dslreports logo
 story category
Public, Press Respond Poorly to New AT&T 'Administrative Fee'
Small Fee Could Net AT&T $500 Million More Annually

Back in April we noted that AT&T was imposing a new $0.61 "Mobility Administrative Fee" on all postpaid wireless subscriber bills. According to AT&T's website, the sneaky fee "helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs," though like AT&T's equally nonsensical "regulatory recovery fee," those expenses should be included in the cost of doing business, and not buried beneath the line. Few apparently read our report, and as a result only this week did the press finally notice the fee.

Click for full size
"Below-the-line fees are nothing more than a way for carriers to stealthily increase their prices," Free Press's Derek Turner tells the Wall Street Journal. "AT&T's administrative fees are no different than the hundreds of other components that go into the cost of doing business," he said.

I've been arguing for several years now that regulators should act to prohibit these kinds of fees, given they're effectively false advertising. Advertise one price, then sock consumers with a much higher price by burying ordinary costs of doing business below the line. It's predatory anti-consumer behavior however you'd like to slice it, yet telecom regulators simply couldn't care less.

That regulatory apathy comes at a steep price for consumers collectively. While only $0.61 per person each month, it should net AT&T some $500 million in additional cash annually. In other words, AT&T will take an additional $2.5 billion from consumers over the next five years for doing absolutely nothing.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

I don't like it myself, and it should be grounds for FTC(false advertising) action, but the FCC isn't the agency to deal with this.

And it isn't exactly a stealth charge. EVERYONE knows about these below the line fees(even if they hate them) and you can see what they are on the carrier web sites and BEFORE SIGNING the contract for service at a carrier store or online.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

Right but for current customers tha does nothing while on contract. I called in multiple times to be released from the contract due to change of terms, no dice.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

Theeeeeeeen you're not good at what you're doing.. it's grounds for terminating the contract. The low end low quality reps on the phone have no idea about this and will continue to press the issue that you can't do it... often you have to ask for a REAL supervisor, and not another representative that wants to take "another angry customer" hand-off call.

I used one of these fees to end my contract with Sprint.. went through the same thing.. you have to get the right person.. believe me, normal call center people aren't trained on this part of contact relations.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

Well, this is AT&T and not Sprint. Besides as high of a supervisor I could talk to I guess I could go regional and send a letter, but everything I tried did not work. In the past I have had the ability to leave without and ETF over horrible signal issues, so I think I know what I am doing.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

It doesn't matter the carrier.. rules are rules.. contract law is contract law. But what ever... I forgot about all the experts that reside on this site. Go on your way.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

Never said I was an expert, did I? No. I pointed to the fact that it is a different carrier who may be more flexible than AT&T, that's all. Are you a contract lawyer yourself?

tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

1 recommendation

tc1uscg

Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

said by ptrowski:

Never said I was an expert, did I? No. I pointed to the fact that it is a different carrier who may be more flexible than AT&T, that's all. Are you a contract lawyer yourself?

I'll answer that. NOPE!
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to ptrowski

Premium Member

to ptrowski
Don't need to be.. but you're the one saying "no".. and I'm saying yes.. read your contract.. and also understand what contract law is. I also do have association with many attorneys that know quite a bit.. don't like it, that's your issue, not mine.
Expand your moderator at work

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578 to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

Most well-written contracts include provisions for adding additional charges like taxes and gov't mandated fees which won't void the other contract terms. But this one sounds like neither.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

That is correct... Comcast tried this one with the "cable modem FEE" change they pulled. Contracts allow for government mandated changes because those are, well, mandates by the government that can change at anytime outside the confides of a contract. However, a FEE to this degree is not mandates and is part of a base service or rate charged by the carrier. Changing this or forcing the change on any contracted user is a material change in the agreement and thus voids the contract.. or, allows the 30 days out ability.

Comcast tried to call the modem a "FEE" in order to suffice the term of the agreement which allows them to change "fees" as described in the agreement.. their logic was flawed. I was able to avoid their adding a modem "fee" which was basically equipment "RENTAL" on my contract that specified no equipment rental charges... it was a nice try on their part.. and very underhanded and low if you ask me. This one slipped under the radar to many... but a "fee" is one imposed by the government which is what their contracts allowed for.

But what AT&T is adding to contracted users is in essence a rate increase to the users and violate the terms of the agreement.

If the carriers want to continue to play these games, they REALLY need to just contract the device, and leave the service out of the "agreements".. they'd win in the end.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

it's grounds for terminating the contract.

...

I used one of these fees to end my contract with Sprint.. went through the same thing.. you have to get the right person.. believe me, normal call center people aren't trained on this part of contact relations.

Can't speak for Sprint or AT&T, but Verizon added verbiage to their contract to stop you from doing this. Now you can only cancel the contract if they refuse to reverse the charges that you object to. What they'll do now is refund you the $0.61/mo fee until your contract is up.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103 to ptrowski

Member

to ptrowski
I went through the BBB and had a $25 credit applied

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

said by en103:

I went through the BBB and had a $25 credit applied

Excellent, I will try that as well. Thanks!

Xioden
Premium Member
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY

Xioden to ptrowski

Premium Member

to ptrowski
said by »www.reddit.com/r/technol ··· /ca4mgcb :

"REPEAT, AND KEEP REPEATING THAT YOU ARE CANCELLING YOUR CONTRACT AND WILL NOT PAY A TERMINATION FEE BECAUSE THE RATE HAS BEEN INCREASED FOR IDENTICAL SERVICES"

If they still refuse to budge, sue them in small claims court. There's a pretty good chance they won't show and just end up paying whatever the default judgement ends up being.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
not stealthy? if this is part of the cost of getting the service, the carrier needs to be UP FRONT about it. Not stash it away on their website. It should be right there with the monthly fees. hell, they should throw it in with the regular monthly fee. This should be as simple as possible for the consumer. But then again this is what you get when you deal with AT&T.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

said by ArrayList:

. But then again this is what you get when you deal with AT&T.

And all the other carriers too. NOT just an AT&T failing.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

not true. T-Mobile has yet to do this to me, read my post further down the thread.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

said by ArrayList:

not true. T-Mobile has yet to do this to me, read my post further down the thread.

»www.examiner.com/article ··· -company

It is true that the other Big Four carriers have similar administrative fees. In fact, both Verizon and Sprint actually have higher administrative line charges. Meanwhile, T-Mobile bundles its administrative fees in with regulatory charges, so it is difficult to tell how much it charges.

And what you describe sounds like the TMO pre-pay plan and not their 2 yr contract. Lets compare apples to apples.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

quote:
T-Mobile bundles its administrative fees in with regulatory charges, so it is difficult to tell how much it charges
The customer doesn't have to care about the fees if they are bundled in with the price. When they are not, they can be changed whenever at the carriers discretion. It's a sneaky way to increase the costs of the service without giving the customer a way to get out of it. It is anti-competitive at most.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9 to ArrayList

Member

to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:

not stealthy? if this is part of the cost of getting the service, the carrier needs to be UP FRONT about it. Not stash it away on their website. It should be right there with the monthly fees. hell, they should throw it in with the regular monthly fee. This should be as simple as possible for the consumer. But then again this is what you get when you deal with AT&T.

+1

This is what the airline industry was forced to do. I've considered post-paid cell service, but wasn't about to sign up for anything until I knew the WHOLE story on cost. Chat reps, phone reps, nobody could answer the question, "what will my total bottom-line cost be per month, including all taxes and fees?"

I went as far as going through the whole checkout process at a different carrier websites-- short of pushing the final Submit button. NONE of them reflected the entire bottom line, and I know this because I already had a very clear idea going in what to expect, from looking at the bills of family members.

Even when I was specifically looking for those fees to be revealed during the checkout process, they were hidden. So I decided to go the no-contract pre-paid route and never regretted it. The savings is $20-30/month cheaper for basically the same features.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

I just found out my first regret with t-mobile prepaid. NO ROAMING DATA. it sucks, but I will learn to live with it.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

1 recommendation

elray to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I don't like it myself, and it should be grounds for FTC(false advertising) action, but the FCC isn't the agency to deal with this.

And it isn't exactly a stealth charge. EVERYONE knows about these below the line fees(even if they hate them) and you can see what they are on the carrier web sites and BEFORE SIGNING the contract for service at a carrier store or online.

No, its not stealth, and its NOT false advertising, and its not "buried" as Karl claims. The charges are all there for to see, and as you say, everyone knows they exist.

The problem here is that most "consumer advocates", and I'll take the liberty of lumping Karl in that group, are also tax-happy, so they're blind to the fact that it is below-the-line taxes that allow these other niggling charges to exist.

Unless we're willing to put industry AND government under the same rules - and indeed, "hide" the taxes and fees, so only the corporate tax accountancy office is dealing with them, we will see more and more fee-creep.

toby
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA

toby

Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

said by elray:

said by FFH5:

I don't like it myself, and it should be grounds for FTC(false advertising) action, but the FCC isn't the agency to deal with this.

And it isn't exactly a stealth charge. EVERYONE knows about these below the line fees(even if they hate them) and you can see what they are on the carrier web sites and BEFORE SIGNING the contract for service at a carrier store or online.

No, its not stealth, and its NOT false advertising, and its not "buried" as Karl claims. The charges are all there for to see, and as you say, everyone knows they exist.

The problem here is that most "consumer advocates", and I'll take the liberty of lumping Karl in that group, are also tax-happy, so they're blind to the fact that it is below-the-line taxes that allow these other niggling charges to exist.

Unless we're willing to put industry AND government under the same rules - and indeed, "hide" the taxes and fees, so only the corporate tax accountancy office is dealing with them, we will see more and more fee-creep.

Yes it is false advertising if you don't know what the price will be before buy a plan.

The people in the store won't know what your final monthly price will be, no one knows.

The monthly cost should include ALL charges, no reason why it could not.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Re: Don't like it myself; but it is NOT stealthy

said by toby:

Yes it is false advertising if you don't know what the price will be before buy a plan.

No, it isn't. The FTC and the courts have long established that disclosing extra charges in fine print overcomes any such claim.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to elray

Member

to elray
said by elray:

No, its not stealth, and its NOT false advertising, and its not "buried" as Karl claims. The charges are all there for to see, and as you say, everyone knows they exist.

Putting "fees" for the cost of doing business into a contract after the price is agreed upon is all of those things Karl claims. We aren't talking about government collected/mandated fees that are based on sale price. We are talking about spontaneous appearing and raising fees for the cost of doing business.

Regardless of how you try to defend it, but if McDonald's advertises a Big Mac meal for $5.49 and that is what you order but then suddenly see that your total is $12.99 because there is an order taking fee, ketchup fee and trash collection fee then they have falsely advertised the price of that meal. NOT MATTER HOW YOU SPIN IT.

The worse of all this is the morons at AT&T include contract customers in this because they know most will NOT call in and just take it in the rear if they even realize it to begin with.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to elray

Premium Member

to elray
said by elray:

The problem here is that most "consumer advocates", and I'll take the liberty of lumping Karl in that group, are also tax-happy,

... and everyone can basically quit reading anything else after seeing that.

NotHereNow
@verizon.net

NotHereNow to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
Stealthy... another way to say "hide in plain sight" (so "stealthy" is as good a way to describe it as anything).

thedragonmas
Premium Member
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180

thedragonmas to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

And it isn't exactly a stealth charge. EVERYONE knows about these below the line fees(even if they hate them) and you can see what they are on the carrier web sites and BEFORE SIGNING the contract for service at a carrier store or online.

oh yeah? i just tried Tmobles site because i wanted to compare to my current plan, it states that for 3 lines total and 500mb data it would be "$90/mo*" now thats before any taxes and "unfees" know what the fine print says?
2Total due monthly: This is the normal amount you will be charged every month for your continued service (it does not include charges for content, other services, taxes, and fees) and monthly device payments, as applicable. In addition to your normal monthly cost, your first bill will include a pro-rated charge for your first partial month of service. Any non-recurring charges (e.g., app purchases) you incur will appear on your bill the next month. Not applicable for T-Mobile Pay In Advance customers.


so uhm where in that fine print does it state the fee's taxes? when i hit up t-mo's twitter to try and get a full price i get told to call their "store"
T-Mobile USA @TMobileHelp 9h

@[me] We aren't able to estimate your state taxes or fees, you can always call your local store: »locator.t-mobile.com/ ^MG


their store is walmart, guess who they tell me to talk to? thats right, t-mo..

so, not stealthy, flat out hidden.

josephf
join:2009-04-26

1 recommendation

josephf

Member

Attn All AT&T Customers: Cancel Your Line Without an ETF!

Take advantage of this opportunity. Every AT&T customer under contract would be wise to cancel service and avoid any ETF due to this AT&T price change against their original contract.

Then you can signup with any carrier and upgrade your phone subsidized from your new service provider or even better yet use your existing phone with a month-to-month or prepaid plan and pay significantly less per month for your cellular service.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Attn All AT&T Customers: Cancel Your Line Without an ETF!

said by josephf:

Then you can signup with any carrier and upgrade your phone subsidized from your new service provider or even better yet use your existing phone with a month-to-month or prepaid plan and pay significantly less per month for your cellular service.

The other carriers all have these below the line fees. Why jump ship and move?

•••••

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski to josephf

Premium Member

to josephf
I have called in multiple times to do just that, they always tell me since it is not a change on the contract price they will not budge. Tried supervisors, phone, chat, nothing.

•••••
dylking
join:2001-07-31
Saint Paul, MN

dylking

Member

Not just AT&T

I've been arguing for several years now that regulators should act to prohibit these kinds of fees, given they're effectively false advertising.
Like Ticketmaster - 100 tickets to Wicked cost 150 bucks thanks to taxes and 'fees'. At least they don't have the 'print your own ticket fee' my P!nk concert tickets had

I know, derail sorta. Just wanted to point out that this kind of activity isn't just in the telcomm arena.
SpectrumDude
join:2002-04-14
Kernersville, NC

SpectrumDude

Member

ATT is like

An abusive relationship, you want to leave but you dont want to start over with someone else.
Since AT&T has the FCC in their pocket good luck getting the laws changed.
But is sounds like it may be time to think about another break up like we had in the 80s.

Just sayin
tivoboy
join:2004-05-10
Menlo Park, CA

tivoboy

Member

free phone

maybe that is why they JUST started offering free upgrades to iphone 5 for current iphone 4s users who are not currently eligible..with 2 yr. extension.
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

1 recommendation

Kamus

Member

Who says money doesn't grow on trees?

All you need is permission from the government.

There may be some people that admire companies like AT&T and / or Verizon because they "spend billions of dollars on spectrum"

Just who do you think foots the bill? It's not them at all. It's the end user that does it. So we're basically giving away our most valuable spectrum for free (and making sure no one else can use it, even if the spectrum "owner" isn't using it there), so they can make billions of dollars on their own terms.

These companies should be HEAVILY regulated. The mere fact that the government has to license the spectrum means this is a public service and regulations should be in place for all companies that want to use it or abuse it.
The current state of telco providers reminds me of Enron a little too much.

I am almost certain that within my lifetime companies like AT&T will be irrelevant because advancements in technology will make their business model obsolete. But until then, the people running these companies are some of the few people on earth that consistently win the lottery on a monthly basis. And we're buying all the tickets with their name on it.

••••

King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium Member
join:2004-11-17
Murfreesboro, TN

King P

Premium Member

Exactly why I use Pre-Paid

I dumped Sprint over a year ago, and moved on to several MVNOs that use AT&Ts network. The price I see, is the price I pay. I can put any GSM/AT&T compatible phone on it, and it will work just like I was paying AT&T for it. No fees, no crap. Pre-paid is the solution.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Exactly why I use Pre-Paid

They are still trying to grow the Pre-Paid market and compete with each other for Pre-paid.

Logic and history dictates that once they are satisfied that this market is mature, and that they are stable, they will begin the below the line price increases in pre-paid as well. The simple fact is there is not enough competition, and little Government regulation, so this is INEVITABLE.
mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Santa Maria, CA

mlcarson

Member

1 cent service

Why not just advertise service for a penny and then tack on $100 in BS fees and be done with it. This kind of crap is all done for marketing reasons. It's kind of nice to be able to advertise cheap service and then just make up for it in monthly fees. We need a truth in advertising law that forces these companies to advertise the true cost after all fees and taxes.

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

skeechan

Premium Member

Fraudsters

Why not just may service $0.01 and have great junk fees like the parking lot restriping recovery fee, water cooler recovery fee and send the CEO's kids to Columbia recovery fee?

Where is the frakkin' FTC?

Trimline
Premium Member
join:2004-10-24
Windermere, FL

Trimline

Premium Member

Funny You Should Mention That

After 12 years of service with AT&T, I just switch to Boost Mobile, last night! Granted, it's really not an all you can eat (pretty close though), the bill will actually go down, instead of up, every 6 months. Since I started with AT&T, the bill has always gone up.

Not any longer.


•••

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Hey karl, I thought this fee was for e911?

I thought (or saw on the news recently) that all carriers were going to have fees because of the e-911 system and such? I thought that was what this new fee was for? it was on kmov channel 4's newscast. Something to the effect the e911 was going to be a fee on cell phones now because there are few POTS lines anymore and to make up the difference they were putting fees on the cell phone plans and such. did I miss something?

It's funny you mention the sixty-one cents only because that number stuck out in my head when channel 4 was stating it was for e911

Color me slightly cornfused now.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

didn't T

get fined for something a while back?

well guess who gets to pay for it?

tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

tc1uscg

Member

Don't they all do it?

Sprint's been doing this for over a couple of years and no one, not even the FCC took it anywhere. SO to all you AT&T customers, welcome aboard.
donkeywaffle
Serf
join:2000-09-25
Winchester, VA

donkeywaffle

Member

To help defray my postage cost...

Wonder how well AT&T would like it if I instituted a $1.00 'Paying the Bill' fee and deducted it from my balance due? /sarc

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

Sneaky fees are a staple of every wireless bill

An article on the BGR site today:

Sneaky fees are a staple of every wireless bill
By Brad Reedon, BGR - June 6, 2013
»bgr.com/2013/06/06/month ··· nalysis/