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. |
|
| 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
 ·SureWest Internet
 ·Clear Wireless
| 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!
|
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to Youngjm
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. |
|
|
|
| reply to spewak
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. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to rradina
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? |
|
| reply to rradina
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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| reply to Youngjm
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
|
|
 gigahurtzPremium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL | reply to WernerSchutz
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. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to BF69
plus interest if not already considered |
|
 TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
 ·Comcast
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
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 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
That assumes the $65M settlement doesn't include penalties and ATT isn't passing them on to the customers. |
|
| reply to rradina
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. |
|
| reply to gigahurtz
Nothing unique here. UPS and FedEx charge "Fuel Surcharges". |
|
bac522
join:2003-08-04
Manchester, NH | reply to Youngjm
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. |
|
| reply to Youngjm
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. |
|
