dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
28

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan to Anon

Premium Member

to Anon

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

No it doesn't. People getting pissed about AT&T (like I did) but staying with them anyway (like I did) are the ones who propagate these practices. I can cry until I'm blue in the face, but so long as I keep cutting checks I have no one to ultimately blame but myself.

If EVERYONE who complained would cancel for change in terms of service (thereby avoiding the ETF) they wouldn't pull this crap.

Simply put, AT&T will do this stuff so long as subs tolerate it.

Chaplain
So It Goes
Premium Member
join:2002-10-11
USA

3 recommendations

Chaplain

Premium Member

But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.

Steve B
Premium Member
join:2004-08-02
Auburn, WA

Steve B

Premium Member

said by Chaplain:

But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.

ding ding ding! We have a winner. That's exactly it! Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either. Its easy for the corporate kiss asses to make such judgements because they don't feel affected the way regular consumers do.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103 to skeechan

Member

to skeechan
Well... if he left, he'd have to pay AT&T ETF. So either way, he could do ok.

1. AT&T cancels service (leave without paying ETF)
2. AT&T goes to court and makes a media spectacle - it may cost him, but I'm sure that a Gloria Allred or other public defender would assist in smearing AT&T.

TheHelpful1
Premium Member
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD

TheHelpful1 to Chaplain

Premium Member

to Chaplain
+1. Add to that the fact that unless you jump ship from ATT to Tmobile, you'll have to dump your cell phone hardware and get butt-humped long term when you sign a new 2-year agreement or get butt-humped short term and buy one unsubsidized.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to Steve B

Member

to Steve B
said by Steve B:

Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either.

Sure it is; nobody NEEDS a smartphone. People WANT them. When did we forget the difference between NEEDS vs. WANTS? Hell, plenty of people manage to scrape by with no cell phone at all while managing to live meaningful and productive lives without being reachable 24/7.

And before you say that some people NEED them for business, well in that instance your employer really ought to be paying for your service. If they are then you don't really have any grounds to complain about the carrier. My best friend is on AT&T and loathes them but given the alternative of paying for his own service vs. his employer picking up the tab he's happy to be with AT&T.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to skeechan

Premium Member

to skeechan
You are correct! They did change their terms of service. I called them on this as well... so far, 5 people have "denied" that this is a material change of the terms... in fact they go on to further say that I am no affected by this "change" (remember, there was no change) because I've not hit the cap yet.. (Remember, there was no "cap" before) ... however, this change, they go on to say, does affect all users on the "unlimited" plan. I then asked "what is the speed I will be throttled to (because I advised them I was going to turn on XM streaming and leave my phone on until I hit this cap) and they could not tell me.. this of course was after I asked them what 3G speeds are (she quoted me EDGE numbers) because I also reminded her that I was on an "UNLIMITED 3G INTERNET SERVICE" so throttling my service to that of less than 3G speeds is in fact NOT unlimited "3G data"...

They spun and spun and spun the whole time. It's great that phone calls can be recorded to many of their call centers,.. all of them in fact state that the calls in being recorded at the beginning of the call so the "disclosure" of recording has been made.

...nice huh? (and to note, some of their call centers ARE in fact in 1-party states where recording is legal with out notice to the other part so long as you are the party doing the recording)

But still, I do believe that threatening to terminate service because you won't "negotiate" in a court settlement is in fact a breach or a violate of some law somewhere and while not criminal would in fact come with heavy penalties, fines, awards.. and nasty nasty press.

If this guy is smart, he'll let them terminate his service. It's not like VZ or Sprint doesn't carry iPhones... when this blows up bigger than AT&T really wants it to, he'll wind up with his service back, as it was before this started... and a hell of a lot richer.
fiberguy2

fiberguy2 to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks
1) I AM my employer. Thanks for generalizing everyone.

2) You're right no one NEEDS an iPhone.. smart phone, etc. In fact, no one NEEDS anything other than food, shelter, and safe health conditions to survive.

Now.. would you like to talk about what SOCIETY becomes dependent on? ... when you're an industry that re-shapes the world, you take on a certain obligation.... just ask Mark Zuckerberg.

Little Marky built a web service that is FREE to people, yet the government places certain rules on the way he operates it. Mark isn't simply free to do EVERYTHING he'd like to do, either.

WHO picks up the tab here is irrelevant.

In THIS discussion, AT&T and they way they are being dishonest about an agreement they made with the consumer IS at hand. They ALWAYS forget that contracts are two-way.
fiberguy2

fiberguy2 to TheHelpful1

Premium Member

to TheHelpful1
Likewise, as we're held to ETFs to jump ship in most cases.. we sometimes DO get to leave the service. However, if WE violate the terms of the contract by leaving early, or just "leaving early" we have to pay the prorated or full ETF depending on where we are. However, what about when THEY violate it... by me leaving for a material change in the contract (which I don't think they SHOULD be able to change anyway.. a deal is a deal).. .I think they should also have to pay me back for the portion I paid for the hardware up front as well. Fair is fair! (It's not part of the agreement, I know.. but still, fair is fair).. just an example of a one way agreement.

So what exactly is there to motivate the PROVIDER to honor their agreement if there is no penalty outside of losing a customer? I am motivated to STAY in the agreement by notice of penalty for doing so.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow to skeechan

Premium Member

to skeechan
If you are on unlimited service and you leave AT&T wins because they have one less unlimited customer. It hurts them more if you can leave without paying ETF and less if you do pay. But over time they win when the last unlimited customer is gone. The FTC should hold them to their word the UNLIMITED is not limited unlimited. The y may have won the customer over by using the word unlimited and now they want to say not really.
All companies need to be held to their main points not the whispered certain restrictions apply that make what is shouted in the ad is not what you really get. It is bait and switch.

Here is Matt Spaccarelli on YT trying to collect his $850. I love the CS rep she sounded very honest. They should have written him a check on the spot.
compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY

compton to Steve B

Member

to Steve B
said by Steve B:

said by Chaplain:

But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.

ding ding ding! We have a winner. That's exactly it! Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either. Its easy for the corporate kiss asses to make such judgements because they don't feel affected the way regular consumers do.



Why getting rid of "it" isn't an alternative? Assuming the "it" you are referring to are smart phones the four major carriers all carry the same smart phones. There is very little reason to stick with a carrier that you are unhappy with.
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

1 recommendation

rahvin112 to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
Tethering violates ATT Terms of Service. This is very explicit in the contract. The gentleman in question has publicly stated several times that he used all this data tethering to multiple devices. IMO ATT has him, he's admitted to violating the TOS and they can terminate for cause at this point, the likely only thing that will prevent it would be meeting whatever terms ATT wants to impose for the violation.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan to WhatNow

Premium Member

to WhatNow
Sure, one less unlimited user doesn't matter to AT&T (the bad PR is far worse), but if everyone like me, the who knows how many people are still grandfathered in leave, it matters. People fleeing en masse would make even more headlines and then you would have other carriers offering sweetheart deals to pick those subs up, just as you saw credit unions chomping at the bit for POed BofA customers when they were planning that debit card fee.

bobjohnson
Premium Member
join:2007-02-03
Spartanburg, SC

bobjohnson to fiberguy2

Premium Member

to fiberguy2
My cell service is $100 a month and i have 18 months left... that's $1800, and if they do me wrong I will gladly pay $300 and go with someone that deserves that extra $1500. The kind of thinking that you mention above is what helps in allowing them to do what they want.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to rahvin112

Premium Member

to rahvin112
Yes.. you are right, he did.. but I could care less about what this guy did - he has nothing to do with what I stated above. AT&T has yet again screwed over the American public.

However, in the guy's case, as it's stated here, they would love to terminate him for not talking to them. They already re-instated his service a while back, put him on unlimited again. AT&T already accepted what he did and moved on.. they can't go back and revisit something they've already CLEARLY resolved.

However, if we were having this discussion PRIOR to his suing for throttling him and he was still tethering his device, then I'd say to that guy.. "flip off dude".. he knew what he was doing then.
fiberguy2

fiberguy2 to bobjohnson

Premium Member

to bobjohnson
Your argument works, on Sprint. I've used it a few times in my negotiations with them, only my numbers were $368 per month x 18 months. (Ironically I was at the 18 month point myself when I had that conversation) Only Sprint "got it" and worked with me.. when I brought this point up to AT&T, it was like looking at a deer in headlights.

But, I fail to see how what I said about encourages them. Not only do they lose the remaining of the contract, they also would have to pay back/buy back the hardware that was fronted FOR violating. So, add $200 to your $1800 in lost future revenue... it doesn't help them. What it DOES do is help them shed a customer for about 2 years, at minimum.

bobjohnson
Premium Member
join:2007-02-03
Spartanburg, SC

1 edit

bobjohnson

Premium Member

I paid att's etf back when it was att wireless and switched to sprint actually. All that i'm saying is that alot of people think that they need to stay with these companies because of the etf, if a million of the throttled iphone (or any other screwed over customers) cancelled, that would be a big loss of revenue after the 3 months that the etf pays and would change some things. It's alot of money up front but most of the time you can sell the phone to cover it.

Edit: And my comment was not about what you said specifically but about the "motivation" to stay in the contract being the etf.. Some people will take gettin screwed for 2 yrs because of the money up front.

AuraReturn
Premium Member
join:2003-08-18
USA

AuraReturn to Chaplain

Premium Member

to Chaplain
said by Chaplain:

But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.

Agreed. What's the point in switching to Verizon, Spring, or TMobile when they all offer basically the same damn service? Sure, some are $10 more expensive or $10 cheaper but they are essentially the same service when you factor in the price.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan

Premium Member

Well in my case CLEAR unlimited really means unlimited (month before last was 96GB, last month about 50GB). I believe Sprint who uses the same WiMax network does the same thing, unlimited is limited, no throttling, no caps, no overages. For now. When they both either run out of cash or finish building LTE who knows what the plans would be.
skeechan

skeechan to fiberguy2

Premium Member

to fiberguy2
Exactly. AT&T did this to themselves by continuing to grandfather people in with upgrades. They could have simply said with the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4 or 4S, any point along the way that they aren't grandfathering them in. That leaves those who had edge phones and the vast majority would have upgraded by now.

But AT&T didn't want to lose the revenue when some of those subs flee to another carrier like Verizon. They want the money and subs but not provide the service that gets them the money and the subs. Surprise surprise. Every business would like to run that way but AT&T is one of the few that can actually get that done.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to bobjohnson

Premium Member

to bobjohnson
And I agree with you.

Also, too, it cracks me up how there is this mental block with people regarding the ETF when it comes to extremely dissatisfied service they are getting. How I see it, much like you, is while they're getting the ETF, they're not getting any more revenue from me. People will stay with a provider to avoid a $200 fee, but continue to pay upwards $80 a month for service they can't stand, or sometimes can't use, as they'll say. I also don't see the ETF as a penalty. I know that the phone costs more "retail" than what I paid. I know they are subsidizing the phone over the life of my contract. By staying in the contract I know I'm paying a portion back each month to cover the cost of the phone that I didn't make up front. I don't see the ETF as a pentaly, I simply see it as what I owe them for the remainder of the hardware. If the phone is a good one, (such as the iPhones, higher end Androids, etc) then I can sell the hardware on the web and get most of my money back. Anything that I didn't make, as people call "a loss" is what I paid in to use the hardware for the time that I had it.

But in short, people see that "fee" as a "penalty" and will do anything to avoid it and continue to pay upwards, as you said, $1800 more to the provider for providing service they don't want.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

>But in short, people see that "fee" as a "penalty" and will do anything to avoid it and continue to pay upwards, as you said, $1800 more to the provider for providing service they don't want.

+1

I paid $180 to Verizon to terminate a contract with about 8 months of service left that I just wasn't using. It is simply a no-brainer of which one is cheaper. I agree, I think people get locked into a mindset of 'paying for nothing' vs. 'getting a service for my money' and they lose sight of the bigger picture.

Kind of reminds me of a stupid joke my friend used to crack up about:

Hey mister, wanna buy an elephant?

No way! I don't need an elephant, besides where would I keep it?

I will give you two for the price of one...

OK, I'll take em!!!
posimosh
join:2011-02-04
Roseville, CA

posimosh to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
Yall are blaming the wrong people.... And if you don't like government, move to somalia... The purpose of government in an advanced society is to provide for its people the things that they cannot provide themselves (you know, like roads, telecommunications infrastructure, and... like... the internet). Instead of throwing your hands up cause, ya know, "they're all the same" and "I'm too lazy/stupid/self-interested/racist/successful to pay attention to politics/government" why don't you do something to change the fact that money has so thoroughly captured 1.5 of the political parties in this country?

AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ

AVD

Premium Member

said by posimosh:

money has so thoroughly captured 1.5 of the political parties in this country?

you mean 4.5

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan to en103

Premium Member

to en103
I would think the change in service would be a breach and allow the sub to leave without paying an ETF.