graysonf MVM join:1999-07-16 Fort Lauderdale, FL
1 recommendation |
They do this on DSL tooMy last AT&T DSL bill had an unannounced price increase. That actually was my last AT&T bill - I cancelled the service. | |
|
| |
Re: They do this on DSL tooGood for you! I cancelled my Verizon FiOS TV last year because my TV pkg was going up. Not sure if DirecTV, TWC, VZ, or ATT will learn. | |
|
| | |
Rangersfan
Anon
2013-Feb-15 2:11 pm
Re: They do this on DSL toosaid by sphinxguy18:Good for you! I cancelled my Verizon FiOS TV last year because my TV pkg was going up. Not sure if DirecTV, TWC, VZ, or ATT will learn. Verizon FIOS increased the price of your TV package? Wow! No TV provider has ever increased prices before. | |
|
| |
captylor to graysonf
Anon
2013-Feb-15 1:10 pm
to graysonf
ATT Message of DSL Rate Hike |
That's funny I remember seeing the e-mail from the ATT Mailer.. From: AT&T High Speed Internet Customer Care Subject: Important Change to your AT&T Internet Service To: "AT&T High Speed Internet Customer" Date: Thursday, January 31, 2013, 1:18 PM | |
|
| | |
Re: They do this on DSL tooI have UVerse and never got any such email or piece of mail
I had to look on my bill and find it. | |
|
| | |
to captylor
After going through all my previous bills, back to July, 2011, and not finding one notice regarding a $ equipment fee I gave AT&T a call this month and was told that I had received prior notice. I never received prior notice regarding an "equipment fee." | |
|
| | NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands Premium Member join:2004-06-24 The Boro Netgear CM500 Pace 5268AC TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
|
to captylor
said by captylor :That's funny I remember seeing the e-mail from the ATT Mailer..
From: AT&T High Speed Internet Customer Care Subject: Important Change to your AT&T Internet Service To: "AT&T High Speed Internet Customer" Date: Thursday, January 31, 2013, 1:18 PM The problem is that AT&T sends notification message such as this to the customer's primary AT&T email account, which is managed by Yahoo!; and Yahoo! typically puts AT&T marketing email in the spam folder (or simply deletes it if that is the way the customer has that email account setup to handle spam). When I was an AT&T DSL customer I had to setup multiple email filter rules to keep that from happening (and it still frequently happened anyway). Many customers don't even check their AT&T primary email account, and most certainly don't setup rules to keep AT&T's agent (Yahoo!) from tagging email from AT&T as spam. | |
|
| | |
to captylor
My slower than advertised, slower than ordered and they can't (won't) fix it DSL went from $14.95 to $43.00 I called and complained and they won't budge.
ATT wants to get rid of their DSL subscribers so they can get everyone on wireless and charge those overages. I guess most of the old time wireline carriers who also have wireless are doing this. | |
|
| | 47717768 (banned) join:2003-12-08 Birmingham, AL |
to captylor
I am glad i have cancelled my DSL service. Funny thing was i got a bill for DSL the next month after i have cancelled my service. So i have called AT&T, and the rep. has told me "I am showing here your DSL service was cancelled." I have asked him again the reply was "hold on..." when he came back the answer was "Sorry for keeping you waiting. Your DSL service is cancelled now. My next question was "How about a credit for the unwanted DSL service? Ones again "hold on i'll ask my super.". Finally the rep. has came back again with the answer "I have spoke with my Super, and she has credited your account for the unused service.". | |
|
| 47717768 |
to graysonf
I have cancelled my DSL service so the next month i have looked at my bill, and they have charged me a full rate again. OK i have given a ring to the AT&T, and their answer was " I am showing here your DSL service was cancelled. So i have told the rep. that i have just checked, and it DSL is still active. After speaking with his Super he has apologized, and has credited my account for the full amount. | |
|
|
just stuffff
Anon
2013-Feb-15 1:11 pm
networks need to change not the video providerscompanies are in the business to make money. When broad cast fees go up they are more than likely not going to eat it. They will pass it on.. it sucks, but a hard reality. networks not the video providers will eventually have to give in as more and more subscribers drop and MSO and other video providers eventually stop giving in to the insane contract requirements....
ESPN for example basically ask 5 dollars a subscriber for a video provider who say has 500000 vid subscribers, but only 100000 watch ESPN.. guess what ESPN gets 5 bucks for every single one of those 500000 | |
|
| Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
|
Re: networks need to change not the video providersNot exactly, ESPN gets that $5.00 from each 500,000 because the demand that ESPN is offered in the lowest package on basic cable to carry any other Disney property. ESPN's model would fail if they started to let MSOs package their networks in a Sports Tier as only true sports fans will sub, but then ESPN couldn't demand the $5.00 because their threats of withholding other Disney/CBS Networks would fail.
Case in point NFL Network was demanding the same placement at about 50% ESPN rates. While MSOs like TWC wanted to stik it in a sports tier where those that wanted it would be subsidizing the cost to offer it directly. And look how long it took to get NFL Network on TWC...... | |
|
| |
to just stuffff
Reason I gaveup pay tv 10 years ago. Not worth the expense, with so much free tv online. | |
|
|
Joey1973
Anon
2013-Feb-15 1:14 pm
U-Go, at&t...welcome to the Revolution! (of mystery charges having nothing to do with any service you're actually using)
People, people, people... can't you find better uses for your money than to give it up for "cable TV"? Internet access I can understand... but the other stuff? | |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2013-Feb-15 1:17 pm
These fees should be illegal.If you are going to charge people for something it should be in the price of the product.
When I buy a steak at the supermarket there is no "slicing fee" "refrigeration fee" "Checkout scanning fee". No all of that is simply a cost of their operation and is in one way or another part of the list price. The only additional charge is sales tax on non food items and odds are state law requires that to be listed separately rather than rolled into price.
If the telecom industry ran a food store, steaks would be 39 cents a pound and your receipt would be 10ft long listing the various fees that in the end make it cost the same as any other store. | |
|
| Paxio Premium Member join:2011-02-23 Santa Clara, CA
3 recommendations |
Paxio
Premium Member
2013-Feb-15 2:14 pm
Re: These fees should be illegal.It's worse than you think!
Most of the "fees" have nothing whatever to do with actual government taxes. They are just pure profit added "below the line" to claim a lower "advertised price".
We separate the actual taxes on our bills because it's not fair to make people in one city pay the city broadband tax for another. But the telecom taxes account for only a tiny percentage of the bill -- less than 2-3% in most of our territory.
Our openness puts us at a marketing disadvantage when someone calls and demands we match price with one of the "biggies" -- because they compare their advertised price (without the extra profit) with our actual price (which includes all profit).
Bottom line: there is a huge push in our industry to price services deceptively, like the big guys, because otherwise you lose the business of low-information customers who make uninformed price comparisons.
It sucks, but there it is. Because the big guys get away with it on their customers, more and more small providers have to play the same game. | |
|
| | |
en103
Member
2013-Feb-16 10:10 pm
Re: These fees should be illegal.I agree... at some point, it will be 'free TV' service - requires at $69/month equipment charge as well as last mile service charge (local MSO) of $35/month.
Kind of like how Socal Edison breaks down their bill between 'power generation' and 'power transmission' - TV providers should perform a breakout of their utilities. | |
|
| | | |
Fine print
Anon
2013-Feb-23 11:51 am
Re: These fees should be illegal.Some of these fees ARE illegal.
"US FTC regulations state that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful. (15 USC § 45 (a)) In relevant part, they state that contingent conditions and obligations of an offer must be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer, and that disclosure of the terms of the offer set forth in a footnote of an advertisement to which reference is made by an asterisk or other symbol placed next to the offer, is not regarded as making disclosure at the outset. (16 CFR 251.1)" | |
|
| |
|
U-verse 24Mbps packageThe price is pretty low for that kind of bandwidth in the Miami area. | |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2013-Feb-15 1:29 pm
Great!An out for unhappy subs with no ETF | |
|
|
homosapien
Anon
2013-Feb-15 1:39 pm
price us into stoneageI gave up my car, my TV, my moto and soon my internet and lastly my dumb mobile. These companies try to price us into the stone age... but I will never give up my guns | |
|
|
I have u-verse tv with internetand pay $11.33 in Government Fees and Taxes + $2.80 in surcharges. | |
|
Paxio Premium Member join:2011-02-23 Santa Clara, CA 1 edit |
Paxio
Premium Member
2013-Feb-15 2:00 pm
OopsWrong thread! | |
|
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Feb-15 2:18 pm
This is all fine......but turning around and advertising a $39/mo price is fraud when the actual price is $49/mo or whatever the real price with all the B.S. fees turns out to be.
The advertised price should be the O.T.D. price and if that can't be determined the "up to" price, the price in the most expensive jurisdiction is the one advertised. So in this example the advertised price is "$49 or less" not $39 and always more. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: This is all fine...Or, at the very least, the price minus taxes. I have no problem with a store advertising a price before sales tax, since I know what the tax is in my area and can figure it out for myself, but adding so-called fees is out and out fraud.
In fact, if adding these fees below the line is OK, why not just take it a step further and move just about all the cost down there? Advertise the service for $1.99/month, plus fees and taxes. Man, won't the customers be surprised when they still are paying $140! | |
|
| | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Feb-15 3:41 pm
Re: This is all fine...Taxes perhaps, IFF 100% of that tax is handed over to the greedy thugs in government, but the bullshit "regulatory recovery fees", no.
No more itemizing overhead. | |
|
| | | |
Re: This is all fine...Agreed. Unless the fee is mandated by law, and the company doesn't retain any of it, it's part of the price and needs to be included in the price.
Actually, I think that what the feds did with airline tickets was a good idea. Basically, they required that sites selling them must prominently show you the final price. If they want to show you a breakdown of what went into that calculation, they can, but the number in the biggest font must be the price you are charged.
You know, now that I think about it, maybe the cable and telecom companies should also be required to do the same thing. While their national and regional ads wouldn't be able to do this because of different taxes on the local level, there's absolutely no reason their Web sites can't. After all, the companies know what the final price will be in a given jurisdiction, since they have to bill their customers, so there's no reason that, if you enter your location, they can't tell you what the total monthly bill will be. | |
|
| | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Feb-15 6:05 pm
Re: This is all fine...Everyone should do it, telcos to the airlines; itemizing overhead prohibited. The price they advertise is the price customers pay. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: This is all fine...Not with deregulation. They will say the extra ink on the paper would raise costs across the board and break the free (rape) market. | |
|
| | | | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 2 edits |
skeechan
Premium Member
2013-Feb-17 8:24 am
Re: This is all fine...Deregulation? The FTC is alive and well with a budget 25% larger than it was in 2009. It's bigger and more "regulatory" that ever. In the case of the airlines, it's actually the DOT that regulates their advertising claims, and the DOT hasn't gone anywhere either. The DOT fines airlines for deceptive pricing and can do more. Instead of requiring they disclose the price (always in tiny print), the airlines must roll those costs into the big print price, advertising the maximum price, incl. 2 bags, instead of the "from" price. | |
|
|
wow... takes the cakeequipment fee for piece of s*it DSL!?!!?!? Gotta be kidding.. outrageous.. tell everyone to start writing their congress people and the FCC/FTC over this one.. deploy a cheap, slow and anti-competitive network and expect to gouge consumers on top of it... the time has come to lynchmob these companies every which way you can to get them to change their behavior... and those which have done VIRTUALLY NOTHING for high speed internet.. hint, hint, Centurytel/Qwest should be taken over by the local municipal governments as eminent domain and throw the company of their states altogether! | |
|
| |
Re: wow... takes the cakeyah good luck. CentLink would sue the local states, There is nothing wrong and they follow the laws. It would take more than the state to take over. Especially since eminent domain does NOT have anything to do with private assets such as a business. Only land.
And if you're not aware, the fee also applies for U-Verse FTTH customers as well. | |
|
|
Best game in townAround here, anyway, U-Verse is still the best game in town (Lawrence, KS... home of Sunflower Broadband and the original 'Bandwith cap'). If someone wants to compete (no caps), I'll be happy to shop around. | |
|
|
Shit fees like this are why I dumped their phone serviceNow my U-Verse Internet only bill shows a $6 'equipment fee' which seems like it started back in the December bill when I look at my records. | |
|
| |
genef
Anon
2013-Feb-23 7:46 pm
Re: Shit fees like this are why I dumped their phone serviceFirst I dumped u-verse and went antenna (free HD) and online streaming (also free HD) Then I dumped att internet and got Charter internet (30MB for 29.95). ATT doesn't even offer that speed at ANY price. Then I dumped landline phone for Charter phone. Bottom line, I now pay $63.00/mo for streaming, internet and phone. I do miss the DVR but I'm working on that too. After 40+ years adios ATT. | |
|
|
Nickled and dimedBroadcast retrans fees went up by $1.99 per month. I was already getting hit with the "high-speed internet fee." I have my mental 'line in the sand' for how much I will spend. No ETF after May 31. We'll see after that. | |
|
WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2013-Feb-15 11:32 pm
They are sneakyTWC did the same thing and AT&T seems like they have to copy every other company in their field. TWC wanted to charge for the internet cable modem. I my case it was built into the VoIP modem that I had since 2007. I could pay $100 for one of two Motorola cable modems for around $100. I went that route and also dropped the VoIP I seldom used. That had reached $50/month. They sent me an offer of a year free if I would sign up for VoIP for 2 years. They also raised the price of the TV and internet about $10 before I dropped the VoIP.
One thing I don't like about TWC is you can not find out what the price will be after the teaser first year price. Wish I had more then just TWC so I could threaten to leave if they raise the price.
I agree they should have to show the price after fees and before taxes that they have to give up to the government. | |
|
raye Premium Member join:2000-08-14 Orange, CA |
raye
Premium Member
2013-Feb-16 12:39 pm
Cable Companies are not airlinesIt is interesting to see the cable companies utilize the same method of price hikes as do the airlines. However unlike airlines these fees are unavoidable. I can choose not to check in bags, buy food on the plane, etc. but I doubt many will be able to avoid the "High Speed Internet Equipment Fee"
Unless they do without Internet of course. About as useful as avoiding airlines fees by not flying. | |
|
| ••• |
ndwbr join:2003-07-10 Atlanta, GA |
ndwbr
Member
2013-Feb-16 4:52 pm
AT&T DSLI pay $47.95/mo for 6mbps DSL in Atlanta - my rate hasn't changed in years! | |
|
| ••• |
|
If only we had faster deregulation!If only we had faster deregulation it would save the consumer SO much money in unneeded competition!
That money would go straight to the consumer and not to any shareholders! Then every provider would be free to agree together to give all Americans $5 off ALL internet service and a 5 GB cap across the board to help protect kids from porn!
Signal line quality should be reduced to increase line retransmission. Retrans counts against a users cap (fee for the chips in the modems wearing out faster you know) and it will help stop Netflix from spreading communism killing American cable/telco jobs or any greedy company that beats the odds to profit and refuses us a increased cut for the line repairs!
Last anyone who speaks against Red White & Blue America cable/telco companies should go straight to jail! Note: All judges get $50 cupcakes with company logo during a trial! Jury for the accused not permitted in customer TOS.
You any money lost from loose lips is the needed lifeblood of our companies caring heart. This heart provides what is the very most important human service to Americans! This most important internet service is never a utility. So just remember it will always be a ALL IMPORTANT luxury internet service. Talking against us is assault and battery on our company human status and that financial harm needs mandated criminal prosecution! Note: All friendly lawmakers get a $50 cupcake with company logo during important mandate votes! Yum!
Your terms of service agreed by all customers when you accept service includes "enhanced interrogation" (not legal torture) when deemed needed to correct our service.
Thank you for choosing the company of US! We appreciate your customer loyalty in choosing us over having absolutely nothing at all. It shows we care and we will strive to keep your service forever!
Ok... end sarcasm. But honestly how far off are we from this? | |
|
| |
Re: If only we had faster deregulation!It will be very hard to get rid of Jurys and you don't want the jokes in congress to touch the constitution | |
|
|
Business U-VerseI have business U-Verse and have not been charged the modem fee. Nothing from AT&T and when inquiring about it, not modem fee will be charged. The modem came from them brand new and all. $150 rebate for it. | |
|
|
"cable" TVI was sick this weekend while traveling on biz and spent one evening channel surfing all the "top" 25 cable channels for content. Basically it was sports, old tv repeats, "news" and god awful reality shows for every niche imaginable. My conclusion is I am not missing anything by not having "pay tv" and that really they should pay me to watch it | |
|
|
|