dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-08-25 18:16:44: AT&T has been engaging in a lot of nickel-and-diming behavior of late that's normal for an anti-competitive giant, but a little odd for a company trying to sell regulators on their $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

vrette
Premium
join:2000-07-22
Lombard, IL

Really?

A fee for not making enough long distance calls? Really? Why don't they take all that extra bandwidth leftover from people not making long distance calls and put it to good use, like shove it up their... Really, this is one of the most ridiculous "fees" yet.
--
Chairman of the Bored...

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Really?

Just when you thought the toilet couldn't get any more putrid.

cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26

Re: Really?

said by DataRiker:

Just when you thought the toilet couldn't get any more putrid.

Putrid is an understatement!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
Verizon also has a similar fee if you use their LD. It's around $5 though.

You can get around this fee by switching LD providers to someone like Pioneer Telephone. My parents, who still have a basic (albeit unmetered for local calls) landline have done this and their phone bill is less as a result.

Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8

Re: Really?

Just because Verizon does it doesn't make it right.
--
My Blog 2.2
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

Re: Really?

Didn't say that at all. Just said that AT&T's lame-sauce move is not without precedent.

tdspringer

@eastlink.ca
You can get around it even easier by getting rid of your land line. Also has the nice side effect of eliminating robo-calls, political calls and telemarketing....
thedragonmas

join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
kudos:1
when i had a landline with bellsouth i rarely used LD, i didnt want to pay a monthly just to be able to make LD calls every so often, and i didnt like the "base rate" they charged if you didnt have a LD plan. so i talked to them, at the time they had a plan that charged $0 a month UNLESS you used it, then it cost you $5 for that month plus the per minute rate. dont know if ATT has a similar plan

but frankly this is dumb as all get out. cell phones dont charge extra for LD, my voip (through mediacom) doesnt charge extra for LD either. so att is gonna go pull some crap like this? i know its "just" $2 but i wonder how many people will consider this the last straw and port out?
dishrich

join:2006-05-12
Springfield, IL

Get rid of BOTH PIC's on your landline

This other way to eliminate the fee from the article should have been posted here:

Telling AT&T to eliminate their landline access to the long-distance direct-dial service for both intrastate and interstate calls – a process that usually involves one-time fees totaling $9

I did this YEARS ago, since I VERY rarely make LD calls on my landline & had NO intention of paying a dime for NOT using ANY LD; have a small pre-paid phone card for the VERY rare occasion I do need to make an LD call on my landline.

HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
This is hilarious. And I thought my local telco (Bell Canada) was the king of ripoffs. I wonder how long they sniff out this gem and we see it on our bills here.
--
BUCK FELL. From UBB to AVP. Same wolf in sheep's clothing.

pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1
Haha Bell Canada is years ahead of them at ripping people off on long distance.

You pay a fee just for the privilege of paying a decent rate on long distance. I see it is now $7 for $0.15/minute, $11 for $0.10/minute and $13 for $0.05/minute.

If you don't sign up for one of these, you pay some insane legacy rate that last I saw was $0.38/minute and up. My parents were paying about $100/month in long distance charges at these crazy prices before I took a look at their bill (I wondered why their phone bill was almost $150). Now they pay $15/month for 1000 minutes flat rate. I should switch them to a reseller (not voip the power goes out all the time in the boonies) but it's too much hassle from where I am.

I guess you can't expect Bell to call you and suggest that you can save $80/month just by adding the LD plan. (My dad didn't know because there was no such thing decades ago and he doesn't keep up.) You also can't expect them to suggest that you cancel your 2nd phone line when switching from dial-up to high speed, they paid for that line to do absolutely nothing for years.

The big cell phone companies up here all charge about $0.40/minute for long distance (and overpriced plans like $30/month for unlimited of course). It's disgusting.
xtachx

join:2005-11-19
canada
Reviews:
·voip.ms

Re: Really?

This is why I use voip.ms with an obihai voip switch. Call qiality is like landline and my bill is hardly $3/year. Also, thank god that Mobilcity services my area - $35/month unlimited north america calls and unlimited global text and unlimited data.

Fuck bell - thats 1 company I would like to see being... vaporised by a lightning.
--
Bell Canada: It is “Preposterous" that consumers should get content they want on their cellphones.

Mousky1967

@wednet.on.ca
And here I am thinking that the $0.07/minute for long distance on my Bell Mobility plan is high. I just use a Walmart calling card that cuts that in half (despite using the Bell network). Good thing I got my Bell Mobility plans through a corporate plan.

thomasr

join:2010-01-21
Winston Salem, NC
kudos:1

1 edit
It's bad enough they already charge approximately $6 a month now just for you to allow AT&T to carry your long distance calls. This is before placing the first call and adding additional charges. Now $6 is not good enough anymore and they want $8 - PURE GREED! When will this type of business behavior stop?

The long distance calling plan itself is already devised of "trumped-up" added on charges: $2.99 for the calling plan (YES!, the true cost of the plan is only $2.99) - with the following additions of $0.50 for the Federal USF Fee, $1.99 for the Carrier Cost Recovery Fee (this cost amount varies to the number of days in the billing cycle) and lastly, taxes collected for my state which on the bill I am looking at is $0.44 on the stated amounts.

The idea that AT&T needs you to pony up just because you have not had make a long distance call only shows how crazy AT&T's Corporate leaders really are. A total abuse from an entity that is a monopoly in many areas they serve. And what's worse, taxes will be more on those bills too, as a result. Before anyone says "you can elect to have no long distance service..." - HAH! There's a charge of $1.99 for not selecting to carry long distance in the first place.

I am not sure what's worse... being forced to pay more money for something "just because" OR having to pay more taxes to the government. It is apparent AT&T owns a good part of government; how worse will these business practices become? Let's not forget that other entities of AT&T already enjoy protections from fine-print in their contracts that allows them the right to never be sued in a court of law - that's "power"! Once you've become so powerful, should someone not speak up and remind them how to be thankful they themselves should be - in being allowed to function and provide essential services to the populations they serve - in the monopolistic fashion they do it in?

I've always been willing to overlook AT&T as a monopoly, that is, until costs have continued to rise for reasons that just make absolutely no sense. It is no more than a cash grab and is currently treated as legalized extortion. How great it is to be AT&T

Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:12
I agree!!!

If they want customers to use $20 a month for example THEY SHOULD CHARGE THEM $40 AT THE START (Then if they dont use it,at&t still has it)

Quite stupid!!
8744675

join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
I don't use AT&T at all, so are they going to charge me a fee for not being a customer??
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by vrette:

A fee for not making enough long distance calls? Really? Why don't they take all that extra bandwidth leftover from people not making long distance calls and put it to good use, like shove it up their... Really, this is one of the most ridiculous "fees" yet.

The "No Long Distance Plan" Plan charge has been around for a long time with most carriers. The more recent innovation is the $2.50-$5.00 minimum late payment charge, so you can't economize on stamps and checks (in reality they're just trying to get you to paperless, so you'll overlook other billing errors.)

AT&T must do well by these niggling fees, without concern for churn. Billing nonsense was second only to "wanting for dialtone" amongst all of the households I've converted to cable triple-pay in the past two years.
Albert71292

join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA

Hate AT&T

Dropped AT&T DSL back in May when they announced monthly bandwidth caps, moved to a local DSL provider with no caps. If the local provider didn't require a landline based phone number to use their service, I'd cancel that also, and just get a cheap "pay as you go" phone, NOT through AT&T.

I never make long distance calls, yet that charge was on my bill. After other taxes and fees on that $2.00, it's a total of $4.57/month for NOT making long distance calls!

AT&T are the biggest scumbags on the planet. Hate giving them ANY money, but unfortunately I HAVE to if I want to keep using the DSL provider I'm using.

crazyk4952
Premium
join:2002-02-04
united state
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Vitelity VOIP
·Charter
·Callcentric

Re: Hate AT&T

Several years ago, when I still had a POTS line, I recall AT&T adding on taxes/fees on my bill just for the ability to make a long distance call. After contacting Qwest, they were able to remove my ability to place long distance calls and those fees were no longer on the monthly bill.

You may want to try contacting your phone company and asking them to remove the long distance carrier from your line.
Albert71292

join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA

Re: Hate AT&T

I tried that. They said I HAD to have long distance capability, even if I didn't use it. Tried to argue with the phone rep for nearly half an hour, to no avail. Finally gave up trying to get the charge and long distance removed.

crazyk4952
Premium
join:2002-02-04
united state
kudos:1

Re: Hate AT&T

That is B.S.

Maybe it's time to vote with your wallet and move to VOIP....
Albert71292

join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA

Re: Hate AT&T

Don't you need internet for VOIP? If I drop my phone service, I lose my internet from the local provider. Bayou Internet says they can't provide internet without a landline phone number. Switched to Bayou because of no caps. Only other game in town is Comcrap, err, Comcast, and even THEY cap monthly usage, so they aren't an option in my opinion.

Between all the video I watch online and my sons gaming, we'd eat through those caps in no time.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

Re: Hate AT&T

Have you measured your internet usage?

aciddrink

join:2000-08-26
said by Albert71292:

Only other game in town is Comcrap, err, Comcast, and even THEY cap monthly usage, so they aren't an option in my opinion.

I no longer have Comcast as they are not in the city I now live in. But last year I had Comcast, and to be honest I had a hard time even coming close to the 250GB limit. I mean, if one was really inclined to do so, they could, but it takes effort.

Granted I wasn't streaming HD Netflix shows back then nearly as much as I am now, so it might be a different story now.

Moral of the story, if you don't do anything excessive, Comcast may be worth looking into if you really want an alternative to a phone company.
xtachx

join:2005-11-19
canada

Re: Hate AT&T

Bell canada has caps "as high as" 1 GB

ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
said by Albert71292:

Don't you need internet for VOIP? If I drop my phone service, I lose my internet from the local provider. Bayou Internet says they can't provide internet without a landline phone number. Switched to Bayou because of no caps. Only other game in town is Comcrap, err, Comcast, and even THEY cap monthly usage, so they aren't an option in my opinion.

Between all the video I watch online and my sons gaming, we'd eat through those caps in no time.

You need a phone line if you persist on keeping DSL. Cable has no such requirement. It sounds like you've sounded off on cable for your own personal reasons though due to a cap that is, as stated, REALLY difficult to exceed.

You need to prioritize. Either you can make phone go away and go Cable, or you worry about caps that really aren't that bad in the grand scheme and stay where you are.

tdspringer

@eastlink.ca
Seriously? I have Comcast and have for years. There is no cap on my bandwidth.
jeffreydean1

join:2010-05-31

Re: Hate AT&T

Yes there is.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
Your "local" DSL Provider is correct; T took the dry-line away from them; which was their right and still is. In the meantime they're going to be pulling DSL from these "local" companies as they move more and more people to U-Verse VDSL2 and other technologies that are NOT required to be shared.

Also as far as Comcast goes; you can get an uncapped line from them- Comcast Workplace. uncapped and allows servers and static ips come with it.

But even if you canceled your local POTS line and still keep DSL- you STILL are paying ATT. You don't pay them directly but you STILL pay them a great deal of what your service plan is each month with your current "local" provider.

trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2
AT&T = American Thieves & Thugs

I dropped AT&T like a bad habit for everything a few months ago. Dropped their uHearse service and went to TWC. Dropped their wireless service and went to Verizon.

I will not give AT&T any of my money!
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog

crazyk4952
Premium
join:2002-02-04
united state
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Vitelity VOIP
·Charter
·Callcentric

I'm surprised it's *only* $2!

The EFF posted an article today that many electric companies charge their customers for not using enough power. The fee can be as high at $10 for using less than 1000 kilowatt hours per month! (and they have been doing this for a while now.)

»stopthecap.com/2011/08/25/more-t···+Service

Companies will do whatever they can get away with to get as much money from their customers.

••••

Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX
Reviews:
·Millenicom

wtf?

A long time ago (like in the 80's), we put a block on long distance phone calls due to relatives making long distance calls to korea. Later on we asked AT&T about getting it back after they left. They said its going to cost to take the block off. My parents said forget about it and we've had only local calls all this time. Now we are going to get a $2 fee for not having long distance? Fuck em, going to cancel once we see the first charge.

Now can we port over our landline number to a cellular number?

•••••
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Standard business practice

When Verizon started doing this about 5 years ago I cancelled. AT&T used to actually have a good business sending out $10 monthly long-distance bills to random people who didn't even use their service, so clearly they have reformed!

Shadow01
Premium
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland

Killing the business

When your customers are not leaving fast enough for your business plan, you have to find ways to get them to leave. They are trying to collapse the wireline network as fast as they can, so it can be shuttered to an unwitting buyer or so it can be shut down. They truly believe that wireless will haul all the mail for them...
--
Clouds in my coffee...

rlt2562
The Wizard of Speed and Time
Premium
join:2002-12-23
Haughton, LA
kudos:1

Last straw/nail in the coffin/etc

Unbelievable. The end of the world in December '12? Hardly. It's happening as we speak. I've been a very-long-time customer of AT&T, with landline/DSL/cell. I've been looking at Suddenlink for internet & possibly home phone service ever since I heard about AT&T's cap/overage crap. I will now vote with my wallet, and visit the local Suddenlink office/Cell Phone provider on my next day off.
--
"There's nothing you can screw up so badly that a judicious application of money can't fix!"

Six Gun Kid
Premium
join:2001-07-02
Huntsville, AL

Re: Last straw/nail in the coffin/etc

If I see it on our bill, the cord will be cut. This Company is becoming more and more of a joke as time goes on.

JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
said by rlt2562:

Unbelievable. The end of the world in December '12? Hardly. It's happening as we speak.

Guess you never paid a long distance bill in the 90s. $1/min was normal, on top of your monthly fee.

You can choose a different LD carrier. Its simple. I would expect if someone is unhappy with their current LD carrier, they would simply switch.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

1 recommendation

Don't forget the LD Crap Charges the $2.00 fee will trigger!

AT&T really knows how to screw a customer! Before ILEC's were allowed to offer LD service I used AT&T LD service. One day my bill increased by about $4.00 per month. When I asked AT&T why the increase, I was advised that AT&T had started to charge an in state connection fee of $3.40, in addition to the $12.00 fees I was already paying AT&T for a $0.07 per minute rate. Their excuse for the charge was so they could maintain the $0.07 per minute rate for intrastate as well as interstate LD. I was charged about $0.60 in crap charges over the in state connection fee. When I complained that I almost never made an in state call they said if I did not like their rates to go somewhere else. At the time I used BellSouth for Intra-LATA calls so AT&T did not have to pay the premium for local long distance.

With the minimum $2.00 fee, customers will be charged that fee, plus the crap charges associated with the first minute of a LD Call. When BellSouth was allowed to sell LD I switched to their $0.18 per minute LD service which included no additional charges. That remained in effect for about a year. About a year later I sent a FAX that lasted one minute. I got was billed about $4.00 for the call. Why, they charged $0.18 for the call and an additional $3.82 in crap charges.

The $2.00 minimum fee will wind up costing the customer $5.00 after crap charges are added.

AT&T is taking advantage of the fact that our Fascist Supreme Court has prohibited class action suites against corporations that require binding arbitration to settle disputes in their contracts so consumers have no power against such abuse.

DC DSL
There's a reason I'm Command.
Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2

Re: Don't forget the LD Crap Charges the $2.00 fee will trigger!

said by Mr Matt:

AT&T is taking advantage of the fact that our Fascist Supreme Court has prohibited class action suites against corporations that require binding arbitration to settle disputes in their contracts so consumers have no power against such abuse.

The simple, but impossible to sell, solution is for *the people* to stand up and make it clear to the people they vote for who they are supposed to be representing. If the electorate would pull its head out of the sand and actually *participate*, corporations and banks would be smacked-down right and left, with Congress passing laws that keep them from screwing the consumer.

I have said for decades: The only thing a politician fears more than pissing off a huge donor is a pissed-off and engaged constituency that won't vote for him no matter how much money he raises.
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following."
samwyse

join:2005-09-13
Saint Louis, MO
said by Mr Matt:

AT&T is taking advantage of the fact that our Fascist Supreme Court has prohibited class action suites against corporations that require binding arbitration to settle disputes in their contracts so consumers have no power against such abuse.

You may want to call Bursor & Fisher. While it's mostly with the aim of blocking the merger, they are filing thousands of arbitration claims with AT&T. Maybe they will set up a process for this.

AT&T is in a jam of its own making here. The AT&T agreement was designed to suck virtually any type of consumer litigation into arbitration and Bursor said he’s merely taking advantage of those terms. The agreement ostensibly covers “any aspect of the relationship between us” and Bursor says that includes claims the pending merger will result in higher prices for cellular service. »www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe···t-cases/


OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH

Um

they have allways had this fee ever since they had LD here back when it was SBC there awas the 2.00 min fee. And that was 2003ish

DC DSL
There's a reason I'm Command.
Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2

Verizon beat them to it

Verizon started doing this like 5 years ago. They imposed a $6 minimum monthly charge if you didn't make at least that much in LD calls per month. I wound up switching to the Freedom Essential bundle with my DSL and "unlimited" LD. I still make few LD calls on my landline, but I satisfy the criteria for calling-in to my IPKALL virtual numbers at least once a month. Several times a month, actually...and leave the line open for 20-30 minutes at a time. At least I'm supporting a free service.
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following."

Denzel

@swansonrussell.com

Re: Verizon beat them to it

Why people wouldn't just cancel LD altogether and just use Google Voice, which has free LD and very cheap international, is beyond me.

Everyone, use Google Voice. You choose the number to call, GV calls you and connects you with the number that you chose, completely bypassing telco's LD. Try it. It's liberating.
hrz

join:2007-12-01
Utica, MI

Surprise, Surprise!

I'm an AT&T/AmerITech/SBC/at&t customer in LATA 340.

Got rid of "local toll" & "long distance" years ago when ILEC
tried to pull similar-but-not-identical crap. Each set as NONE.

Used GC-now-GV for those needs, plus GOOG-411 -> TellMe
DA & similar. Never EVER looking back. My MRC is $22.97;
"Call Plan 50" + 6016/768 line-share, minus LifeLine & other
negotiated credits. If at&t mis-behaves, I beat 'em up!

Cheers - from Metro Detroit.

PS: Don't even get me started about "Zone" calling...

asdfdfdfdfdf

@myvzw.com

Good riddance ATT.

I'm glad I cancelled my voice line a year ago and no longer do business with you. It was precisely for this constant increase and addition of fees that I left and won't do another dimes worth of business with you in future.

Bigman

@rr.com

Re: Good riddance ATT.

I canceled all there services as well, I had no longer any user for them, for the same exact reason. As well as there idiotic usage caps.

NFlorida

@bellsouth.net

Just complain

I noticed this a few months ago and complained. I had signed up for a pay as you call, no extra charges offer they had available only via the internet. I told them I didn't want to pay anything except a per call charge (like it use to be before deregulation). They refunded the two months they had charged me and, of course, and to my liking, cancelled my long distance.
elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

Operational Cost

Folks,

The reason they are doing it is threefold:

1. As more people flee landline they have a fixed Opex, so the cost per user goes up as more people leave. They need to pass on the cost to maintain profit margins as more people leave.

2. People who are just using local are not high margin users, so they want them off the network and in some cases for government assistance they will cover the gap.

3. In some areas (as in the post) customers cant order DSL in dryloop because that is no longer required, so AT&T can double dip (POTS, and resell bulk DSL without the service layer)

In the end it's a win-win for AT&T. DSL is an expensive proposition, so they are going to make it painful as it is a "gap" in their master plan for world domination because others can compete over their wire.

AT&T will likely come out w/ a cellular box to (vzw, Sprint) to migrate landline to cellular blocks while they convert smartphone users to VoLTE. As they roll the landlines to a critical mass where DSL and landline have been eaten away, they will sell off the wireline to some predators like Frontier, etc.

Copper is dead man walking, they are just nudging.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Operational Cost

said by elefante72:

As they roll the landlines to a critical mass where DSL and landline have been eaten away, they will sell off the wireline to some predators like Frontier, etc.

Copper is dead man walking, they are just nudging.

The flagship of AT&T is their U-verse product; IPTV (VDSL) for those who are close enough, or IP-DSLAM (ADSL2+) for those beyond the reach of VDSL. I don't see a company who was willing to replace 1,200 feet of 50-pair F2 span with 1,200 feet of 100-pair F2 span in a given neighborhood as ready to sell off their copper.

They are making it harder to order traditional ADSL by replacing the DSLAMs with IP-DSLAM equipment, and retiring the ADSL equipment. Where I live, I expect them to roll out Internet-only U-verse pretty soon; all that new copper suggests they are prepping this area for upgrading the service. But they lost me over the caps, and I have service out of a traditional ADSL2+ DSLAM, run by Sonic.net, LLC.

I just don't see AT&T selling off urban and suburban copper (though they might, someday, follow Verizon by selling off rural copper).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
ov_black

join:2011-05-02
Cypress, TX

So folks that use a landline for alarm systems

are going to pay extra for not using long distance?
ov_black

join:2011-05-02
Cypress, TX

Re: So folks that use a landline for alarm systems

said by ov_black:

are going to pay extra for not using long distance?

Unless of course they do this:

Telling AT&T to eliminate their landline access to the long-distance direct-dial service for both intrastate and interstate calls – a process that usually involves one-time fees totaling $9

money grubbing ba$tard$

dmxrob6
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Boonville, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest

Here's why I think AT&T won't get rid of wireline...

I believe AT&T wants to be free of regulation that exists for the POTS and PSTN, but to get rid of the copper lines -- I highly doubt that will happen. This song and dance has been going on for a few years now.

The main reason is those wirelines still carry a lot of traffic - and they create a lot of money for AT&T. U-Verse, DSL and even cellular traffic hit the wirelines. I recently got a tour of our local Central Office and they were installing 4G equipment. They explained that once it comes off the cell towers it heads straight to the CO where the calls are "Switched out".

Copper may be old, but it still has a lot of uses - and since we all know AT&T isn't going to lay fiber to the home anytime soon, I see the copper wires being owned by them for a long, long time to come.

trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2

Re: Here's why I think AT&T won't get rid of wireline...

And until they realize that copper is dead and that their uHearse service is a complete piece of shit that was obsolete the moment they started deploying it, cable companies will continue to eat their lunch and smile and laugh all the way to the bank.

FTTH/FTTP, should have done it AT&T. Now you get to reap the rewards of being cheap and watch the cable companies eat your lunch.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog

tuaris
You Clicked on the Apple

join:2001-10-19
Naples, FL

Just isn't right

It's like a bank charging you a maintenance fee for not having a certain amount of cash in the account, like a credit card company charging you a fee for not using your card, it's like getting a fee just to have the privilege of having a debt card.

How did it get to the point where not spending money actually costs you money? Shouldn't stuff like this be illegal?

•••

Brantford

@primus.ca

Identical twins?

Is AT&T a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bell Canada?

Or maybe the other way around?

Seriously though, they both seem to have the same "screw the public at every available opportunity" approach to doing business. Companies like these deserve to die.
ctggzg
Premium
join:2005-02-11
USA
kudos:2

Plenty of people still have land lines

There are still people who don't want to stuff a tiny phone against their ears or worry about how many minutes they have left... alarm systems... work lines for telecommuters...

Anyway, AT&T was already doing something like this. For at least the last year or two we were forced to pick a long distance plan, and the cheapest had been bumped up to a $1 minimum. We've been using Google Voice for long distance and haven't dialed anything outside our area code in a long time.
equivocal

join:2008-01-23
USA

Below the line fees turn $2 into $4.50

AT&T adds $2.50 in below the line fees to the $2 fee. I expect that the whole purpose of the $2 fee was to collect the below the line fees and the $2 is high enough to make sure the below the line fees are pure profit. Also note that, for me anyway, the $2 minimum was for those on a $0/month $0.39/minute non-plan. The minimum fee is higher on plans with lower per minute rates. At 39 cents/minute I figured I'd never make a LD call (and don't thanks to GoogleVoice and prepaid cellular). I guess the evil bastards at AT&T figured out how to cut that gordian knot. I hope they fall off their new yacht and drown.

The CPUC used to be able to protect consumers from rabid greed like this, but they've sold out and are now just AT&T's poodle.