save steal money and have customers pay for it in the end.
--
Scott, CCIE #14618 Routing & Switching
Too bad those that know it all can't do it all.
»www.thewaystation.com/techref/tech.shtml
»blog.thewaystation.com/ | |
|
| | | odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 | Re: bet the lawyers get so true. | |
|
| | | | | said by rolande:said by odog:Come on AT&T you made 10 billion last year, eat the 65 million and fire whoever made the mistake. The assumption here is that it was actually a "mistake". Maybe someone high up decided to adjust the numbers intentionally thinking it would not be discovered. Those cost saves would have gone in part into said person's fat bonus check. They were probably seen as a corporate hero and have too much political muscle to be fired for such an ingenious plan to save steal money and have customers pay for it in the end. Mistake? Let's see. They owed HOW much? Settled for HOW little? And then force the customer to pay HOW much?
No, Im afraid you hit this nail on the head.
Misourrians, SUE the hell out of AS&S for this one! | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | You mean the government lawyers that sued at&t?  | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | How is this legal? So what happens to the thousands of customers that have left AT&T? What if customers leave because of the fee? How can AT&T do this to folks that weren't even customers at the time of the disputed tax amount? This is no small fee. This is $6.10 x 48 months = $292.80. I smell a class-action lawsuit brewing. | |
|
| | | Re: How is this legal? I don't like how they are doing it, but corporations do not pay taxes, the customers do. Had the taxes been calculated correctly, the price would have been higher sooner for the services. | |
|
| |  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: How is this legal? said by Youngjm:I don't like how they are doing it, but corporations do not pay taxes, the customers do. Had the taxes been calculated correctly, the price would have been higher sooner for the services. To the tune of over $6 each month? I seriously doubt that.
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!
| |
|
| | | | | Re: How is this legal? It does not need to be fair, they are taxes owed to the State and need to be paid for. ATT's primary obligation is to its Shareholders by providing services to its customers. If enough customers leave, then they will rethink what they need to do to maximize their revenue. If they did not pass this along, some lawyer would sue ATT for minimizing their clients return on investment by not passing the taxes along.
Catch 22. | |
|
| | | | bac522
join:2003-08-04
Manchester, NH | Re: How is this legal? Good question...as far as I know the PUC has to approve all new fees, so I don't get how they can push this through. | |
|
| | | | | | Not a Catch-22.
AS&S attempted to defraud the state. Claim it as a "mistake" if you will. Whatever acceptance you are will to allow, the more who do as you are doing, saying this is acceptable behavior, the lower we drop the bar on acceptable behavior.
As for me, I wish to raise the bar on integrity; not lower it. Why do we just accept these things? It is NOT acceptable, nor should we even begin to say, "Oh well, what can we do about it"?
I'll tell you what we do about it: Dump the chump. When they assess the early termination fee, sue and demand it be refunded, with interest.
We demand the state hold AT&T accountable for their crimes. That means, THEY must pay the fines, and CANNOT pass it on to their customers, and CANNOT invent ways to recoup. Or, lose their ability to operate in the state.
Harsh? I don't think so. It's just we are so lenient, any punishment is harsh.
Imagine how many companies would change their behaviors if their fine was losing the right to operate. No money? Uh, ok, we'll play by the rules.
Let's RAISE the bar, not lower it to subterranian levels. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I don't dispute that. However, if folks leave AT&T they won't pay the tax. Only those that stay with AT&T end up holding the bag. Worst of all, someone who just moved to the state and wasn't a customer at the time of the tax snafu will also pay.
This seems completely inappropriate and I cannot believe Missouri would either enforce the tax or allow the corporation to recover it in this manner.
The fairest approach would be to track down those customers and bill them for the amount. I know, I know. Good luck with that and talk about ill-will.
This whole thing is horseshit. They should just eat it or Missouri should work out a deal where they eat half and AT&T eats half. | |
|
| | | | said by Youngjm:I don't like how they are doing it, but corporations do not pay taxes, the customers do. Had the taxes been calculated correctly, the price would have been higher sooner for the services. Actually Missouri customers paid less in taxes than they should have. The deal lets them pay less later(an interest free loan) instead of more earlier. The customers now must pay the state what is due.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| | |  TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
·Comcast
| Re: How is this legal? said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Youngjm:I don't like how they are doing it, but corporations do not pay taxes, the customers do. Had the taxes been calculated correctly, the price would have been higher sooner for the services. Actually Missouri customers paid less in taxes than they should have. The deal lets them pay less later(an interest free loan) instead of more earlier. The customers now must pay the state what is due. I was made to understand that all of those "fees" and "taxes" on the phone bill were not actually taxes because the phone company is the one that owes them, not the customer. Am I mistaken? | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | That assumes the $65M settlement doesn't include penalties and ATT isn't passing them on to the customers. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by rradina:So what happens to the thousands of customers that have left AT&T? What if customers leave because of the fee? How can AT&T do this to folks that weren't even customers at the time of the disputed tax amount? This is no small fee. This is $6.10 x 48 months = $292.80. I smell a class-action lawsuit brewing. So what at&t is saying they only have 222,000 customers in MO? | |
|
| |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: How is this legal? plus interest if not already considered | |
|
| | | How is it illegal? They incur more overhead (in whatever form it takes, legal fees, law suits, higher cost, bonus, labor, etc) and the new costs are passed on to customers. Always been that way, always will be that way.
--
I walk upon this Earth by the power of my own two legs. | |
|
| | | | Re: How is this legal? It should not be called a "fee", but be included in the cost of the service so that when they advertise a FALSE price they will not be able to quietly add those "fees" unexpectedly on the monthly bill.
There should be ONE number on the bill and that should be the one advertised on the contract, not split into 30 different line items.
Should we have a "fee" for ATT's electrical services for their offices ? How about one for their janitorial service, closet cleaning crew or the water for their employees ? Really then they should advertise their service as free and then hit you with a $300/month bill made entirely of fees. | |
|
| | |  gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL | Re: How is this legal? said by WernerSchutz:It should not be called a "fee", but be included in the cost of the service so that when they advertise a FALSE price they will not be able to quietly add those "fees" unexpectedly on the monthly bill. There should be ONE number on the bill and that should be the one advertised on the contract, not split into 30 different line items. Should we have a "fee" for ATT's electrical services for their offices ? How about one for their janitorial service, closet cleaning crew or the water for their employees ? Really then they should advertise their service as free and then hit you with a $300/month bill made entirely of fees. Excellent post. This is what frustrates me more than anything with these companies, they break out the fees as different line items which does nothing but confuse the customer. Advertise a price WITH all fees included. I can understand taxes not being included since they vary by county but at least combining their BS fees would eliminate some confusion. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: How is this legal? Nothing unique here. UPS and FedEx charge "Fuel Surcharges". | |
|
| | | This is a bunch of BS and if I lived there I would immediately dump them and go with anyone else.
they screw up and then they treat their customers like krap and make them pay for it.
Screw You ATT !!! Glad I don't use you here in Maine. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Shocking?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | Re: Shocking? Yeah, especially when they're monopolists. | |
|
| | markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4 | Re: Shocking? And yet the posts above yours are from people who are claiming everyone will leave AT&T. If they can leave and still have access to the same product, then it's not a monopoly. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Shocking? Your best situation in most of MO is a duopoly. I lived in StL, where the choice was AT&T or Charter. Heckuva choice there. | |
|
| | | | | said by markofmayhem:And yet the posts above yours are from people who are claiming everyone will leave AT&T. If they can leave and still have access to the same product, then it's not a monopoly. The above posts are written by hardcore internet users who care deeply about their fair and speedy access to the internet. They are also a very tiny minority. The reality is most people don`t even realize an additional fee is added on to their bill until after they sign up. | |
|
| | | |
See 7 replies to this post |
| | | said by pnh102:This is just another illustration of the folly of taxing businesses. They have and always will simply pass those taxes down to the consumers in the form of higher prices. Lol. You really do hate human beings, don`t you? When exactly did your love-fest with corporatism and fascism begin? The fact that you`re completely wrong about corporate taxes also doesn`t seem to phase you.
If corporations really could pass on all taxes down to the consumer, that would mean they would have room to raise prices. If they could raise prices, why would they wait until they were taxed? Why leave money on the table? The reality is they can`t just arbitrarily raise prices without expecting to lose customers and revenue, so they`re forced to eat the taxes.
The only reason AT&T is able to lay this tax bungle on their customers is because they`re being allowed to hide the price increase as a seperate line item, the `special municipal fee`, that they of course do not advertise when selling their product.
These kinds of hidden fees always surprise and confuse customers, making it more difficult for them to make rational choices.
If AT&T were force to include this $6 raise into their base prices and advertise the price increase when trying to sell their product, they would without a doubt experience a loss of revenue from customer dropout. In other words, they would just prefer to eat the taxes. | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| said by pnh102:They have and always will simply pass those taxes down to the consumers in the form of higher prices. The short answer is is all depends, it depends on how much price elasticity there is. They have other options besides raising prices, they could improve productivity or take a profit hit.
Not to take this too far off topic, but I agree with your basic premise about taxing corporations, ultimately the end user has to foot the bill. Taxing companies in the era of multinational corporations with well funded lobbyist is a fools errand. Makes sense to limit corporation taxation to the actual demands they make on government, this is typically at a local level. Eliminate other corporate taxes, pass profits to stock holders and tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income. I see no reason why the money I earn from investments should be taxed at a lower rate then income. Doesn't seem like a very fair system to me.
/tom | |
|
Damon85Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY | So... When will this fee be showing up on the bills outside of MO as extra pocket change for AT&T? And does anyone really think AT&T will stop charging it after MO customers have grown accustomed to it for four years? Out of the goodness of their hearts, I'm sure AT&T will leave the fee in place so as not to upset anyone by it's sudden disappearance. | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: So... I believe they are still regulated by the Public Service Commission. If they raise prices or charge fees, I believe they have to account for it. If they charge a fee without accounting for where it goes, it will be considered income. Regulations only permit so much profit. If they keep it, eventually the phone rate should drop by an equal amount.
I don't know, though. With cable voice competition, they may be able to claim that they are no longer a monopoly and be free to charge whatever they want. I think rates have fallen in recent years due to competition from cable companies.
I don't worry about it. I haven't had AT&T voice service for years. I had Vonage for a long time but finally accepted Charter's bundle because bundling ends up saving money over the individual costs for TV, HSI and Phone. | |
|
tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| How many Customers are involved $6.10 a month for four years is $292.80. Dividing that into $65 million is 222,000. Is that really all the customers they have in Missouri or are they padding the bill a little?
Fines are considered "normal business expenses" by the IRS so they get to deduct them. The the government doesn't get the full amount.
/tom | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
| | really.. people still have landlines 0-0 it's 2010 people.... get with the program, landlines are D-E-A-D. Get a cellphone or VoIP | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: really.. said by optemino:people still have landlines 0-0 it's 2010 people.... get with the program, landlines are D-E-A-D. Get a cellphone or VoIP And how do you do that when there is no cable, no DSL and and 1 bar outdoors? | |
|
| |  srm59Premium
join:2009-06-22
Glen Cove, NY
kudos:1
 ·PHONE POWER
| Re: really.. Why do people think POTS is so reliable?
I gave up Verizon over 7 years ago because I couldn't get a dial tone most of the time. Plus when I would be able to make a call, sound quality was horrible, I couldn't even hear the person on the other end.
I finally had it with them and went to VOIP (first AT&T CallVantage and now PhonePower) over my Cablevision line and have experienced 99% uptime since then. My cable modem and TA are on battery backup, so even in a power failure, my phone still works. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Get a cellphone and drop your landline. Get spotty connectivity and coverage, poor or no service support, extortionist fees a.k.a. ETFs and the ever present billing bungling and tacked on "cost of doing business" fees transferred to the customer so that they can advertise misleading pricing. It's not all that simple. Yes you can get VOIP but VOIP is predicated on the ability to access the internet to carry the packets. So you are still dependent on those who provide Internet services with a level of quality, performance and uptime to make VOIP a viable choice. I tried VOIP for my business line and had to dump it because the supporting ISP service was not robust enough or reliable enough to support my business needs. No POTS is not dead yet and may someday die but until the infrastructure is in place to offer all current POTS customers with the alternatives you suggest there will be a market and a need for POTS. | |
|
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| There is no such thing as a tax on business Business "taxes" are simply part of the cost of doing business.
By the way, so are the costs of those class action lawsuits that are proposed as solutions to every problem by someone in every thread.
What happens to costs of doing business? They are recouped in increased prices to customers -- or the business goes out of business.
This is simple, basic, economics. | |
|
| | | Re: There is no such thing as a tax on business said by MyDogHsFleas:Business "taxes" are simply part of the cost of doing business. By the way, so are the costs of those class action lawsuits that are proposed as solutions to every problem by someone in every thread. What happens to costs of doing business? They are recouped in increased prices to customers -- or the business goes out of business. This is simple, basic, economics. Businesses will stay in business until they go bankrupt. Investors will retain their stocks until that business goes bankrupt and they lose all their money. It happens all the time. Just look at Charter.
AT&T made $4 billion in profit in 2005. They tripled that to $12 billion in just a few years. They`re no where near `going out of business`. | |
|
| | | said by MyDogHsFleas:Business "taxes" are simply part of the cost of doing business. By the way, so are the costs of those class action lawsuits that are proposed as solutions to every problem by someone in every thread. What happens to costs of doing business? They are recouped in increased prices to customers -- or the business goes out of business. This is simple, basic, economics. I'm for the AT&T going out of business option. The sooner, the better. | |
|
| | Absolutely Ridiculous So I'm a brand new customer with a metered line that costs $11 a month plus $11 in taxes already. Now they want me to pay $6 more a month in taxes for a period of time that I wasn't even a customer? $28 for a line that is only used for 911 is ridiculous. Maybe I'll just use my $100 month AT&T cell, oh wait I forgot I'm 10 blocks from the city of St. Louis and don't get coverage even outside of my house. Ok so I'll switch to a carrier that covers my house. Again I'm screwed by AT&T with a $175 ETF. I just don't see how they can charge people that didn't have service during their screw up. | |
|
| | | Re: Absolutely Ridiculous Well.. even the playing field, find a service on your bill about $6-$7 dollars that you may be able to live without and kill it as long as the new "service fee" is in effect. That will affect their bottom line, if you can get a few thousand or so people to do it. | |
|
| morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | wait for AT&T to change their terms of service and you can jump ship without paying an ETF. alternatively, does AT&T offer the micro-cell service in your area? | |
|
|  badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Some states such as CA require "warm line" 911 (AKA free 911 on a landline). If you live in such a state and are paying for 911 landline, you are paying too much. | |
|
| | While I consider AT&T management to be evil incarnate, they have a point here. Corporations are tax collectors, not taxpayers. Reminding the taxpayers of this and thus preventing our elected representatives from shirking responsibility for the taxes they pass is usually a good thing.
Those $billions that Congress raised from cell phone spectrum auctions? It's one reason why your cell phone bill is so bleepin' high. It's a BIG hidden tax.
I do have to wonder whether AT&T is counting on people dropping their landlines in response to this fee. They're probably sick of dealing with the business and figure, perhaps incorrectly, that many of those landline customers will increase their use of AT&T cell phones. | |
|
| | | Re: While I consider AT&T management to be evil incarnate, they not quite.
They collect sales taxes and remit to the government.
They also pay tax on profits that the generate | |
|
| | | My solution to this:
Make AT&T close shop.
Simple. Make harsh penalties, they will be sure not to pull this crap in the future.
If we start actually raising the bar, I think we would find people rising to the task. But, if we continually accept this crap as "well, thats how it is these days" WHAT incentive is there for anyone to play nice?
Shame on AS&S and any one who thinks this is acceptable behavior. | |
|
 AlakarFacts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI | Read the article Maybe you folks and Karl should read the article.
AT&T residential customers will be charged .59 cents to $1.99 per landline. Business owners will be charged .76 cents to $3.50 per landline.
......
AT&T told NewsChannel 5 it will continue to show up on Hittner's bill, every month, for about the next four years. However, not every Missouri customer will see an increase. If you own a business or live in the City of St. Louis, AT&T said it will not pass its tax onto you, because the city did not take part in the settlement.
AT&T under collected taxes from customers. Not a big surprise considering the Missouri billing system is an antiquated mess and is maintained by people in India and the Philippines.
For those of you saying AT&T should just eat the cost, when AT&T has over-charged taxes should they just keep the money? It has happened in the past and the money has always been credited back to the customers.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
|
|
 Mega DETHIt's All About The Ping
join:2003-08-20
Watertown, WI | 48 months? Does anyone think this $6.10 "special municipal fee" will really disappear in 48 months?
--
"Action does not equal Achievement" | |
|
|  Vamp9190Premium
join:2002-02-11
Chantilly, VA
kudos:1 | Re: 48 months? Haha, good point.
It will probably increase to $9.95 and they will call it "municipal fee, special" | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by Mega DETH:Does anyone think this $6.10 "special municipal fee" will really disappear in 48 months? Did the bag fees go away when fuel prices retreated?
the beauty of all this is its PURE PROFIT!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | I think... a better, more appropriate name for it would be the WSUNWSY (We Screwed Up, Now We Screw You) fee. | |
|
 CoronaIt's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| wow Karl Jeez. Read the article much? Talk about inaccurate blurbology.
U said:
They'll be adding a $6.10 "special municipal fee" on to customer phone bills in Missouri every month for the next four years... When in fact, if you read the article
Her November phone bill showed a one time charge of $6.10 Further down in the article,
residential customers will be charged .59 cents to $1.99 per landline. Business owners will be charged .76 cents to $3.50 per landline. I understand how fashionable it is to hate AT&T, but jeez, really?
--
"To be sincere, you don't have to know anything, you just say whatever makes you feel good and spin and smug circles in your tiny fucked up little head, happy as long as you're true to yourself. In other words, Sincerity is bullshit!" -Penn Jillette | |
|
|
See 17 replies to this post |
|
| | LOOK! The way I see it, is that the people have the power. We put the companies there by buying their products. So let's say all of those people who live in Missouri decided the HELL with At&T and moved somewhere else (though still not like other wireless companies aren't screwing up as well) what kind of message does that send to them. Yup, you guessed it, a big middle finger to their faces. | |
|
| CoronaIt's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX | Re: LOOK! you realize this has nothing to do with wireless, right? | |
|
| | corporations don't pay taxes Not sure why everyone is so surprised, corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass them along to us. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: corporations don't pay taxes said by supernac:Not sure why everyone is so surprised, corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass them along to us. Corporations that don't have to worry about competition are free to pass on anything they like. If they have real competition, they have to eat crap like this out of their own profits (as it should be) to remain competitive in the market.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | 4 years later, itl still be there 4 years later, the fee will still be on bills, as they will convieniantly "forget" that it was only for 4 years. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| What a crock of %^$. This is wrong, wrong, WRONG.
The State of Missouri should INSTANTLY institute another lawsuit.
The money needs to come directly from the ones who benefited from the mistake--- the owners, IE stockholders, need to take the hit in their dividends or options.
Wow.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | MO Customer I am a Missouri Customer and they have been charging this ridiculous fee for over a year. When I first signed up for AT&T via an internet service they disclosed that there would be fees and taxes but they did not disclose their volume and I certainly never though they would be over 20% of my bill!
Now you can argue caveat emptor all you want but they deliberately do not disclose this information because they would be at a serious financial disadvantage against other wireless carriers if they did. I felt it was reasonable to assume that if they advertised service for $60, the same price as my previous carrier T-Mobile, then the taxes and fees would be about the same. WRONG
I challenge you to get a sales rep, even in an AT&T store, to itemize what all your fees and charges will be, they can't and will give you a sob story about how it depends if your in the city or out of it, etc. Your first bill is distorted due to activation fees and after that point your get out of jail free card is expired and now I am stuck with them for another 13 months.
They have garnered some serious ill will though. I will drop them as soon as I am out of contract and will never consider U-Verse or AT&T DSL services. | |
|
|
|
Fred just sold his house which is served by AT&T to Bob. Why should Bob pay the taxes that Fred did not pay. I call this taxation without representation. AT&T should eat the fee. More customer abuse by large corporations. Time for a class action lawsuit by new customers.
