Topic 'Re: Tarnished Name' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: Tarnished Name

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:18:18 EDT

David posted : If your aunt doesn't get that fixed or solved let me know or post in direct

Thanks
David

Re: Tarnished Name

Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:15:39 EDT

David posted : If you don't get it resolved post over in direct... I can put a case in

Re: Tarnished Name

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:53:56 EDT

NormanS posted : I still encounter people who think that AT&T bought SBC. And SBC was probably the worst of the "Baby Bells" ... except for the Pacific Telesis Group.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: Tarnished Name

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:35:42 EDT

jimk posted :

said by djrobx:

said by ssavoy:

I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T.

I completely agree. The #1 ranked Consumer Cellular rides on AT&T's network! AT&T really hasn't been that bad in my area and areas I travel to.

I'm not at all impressed with Verizon (I have a prepaid account just for my iPad), but I keep them because they allow me to turn on the tether feature at the $30/month price point.

If you look at the CR survey, Verizon didn't earn a single "Excellent" mark. Not even in the Data or 4G categories!

Agreed. My opinion... overall, Verizon has a better reputation than they deserve, and AT&T has a worse reputation than they deserve. I can count many areas where AT&T works better than Verizon, even in places where Verizon has 850MHz Cellular spectrum and everyone else (including AT&T) has to deal with the limitations of 1900MHz PCS spectrum.

I did get a good laugh at how far apart AT&T and Consumer Cellular are. The only place where they should be different is customer service and cost (and possibly overall value). Everything else is the same. This should ring serious alarm bells over how Consumer Reports is rating the services.

Re: Tarnished Name

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:07:22 EDT

jseymour posted :

said by NormanS:

said by WhatNow:

This is correct info that few people know. Several other big companies were in the same boat but won their cases. The AT&T name was bought by the baby bell SBC for PR reasons after AT&T went bankrupt.

I am trying to find the bankruptcy filing for AT&T. It appears that AT&T took a hit when Worldcom filed for bankruptcy, but ...

I don't think you'll find one. I don't recall AT&T ever filing for bankruptcy. They were getting close, tho.

said by NormanS:

I suppose "PR" is the short of it.

My take has always been SBC figured to kill two birds with one stone: Lose the bad image they had and gain the cachet of being "AT&T."

And it worked, after a fashion. Many, perhaps most, non-TelCom people I talked to thought AT&T had bought SBC, et al. Of course, eventually people figured it out, because SBC didn't actually change anything except their name.

said by NormanS:

But SBC re-branded as AT&T, then bought Bellsouth on the heels of the AT&T buyout.

Close. SBC re-branded itself as "AT&T," then bought-out BellSouth's share of Cingular and renamed it "AT&T Wireless," then borged BellSouth.

Jim

Re: Tarnished Name

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 14:47:15 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by jseymour:

I'd go so far as to suggest that things would have been better if AT&T had been allowed to die; but it appears that the financial dynamics of the wireless business prevented the possibility of that outcome.

FWIW, former SBC CEO, Ed Whitacre, was hired by AT&T prior to the 1984 divestiture, and rose to CEO of Southwestern Bell Telephone, one of the seven post breakup RBOCs. He engineered the name change to, "SBC Global Communications".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: Tarnished Name

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 14:39:17 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by WhatNow:

I am trying to find the bankruptcy filing for AT&T. It appears that AT&T took a hit when Worldcom filed for bankruptcy, but ...

It seems that Cingular Wireless, the joint SBC-Bellsouth venture, bought the "AWEful" AT&T TDMA network, but AT&T had retained the right to the "AT&T Wireless" name. This put Cingular in a poor competitive position.

I suppose "PR" is the short of it. But SBC re-branded as AT&T, then bought Bellsouth on the heels of the AT&T buyout. I'd guess that then SBC CEO, Ed Whitacre, wanted the whole shebang: 100% control of Cingular (SBC-Bellsouth merger) and the AT&T Wireless brand.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: Tarnished Name

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:24:49 EDT

jseymour posted :

said by ssavoy:

I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T.

Considering the fact that the real AT&T was once the premier TelCom provider in the world, I'd say the current thing's placement at the bottom of the pile is purely a result of SBC tarnishing what was once a highly-respected name.

Insomuch as one can "love" a telecommunications company :), I used to love the real AT&T. The thing that calls itself "AT&T," these days, I avoid like the plague.

Jim

Re: Tarnished Name

Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:52:12 EDT

DADDYJTL posted : I have had AT&T for 9 years, I have had no problems at all.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:46:01 EDT

Morac posted :

said by ssavoy:

I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T.

When they do things like what they just recently did to my Aunt, it's no wonder perceptions are poor.

My Aunt had AT&T POTS/DSL in Florida and she was having Internet problems (apparently because they simply disconnected her). They reconnected her, switched her to a slower speed and then started charging her more. Her Internet still didn't work. When she called them she was told she needed to switch to U-Verse for Internet. She was also told she needed to switch to the mobile shared plan on her iPhone (AT&T wireless).

Now her Internet still doesn't work and she lost her POTS phone service which she didn't even realize they were disconnecting. They are blowing her off and skipping appointments as well.

Overall, from both a service and customer support standpoint, they sound horrible in her area. Personally I never really had an issue with them though.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:39:55 EDT

WhatNow posted : This is correct info that few people know. Several other big companies were in the same boat but won their cases. The AT&T name was bought by the baby bell SBC for PR reasons after AT&T went bankrupt.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:25:48 EDT

ilikeme posted : Thats what I am wondering. We have had them since 2000 when they were still Houston Cellular (owned by BellSouth Mobility) and have had no real big issues. The coverage is great around most of Texas, often better than Verizon. The speeds have improved over the past year or so.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:14:05 EDT

alg posted : I don't really get all the grief that AT&T receives either. I travel pretty heavily in the United States and have always been satisfied with AT&T's service with the one exception of New York City where it really sucks. No customer service issues, either.
--
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:52:32 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by IowaCowboy:

If US District Court judge Harrold Greene would have not been brave enough to break up Bell System, they would probably have a monopoly on cell phone service as well.

Brave judge? I think not. Case was filed by DoJ. AT&T chose "consent" over battle because consent removed the barrier to AT&T entry into the computer business; i.e., AT&T agreed to be broken up because they saw an advantage to doing so. Where is the "courage" in that?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:36:58 EDT

battleop posted : "they would probably have a monopoly on cell phone service as well."

If we were lucky enough to have it at a reasonable price...
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:31:00 EDT

evoxllx posted :

said by ssavoy:

I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T.

Might be because of all the ridiculously shady things they pull off, one example below.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:11:38 EDT

Brigrat posted : I have lived all over the country and never even had Comcast or Verizon as an option for high speed internet...hardly a duopoly...

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:11:36 EDT

tubbynet posted :

said by en103:

I agree - make them work for their cudos.
AT&T's HSPA+ LTE network in Santa Clarita is pretty fast (I've hit 14Mbps), and in general, my complaints are more with their PR than their network (throttlegate, Facetimegate).

i've been very happy with att. i've had them since i bought my first iphone (3gs) almost four years ago. i've never had issues with their service. just got the new iphone5 and the lte in the greater phoenix metro area is fast.
i've also never had a problem with customer service. while in rome last week -- my phone was stolen out of my pocket on the metro. i was able to vpn in to my office, make an ip phone call -- suspend my service and report my phone as stolen. i tried to order a new phone -- and there were some restrictions that my company has about that. the rep called the company contacts trying to reach someone to approve the "un-suspension" and ordering. when that didn't work, they tried again after the holiday and then called my gf's phone leaving a voicemail for next steps. i was quite pleased.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:07:45 EDT

en103 posted : It should be soon on AT&T - I think they've swapped out panels at least at 1-5 Magic Mountain, and I know they have at I-5 Lyons (McDonald's parking lot site) as well as the I-5 Balboa, and I think I-5 Weldon Canyon.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:06:50 EDT

Telco posted : I think you missed the point, this is more about customer service, where AT&T ranks dead last.

I recently tried to purchase an iPhone from them and have had nothing but trouble. A month later, after I had enough and cancelled, I am still trying to sort out a billing issue - on their end.

Still waiting to waiting to be called back. I've spoken with over 15 people and spent hours trying to deal with them and I am a new customer.

As with Comcast, you need to make call after call, to try and get a rep who A) cares B) has a clue.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:35:53 EDT

djrobx posted :

said by en103:

Exactly. I can only imagine the kind of crap they'd pull if they weren't battling customer perception issues.

I haven't seen AT&T LTE in SCV yet, but HSPA works well enough that I don't mind. Verizon did finally turn LTE on, but the signal is so spotty in north Valencia that it hasn't done me a lot of good.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:19:57 EDT

en103 posted :

said by djrobx:

I don't mind seeing AT&T at the bottom though. It keeps them in check.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:14:46 EDT

djrobx posted :

said by ssavoy:

I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T.

Re: Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:04:20 EDT

IowaCowboy posted : Look in your history books and AT&T/Bell System had a monopoly on wireline telephone service like Comcast and Verizon have a duopoly on high speed Internet today.

If US District Court judge Harrold Greene would have not been brave enough to break up Bell System, they would probably have a monopoly on cell phone service as well.

Tarnished Name

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:35:34 EDT

ssavoy posted : I wonder how much customer's perceptions of AT&T are just because they're called AT&T.