1 edit | Bull $hit This is retarded.
How they can claim $17,000 is the true costs, is beyond imagination.
Someone really needs to start getting jailed for this stuff.
ACCOUNTABILITY I SAY! | |
|
 | | | Re: Bull $hit Because of companies like Telmex that rape you. He was probably roaming on another network and they are the ones that are charging the outrageous price to his carrier. The carrier should not have to eat this because of his stupidity. | |
|
| | | | Re: Bull $hit Is my math right? They normally have a 265% markup on data plans when roaming. Assuming $17000 was actual cost. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Bull $hit They can do that if they want to. If you do not like their roaming rates you can always choose another carrier. | |
|
| | | |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Bull $hit said by battleop:They can do that if they want to. If you do not like their roaming rates you can always choose another carrier. This attitude is what is wrong with the state of capitalism in our country right now. I'm not attacking you personally, just what you said is often repeated by proponents of big business.
However, there becomes a point when you have significantly eliminated enough competition that no, they can't do that if they want to. I'm not saying the guy doesn't owe the money, but the Big 3 should have mechanisms in place to avoid this. This is 2009 and they state they can't monitor data usage in real time? Hell, AT&T's website can't even give me up-to-the-minute usage, it's a day or two behind.
If my ATM card can update my bank account after I use it and before I get back home, AT&T can make it so there are protections in place for this sort of thing.
Why don't they? Because that would mean people like me would cap usage (data and voice) to prevent overages. When an overage of 100 minutes costs $50, you have a lucrative side business going on. It's in your best interest not to allow consumers to avoid such charges.
And the oft repeated mantra of "you can go somewhere else" is not true. There is only the illusion of choice. All carriers have basically the same pricing model with the same draconian contracts, ETFs and overages. I challenge you to find a single carrier he could have used that wouldn't have popped him with these overages? (And pre-pay doesn't count. We're adults, we don't have time to refill a pre-paid card.) | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Bull $hit I think that what all of the carriers are doing is highway robbery. It's not right, they should put some pressure on the network he was roaming on to help get it taken care of. What annoys me and lead to my statement is that people think that they HAVE to do something about it just because they are a big company. | |
|
| | | | | | MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Bull $hit said by battleop:What annoys me and lead to my statement is that people think that they HAVE to do something about it just because they are a big company. I do think they should have to. $17,000 could very easily bankrupt someone or destroy their credit for the rest of their life if they decided not to pay.
AT&T should have reasonable measures in place to allow users to protect themselves from this type of scenario that aren't black and white, no data or data, no international or international. Either that or provide a one-time "we'll eat it" incentive. | |
|
| | | | | | |  PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: Bull $hit said by Matt:said by battleop:What annoys me and lead to my statement is that people think that they HAVE to do something about it just because they are a big company. I do think they should have to. $17,000 could very easily bankrupt someone or destroy their credit for the rest of their life if they decided not to pay. For most, it's not even a decision to not pay, it's a necessity. Personally, I don't know a single person who has $17,000 laying around that they can blow on a phone/data bill. A few of my friends even travel to Mexico frequently and still don't have that kind of loose cash. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | |  jsz0Premium
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT | said by Matt:said by battleop:They can do that if they want to. If you do not like their roaming rates you can always choose another carrier. This attitude is what is wrong with the state of capitalism in our country right now. I'm not attacking you personally, just what you said is often repeated by proponents of big business. I disagree. I think that it shows, in reality, the vast overwhelming majority of customers aren't effected and don't care or they certainly would switch to other carriers or simply stop using any data service. Once they start caring and vote with their dollars the companies will respond and change their ways. Some people get angry at these companies but I get angry at the apathetic and ignorant consumers who allow it. If given the chance free market capitalism will run wild. That's a fact. If consumers cannot be bothered to read a contract and say "Oh... No thanks." and walk away then they are a huge part of the problem. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
| Would it matter? We have 2 or 3 large carriers left. They have all the same basic plans and fee structures. When one raises rates the other usually follow. Text messaging is one example. Sort of like price fixing. This is why the bells never should have been allowed to merge. No true competition. They all do basically the same thing only under 2 or 3 different names.
No way should any company be getting a triple digit percent markup on anything. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Bull $hit "No way should any company be getting a triple digit percent markup on anything."
Yet the Cowsumers let them. Complaining does not and will not make them change. They only pay attention to subscriber counts and revenue. If people complain but the number of subscribers continues to increase then they keep on doing what they are doing because more subscribers are coming in. | |
|
| | | | | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
·Charter
| Re: Bull $hit said by battleop:Yet the Cowsumers let them. you mean the regulators approved it. as a consumer, i would have objected to every single request for a merger. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Bull $hit said by morbo:said by battleop:Yet the Cowsumers let them. you mean the regulators approved it. as a consumer, i would have objected to every single request for a merger. While the other 80% or so of America probably didn't even care. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bull $hit Um..yeah.  | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | said by dcurrey:No way should any company be getting a triple digit percent markup on anything. For your sake, I hope you never eat in a restaurant. Hard to find a single item in any restaurant that isn't at least a triple digit markup.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Bull $hit said by PaulHikeS2:said by dcurrey:No way should any company be getting a triple digit percent markup on anything. For your sake, I hope you never eat in a restaurant. Hard to find a single item in any restaurant that isn't at least a triple digit markup. The reason they have to mark it up so much, is because they have to pay Natural Gas prices for cooking, Air Conditioning for the cooking area, plus management, and a small amount actually goes to the waiter as their hourly money.
The Telecoms have 3 major things they pay for: Spectrum (overpriced by our government so that small companies can't afford it), Workers (Higher management ALWAYS OVERPAID), and Facilities costs (they build way to many stadiums and BS).
Once a company gets to a certain size (they always forget about Customer Service at this point) they need to be held accountable even if an idiot (probably an employee) makes a mistake on their own bill, considering that somehow in America we can get away with saying "Unlimited Data" as long as we put a star next to it.... | |
|
| | | | | |  CylonRedPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County | And yet their average profit margin is less than 5% Which means - most of the items do not have that much markup. Certainly alcohol and desserts also have high markups but most of that is eaten by the costs of everything else needed to run a restaurant.
With markups like that - they would not be the #1 business to go under in less than 1 year. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Bull $hit said by CylonRed:And yet their average profit margin is less than 5% Which means - most of the items do not have that much markup. Certainly alcohol and desserts also have high markups but most of that is eaten by the costs of everything else needed to run a restaurant. With markups like that - they would not be the #1 business to go under in less than 1 year. You're confusing gross margin with net earnings. Food always has to be marked up at least 300% (although you're correct that they make the most on drinks and desserts) which is a gross margin, but net earnings are based on revenue after all costs, including rent, fixtures, labor, insurance, etc. are considered. | |
|
| | | | | | | | You obviously don't know the restaurant industry too well.
Take a simple Dominos franchise where sales are $10k per week:
Rent: 5% of sales
Overhead (water, gas, elec, phones): 10%
Royalties/National Advertising: 10%
Labor Cost: 28%
Food Cost: 28%
Amortization (debt service): 8%
So, all that works out to be 89% of sales. These aren't fictitious numbers, either; these are from an actual Dominos franchise operating in my area!
So, while that $14.99 pizza really costs Dominos $4.19, it also costs them $4.19 to produce it, and $4.96 for all the other costs and royalties, and the franchise operator earns $1.65 on it. Oh, and that's before taxes, too!
So, yes the restaurant industry marks up every dish by 300%, but the actual profit margin is very small. Ten percent is normal, if not high.
So, how does this translate to the world of mobile carriers? They also have fixed and variable costs like every other business.
What gets people angry is that they charge for something people believe should be free, yet if these things were free the carriers would have to charge more for other things in order to recoup their costs for network buildout/repairs/upgrades/services/etc.
While it's true that a text message costs the carriers exactly zero to receive and transmit (text messages are sent through an auxiliary communications channel originally set aside for signalling and locating services, and not the main voice/data channels) they charge for them because they are in demand, and because if they didnt have that revenue stream, the cost of everyone's voice plans would be significantly higher. | |
|
| | | | | | said by battleop: If you do not like their roaming rates you can always choose another carrier. If you do not like it... You always have a choice...
Such as tired phrase... It's bull. When an industry acts as one, there is no choice... | |
|
| | | |
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by battleop:Because of companies like Telmex that rape you. He was probably roaming on another network and they are the ones that are charging the outrageous price to his carrier. The carrier should not have to eat this because of his stupidity. They should refuse to pay gouging companies like Telmex. Problem solved.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Bull $hit said by KrK:said by battleop:Because of companies like Telmex that rape you. He was probably roaming on another network and they are the ones that are charging the outrageous price to his carrier. The carrier should not have to eat this because of his stupidity. They should refuse to pay gouging companies like Telmex. Problem solved. But then Verizon and Tmobile will shout they offer better international roaming (lets ignore having to rent a GSM phone from Verizon). | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Bull $hit said by patcat88:But then Verizon and Tmobile will shout they offer better international roaming (lets ignore having to rent a GSM phone from Verizon). Not necessarily. There is a pretty fair amount of CDMA coverage in Mexico and Latin & South America. | |
|
| | | | | You would think that AT&T and Verizon would have the clout to do that but then again Telmex probably doesn't give a crap. | |
|
| |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
1 edit | Is it a surprise that last year, the richest man in the world was a Mexican telecom controler? He's 3rd richest now with $35 billion. | |
|
| | | | said by battleop:Because of companies like Telmex that rape you. He was probably roaming on another network and they are the ones that are charging the outrageous price to his carrier. The carrier should not have to eat this because of his stupidity. Even if that is the real true cost, I would say something is very very wrong when the carrier tacks on 45k in extra charges just because they are billing you on behalf of the roaming company. The American carrier provided nothing service wise in this. They are basically charging 45k for the hell of it.
I'd say after such a blatant attempt at theft, the carrier loses all rights to collect on this "bill". | |
|
| | | | No, the carrier should have to eat this because of their stupidity. | |
|
| | mc5w
join:2002-06-14
Independence, OH | Back when Sprint still charged for roaming I programmed my cell phone to Never Roam. Did not get ANY roaming charges. | |
|
| | |  CoronaIt's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Bull $hit said by mc5w:Back when Sprint still charged for roaming I programmed my cell phone to Never Roam. Did not get ANY roaming charges. shocking eh? | |
|
|  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by SaveTheNet:This is retarded. How they can claim $17,000 is the true costs, is beyond imagination. Someone really needs to start getting jailed for this stuff. ACCOUNTABILITY I SAY! How so? The US carrier simply marked up their wholesale cost ($17k) by approximately 400% in the original bill. Do you think the international carriers let you roam for free when you travel abroad??
--
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Why did he need to download Wall-e in Mexico? Shouldn't this person be, I dunno, on vacation? The person that did this was a complete idiot and I shed not a single tear for him or her.
Still, there is responsibility on both sides. In this case, the provider disclosed the rates. The consumer, however, clearly didn't. If you're going to travel internationally and you don't take time to find out what costs are to do so, either pay the price for your stupidity and "ignorance" or simply turn your phone off.
When one travels, you're supposed to check on many things.. insurance for driving, what to do if you're hurt (ie: health insurance coverage) exchange rates, laws, etc. ANYONE with half a brain would simply pick up the phone, call their provider and ask "I'm going to travel to Mexico to get Swine Flu, most likely use my data card. How much are you going to charge me to download movies all day?"
Simple.
He needs to pay the $17,000. I believe they are being gracious. If this guy doesn't pay the bill, then why should I pay ANY overages here in the states? Rates are disclosed.. read them. | |
|
| |
See 18 replies to this post |
|
|  Woody79_00I run Linux am I still a PC?Premium
join:2004-07-08
united state | ther eis no way I would pay a 17,000 dollar bill let alone a 45k bill!
that is ROBBERY AND EXTORTION! Cell phone companies are despicable. I have Alltel(Bought by Verizon now) and Alltel was the best of the Cell carriers...IE didn't charge ridiclous rates, etc...but my contract is up and I am not signing a Verizon Contract....a Cell phone is not that important to me anyways.
I will be going to a prepaid phone once this one quits working....most NEVER actually read the cell phone contract they sign for that shiny new phone...Which makes Microsoft EULA for Windows look like a pleasant dream with the hot model of your choice.
This guy should file a lawsuit against ATT
this is absurd...i don't care if you download a terrabye of data, it don't cost this much....this is absurd... | |
|
|  NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | The simple (and never-to-be-implemented) solution is to cut off the user after about $500.
It's absolutely pleasantly insane that these things let you run over a grand, let alone 17k. I realize there's often a day or two lag between when you use the data and when the carrier lets you know, but c'mon.
You have to wonder whether these datacards even let you know you're roaming.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. | |
|
 ScottJr
join:2001-10-10
Charles Town, WV | Wall-E Well worth $17,000! A bargain at twice the price. Maybe not. | |
|
| cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Re: Wall-E Man that movie sucked. They should pay him for downloading that crap. | |
|
| | | Shipping (flight to Mexico) kills the deal. | |
|
 intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | i'd like to know Where did anyone get off thinking their data plan would follow them around the world, considering their carrier doesn't even have operations in that country? | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Did he read the contract? If not I do not have much sympathy for him, but $17000 is still a WFT bill. If he did read the contract he know what he was doing when he started.
With subsidized notebooks now all the rage I do expect a LOT more of these stories. | |
|
| | And likely he could of gotten the movie that some one put on And likely he could of gotten the movie that some one put on a dvd-r for about $2 - $3 in mexico. | |
|
| | Both to blame Obviously, this guy didn't read his contract, his bad. But it's no accident though that AT&T doesn't take reasonable steps to fix this.
$17K actual costs? Who the f*ck do they think they're kidding? I'd like to see those itemized line by line. If I treated my customers this way, they'd be gone AND they'd be telling anyone who would listen how they got severely shafted. TV folks just drool being able to announce this crap.
Read the contract, but expect the worst from your amoral vendor. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | ¡Ay, Caramba! I hope that bill was in pesos. | |
|
| | | Re: ¡Ay, Caramba! they would have converted it to $$ on the exchange rate when the bill was posted. | |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Personal responsibility aside...... What about corporate responsibility? If you are absolutely paranoid about your customers habits (as all wireless providers seem to be), why on earth would you want to put yourself in this position by having agreements to do business with international providers that are going to charge your company rates like this?
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.jeffhowe.net/Jeffhowe.net/Blog/Blog.html | |
|
Lysis
join:2005-03-30
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Information on charges sorely lacking some companies don't give much info
i remember signing up for internet service and no one could tell me the actual upload / download speeds, they weren't sure what they were going to be.
also i just went to look at new cable internet service. TWC seems not to offer naked cable through the website so i went to the earthlink website. It does list the download (but not upload) speed but it only lists an introductory price, no where does it say the real cost of the service. This is crazy if you signup it seems they never tell you the upload speed or the monthly cost!
not surprised people are unaware of charges they are going to get companies sometimes keep this information secret, credit card companies used to do this too until the government stepped in | |
|
| | Did this guy call clark howard show did this guy call clark howard show a few weeks ago in a radio. i bet her daughter is dying too see walle | |
|
| TACSPEEDPremium
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA | Re: Did this guy call clark howard show It seems that this the same person who called the Clark Howard show.
I believe his team was able to get the phone company to reduce the charges to zero. | |
|
| | | | Re: Did this guy call clark howard show Yea, I saw it on his show on Saturday or Sunday. I'm pretty sure you are correct about the bill being reduced to 0. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Did this guy call clark howard show I find it rather sad.. he should have paid something.. and even a few thousand would have been reasonable. | |
|
| | | | TACSPEEDPremium
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA | Re: Did this guy call clark howard show Fifty bucks would have been reasonable. Not a thousand dollars!
This does show how dangerous the Radio Shack/ATT computer program is and why Clark Howard and I call it a rip-off. | |
|
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Did this guy call clark howard show $50.00? It's always nice to throw a number out here to feel good about it all, however, the world is not a flea market so that kind of theory doesn't work.
First off, companies have a right to make a profit. (Read more before you fly off the handle) With that said, there is going to be room for profit. They're not non-profit organizations. Second, the guy is international. He used a crap load of data to download a full length movie. International carries have their rates AND have a right to make a profit. There are exchange rates to consider, etc.
So, when you throw out some arbitrary number, how can you justify that with out knowing the trust costs to deliver that service AND take into account the company has EVER right to turn a profit.. even on the overages!
You think you can go over seas with your US based cellular phone, use about 3 times your plan minutes and walk away with paying, I dunno.. "$50.00"...?
It's one thing to be "consumer friendly".. but it's another thing to learn to pay the piper when you use a VERY well known expensive service.
When you travel in the U.S., it's expensive as hell. When you travel international, be prepared to be raped.. there's nothing "consumer friendly" when it comes to certain things international and utilities and communications certainly are not one of them. | |
|
| | Just sad I get billed for data usage and I never use any. All I do on my phone is make phone calls. I need to block data altogether so there is no possible way for me to be billed. Something along these lines should go for other users... "Hey, don't let so over X txt messages get sent without a plan, don't let X number of bytes be transferred while off network." I don't feel bad for the fellow, he should have known. There needs to be some responsibility with both parties. Thing is, the provider doesn't really care as they can make money off of others' stupidity. | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Metered billing sucks Another example of why consumers like a fixed monthly fee.
I believe that his company had to pay Slim all that money, but it's pretty obscene. If Mexico can't control it's legal monopolies, how is it going to control the illegal ones | |
|
 EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada | Limitless unsecured credit? This industry, and pricing model is complete BS.
There is no legitimate business out there that allows for unsecured, unlimited credit.
What a LOAD.
--
~ Project Hope ~ | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
1 edit | Carriers Will Be Forced To Change quote:
With subsidized netbooks now all the rage, expect a lot more of these kinds of stories.
People simply aren't going to pay insane amounts of money for overages even if they agreed to them in the contract. I don't see how AT&T could realistically collect a $17k debt considering most people do not have the type of credit needed to pay that kind of an expense.
Even if AT&T and other carriers forced such users into collections, they would still take a massive loss. I predict that over time, carriers will adopt a model under which a given user's account balance would be restricted to a certain maximum per month. If the user's account balance for whatever reason hits that amount most access would be cut off unless the user personally approves it.
Carriers would not do this to protect their customers though, they would do it to protect themselves from having to write off these types of overages. As another poster pointed out, no business that operates using credit allows any customer to spend an unlimited amount of their money because it exposes the business to massive losses, and cell providers should be no exception.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
1 edit | damm and thats before the RIAA'a lawsuit over the movie | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | What needs to be done. Similar to what ATMs are forced, by law, to do is state the possible charges before being allowed to proceed. | |
|
| bshellyPremium
join:2002-02-17
Hickory, NC | Re: What needs to be done. Exactly, and those messages could be forced up on the screen by the connection manager software. The rates must be agreed to and a PIN must be entered to continue. This PIN would protect the account owner against other persons from accessing the data network without the permission of the account owner. | |
|
| | Only thing that will work is to STOP USING SAID service haha well when you guys really feel ripped off you will do the only thing that can work.
STOP using the service period. If you realize that en mass even a threat form a organized large group a citizens would not work try doing so , organize and say to TWC SCREW YOU ON CAPS OR WE ALL LEAVE. they will get the hint and increasing cost and adding caps reduces the nets value to those on the lw end of the scale and they TOO will join you. | |
|
| | | Re: Only thing that will work is to STOP USING SAID service That's why I never got an EvDO card. I was tempted, but when I saw 5GB caps, I decided it would be best waiting it out. | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| ??? Im just curious as to how long that took him to download.
"CNN doesn't bother to do follow up or identify the carrier involved here"
So we dont know if it was ATT or not... some of you past posters were saying it was ATT but we dont know. Please read teh article. | |
|
 TimePremium
join:2003-07-05 | Blame? It never ceases to amaze me that it's always the fault of the business that the individual did not read his contract.
--
"If it can't be done with brains, it can't be done with hours" - Clarence "Kelly" Johnson | |
|
|  runnoftPremium
join:2003-10-14
Deerfield, IL
kudos:1
·Comcast
| Re: Blame? said by Time:It never ceases to amaze me that it's always the fault of the business that the individual did not read his contract. Good point BUT... you'd need many extra hours in the day and an annual whopping bill from a law firm to understand the contracts you've signed for telecom, insurance and financial services. | |
|
| | TimePremium
join:2003-07-05 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Blame? said by runnoft:said by Time:It never ceases to amaze me that it's always the fault of the business that the individual did not read his contract. Good point BUT... you'd need many extra hours in the day and an annual whopping bill from a law firm to understand the contracts you've signed for telecom, insurance and financial services. I believe they make the various overage/roaming charges very clear, alteast AT&T does. | |
|
| |  joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
·Comcast
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by runnoft:said by Time:It never ceases to amaze me that it's always the fault of the business that the individual did not read his contract. Good point BUT... you'd need many extra hours in the day and an annual whopping bill from a law firm to understand the contracts you've signed for telecom, insurance and financial services. Ok, but a $64,000 phone bill? Most Americans don't have much, if any savings. User gets sued and subsequently files for bankruptcy. It sucks but what are they going to do? Work for the next few years to pay the bill for watching a movie?
--
PRescott7-2097 | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Clearwire Wireless
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
| Lets be real people... I can only talk about AT&T since that is what I have for service. According to the international section for wireless all GPRS pay per use is .0195/KB except for Canada which is at .015/KB. This alone tells you that AT&T sets the price for all roaming carriers outside the USA not the roaming carriers. So the responsible party here is AT&T not the roaming carriers.
I have an AT&T aircard and cellphone. Every time I go to Europe and use my services over there I get several text msgs on my phone telling me I will be charged for the usage and about 2-3 phone calls doing the same thing. On my laptop I get the same text msgs plus emails. They make sure to let me know they are going to charge me. If I choose to ignore it then that is my own doing.
While on the subject they even text me several times as I get closer to my 5GB cap. Once I go over they block it and force me to call in to see what the problem is.
I'm putting it out there as I see it first hand. Do I agree with the rates? HELL NO!!! Do they provide the service I need? HELL YES!!! Can I switch providers? OF COURSE!!! But why would I when all I have to do is make sure I don't ignore the warnings they send me. | |
|
| |
| | PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: Lets be real people... I think you are misunderstanding what megatron is trying to say (I THINK). It appears to me as though he means that AT&T sets the price that YOU pay. Sure, a particular carrier may charge $0.10 per KB when you roam on them, but your contract with AT&T states that roaming data is $0.0195. Thus, you pay AT&T $0.0195 for roaming data no matter what.
By this, AT&T couldn't bill you $30,000 for a few MBs of data claiming that that's what the roaming carrier charged them, even if it was true. Your contract with AT&T states that roaming data is $0.0195 for kb, so that's all they can charge you.
If AT&T loses money on an arrangement such as this, that is their problem. But I think that they do it because they count on it happening very little. I know that their contracts stipulate that if 50% or more of your usage (voice or data) is on a roaming partner for a certain amount of time (something like two or three consecutive billing cycles), they reserve the right to simply cancel your service (sans ETF). (I knew a guy who had AT&T and moved to a Unicel-covered area. Two months later, they sent him a letter and cut him off.) | |
|
| | | |
|
|
·
·