Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:27:54 GMT, Beachcomber wrote:

> For younger readers who might not perhaps be aware of the history, the
> name AT&T is an attempt to invoke the feelings of quality,
> reliability, and high standards of telephone service that existed
> since before 1900 and lasted well into the 1970's before the big
> break-up. The AT&T Corporation provided something like 80 to 90% of
> the local telephone service in this USA and near 100% of the long
> distance service.
>
> Everyone from the operators to the local installers were long-term
> experienced employees rigidly drilled in providing good customer
> service. It was a bureaucracy to be sure, but the people sure did
> know their stuff.
>
> These new AT&T companies exist as AT&T in name only. I've found that
> many of the service people at AT&T Wireless don't even know how to
> work the features on their own cell phones.

I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of
college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and built
was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones
used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built
like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant.

Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began. Cheap
imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing service quality
degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on both the hardware and
customer support side. We all know the state of the landline telephone
service today. No wonder most young people don't even get a landline
phone, what with the costs of owning one. Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes,
and charges for options like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for
free.

FWIW, the only landline phone I have is for my business. The main house
phone is VOIP, and my family uses cell phones for other calls.

CellGuy wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:27:54 GMT, Beachcomber wrote:
>
>> For younger readers who might not perhaps be aware of the history, the
>> name AT&T is an attempt to invoke the feelings of quality,
>> reliability, and high standards of telephone service that existed
>> since before 1900 and lasted well into the 1970's before the big
>> break-up. The AT&T Corporation provided something like 80 to 90% of
>> the local telephone service in this USA and near 100% of the long
>> distance service.
>>
>> Everyone from the operators to the local installers were long-term
>> experienced employees rigidly drilled in providing good customer
>> service. It was a bureaucracy to be sure, but the people sure did
>> know their stuff.
>>
>> These new AT&T companies exist as AT&T in name only. I've found that
>> many of the service people at AT&T Wireless don't even know how to
>> work the features on their own cell phones.
>
> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of
> college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and built
> was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones
> used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built
> like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant.

They were built to last because in most cases the phone company owned
them and had to replace/repair them.
>
> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began. Cheap
> imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing service quality
> degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on both the hardware and
> customer support side. We all know the state of the landline telephone
> service today. No wonder most young people don't even get a landline
> phone, what with the costs of owning one. Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes,
> and charges for options like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for
> free.

What many people do not understand is how that anti-trust case
changed. Originally,under Carter, the plan was to separate the
manufacturing and the dial tones. AT&T controlled most of the local
telcos and overcharged them and the telcos simply passed those costs on
to the customers.
The Reagan Justice Department altered the case to have AT&T spin off
the local carriers.
There have been some advantages. When I first moved west I would look
at my clock before making a long distance call as rates dropped at 5
p.m. and again at 11.I made most of my non-business calls on weekends.
I used to be in the phone card business ands,of course, at one time
the only cards were AT&T.
What has not changed is on the local end business customers subsidize
residential users.
>
> FWIW, the only landline phone I have is for my business. The main house
> phone is VOIP, and my family uses cell phones for other calls.
>

CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote in
news:17cmnlmmahub8.1tb7ygjt7qjql.dlg@40tude.net:

> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out
> of college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed
> and built was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The
> Bell telephones used at home and in phone booths also met this
> standard. They were built like a brick. Service was great, and call
> clarity was excellant.
>
> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began.
> Cheap imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing
> service quality degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on
> both the hardware and customer support side. We all know the state
> of the landline telephone service today. No wonder most young people
> don't even get a landline phone, what with the costs of owning one.
> Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes, and charges for options like
> voicemail that cellular carriers offer for free.
>

How'd you get an engineering degree without learning how to spell?
What university was that, anyways?

Didn't anyone at Bell Labs notice??

George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in news:eoYVj.3501$3O7.3272
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:

> There have been some advantages. When I first moved west I would
look
> at my clock before making a long distance call as rates dropped at 5
> p.m. and again at 11.I made most of my non-business calls on weekends.
> I used to be in the phone card business ands,of course, at one time
> the only cards were AT&T.
>

The Bells did everything they could to prevent ham radio operators from
connecting their ham radios to the phone system. Then, when that didn't
work, they got with their FCC buddies to make sure most any call was
against FCC regulations. It's still that way, even today.

Back in the days you're talking about, we'd make a collect, person-to-
person, long distance call to Mr Melvin Schultz to the ham's house phone
we wanted to get on our favorite 75 meter frequency, 3903 Khz. Melvin,
of course, didn't exist and was never home to take the call, and the Bell
operator terminated the call, but not before alerting the ham the call
was to that someone wanted him on the air.

Sometimes, this scam backfired. Someone would call you and forget to
make it COLLECT so YOU'd have to pay if you accepted. The usual response
to those not-collect calls was, "This is Melvin Schultz, who's that
calling? Hello? Hello?".....which would cost the caller about $5/second
for the person-to-person long distance scam, operator-assisted (Miss
Tomlin of the Telephone Company) call. Of course, the joke would be all
over 3903 Khz most of the night ribbing the caller for the faux
pas...until something else diverted their attention or they were too
drunk to talk any more...(c;

73 DE W4CSC

Anybody ever play with a Blue Box?

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote
> CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote

>> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right
>> out of college and can support this statement. All equiment we
>> designed and built was to meet an operating life of 20 years
>> minimum. The Bell telephones used at home and in phone booths also
>> met this standard. They were built like a brick. Service was
>> great, and call clarity was excellant.

>> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began.
>> Cheap imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing
>> service quality degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on
>> both the hardware and customer support side. We all know the state
>> of the landline telephone service today. No wonder most young
>> people don't even get a landline phone, what with the costs of
>> owning one. Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes, and charges for options
>> like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for free.

> How'd you get an engineering degree without learning how to spell?

Plenty of engineers cant spell for nuts. Me included.

> What university was that, anyways?

> Didn't anyone at Bell Labs notice??

Anyone with a clue has always noticed that with engineers.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:68sib8F2tdhobU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Anyone with a clue has always noticed that with engineers.
>
>

Someone musta proofread Bill Shockley's papers.....(c;

Larry wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:68sib8F2tdhobU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> Anyone with a clue has always noticed that with engineers.
>>
>>
>
> Someone musta proofread Bill Shockley's papers.....(c;
>

It wouldn't surprise me. Using a preefrooder is the smart thing to do;
particularly if you are an engineer!

Of course Word checks both spelling and grammar. Go Engineers!!!!

On Tue, 13 May 2008 02:00:24 +0000, Larry wrote:

> CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote in
> news:17cmnlmmahub8.1tb7ygjt7qjql.dlg@40tude.net:
>
>> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out
>> of college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed
>> and built was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The
>> Bell telephones used at home and in phone booths also met this
>> standard. They were built like a brick. Service was great, and call
>> clarity was excellant.
>>
>> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began.
>> Cheap imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing
>> service quality degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on
>> both the hardware and customer support side. We all know the state
>> of the landline telephone service today. No wonder most young people
>> don't even get a landline phone, what with the costs of owning one.
>> Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes, and charges for options like
>> voicemail that cellular carriers offer for free.
>>
>
> How'd you get an engineering degree without learning how to spell?
> What university was that, anyways?
>

"Equiment" was a typo and I have been known to misspell "excellent"
University of South Carolina? <G>.

> Didn't anyone at Bell Labs notice??

No, we were all too busy figuring out ways to screw our customers.

CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote in news:1ctxawp1f67yn
$.mzi912ctzmpj.dlg@40tude.net:

> University of South Carolina

Ahh.....NOW I understand....(c;


Gamecocks in the ENGLISH department can't spell!

>
> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of
> college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and
> built
> was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones
> used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built
> like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant.
>

And right now, I use a VOIP provider which more or less is accross the
street from Bell Labs and its Vonage. I grew up a 20-30 min bicycle ride
from Bell Labs Holmdel.

Michael N. Paris wrote:
>
>>
>> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of
>> college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and
>> built
>> was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones
>> used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built
>> like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant.
>>
>
> And right now, I use a VOIP provider which more or less is accross the
> street from Bell Labs and its Vonage. I grew up a 20-30 min bicycle
> ride from Bell Labs Holmdel.

Isn't there a discussion and what to use the Holmdel facility for?
One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem you
called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring or
outside they fixed it.

On May 10, 11:38 am, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist> wrote:
> "George Grapman" <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:njjVj.81$hJ5.59@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > LDC wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company,
> >>>> SBC
> >>>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed
> >>>> themselves
> >>>> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
> >>>> recognition.
> >>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
>
> >> That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of
> >> Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC
> >> and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole
> >> owner of Cingular.
>
> > Cingular was originally AT&T wireless. The name changed when it was sold
> > to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle except for the fact
> > that AT&T is AT&T in name only.
>
> Yup, in 20 years we've gone from "ATT" through seven baby bells right on
> back to "att"....Karma I suppose....
>
> I wonder how much the logo design firm was paid who told them go from all
> CAPS to lower case?

Except now the HQ is in Texas, and we all know how well Texans can
manage large organizations...hint $4 gas...JG

At 14 May 2008 14:32:30 -0700 William Souden wrote:

> One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem
> you called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring
> or outside they fixed it.

True. But then again, with what we used to pay, we should've each had our
own personal repairman on standby.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 14 May 2008 14:32:30 -0700 William Souden wrote:
>
>> One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem
>> you called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring
>> or outside they fixed it.
>
> True. But then again, with what we used to pay, we should've each had our
> own personal repairman on standby.
>
>
>
Agreed. At one time you had to rent everything from the phone
company. They also charged monthly fees for things like an extension
phone on the same line. Now that I think of it the cable people used to
charge for a second tv getting basic cable. When they were forced to
stop the practice they warned people about imaginary hazards of hooking
up a second tv on your own (they are allowed to charge for doing the
cabling).

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-05-14, William Souden <souden@nospam.com> wrote:
> Agreed. At one time you had to rent everything from the phone
> company. They also charged monthly fees for things like an extension
> phone on the same line. Now that I think of it the cable people used to
> charge for a second tv getting basic cable. When they were forced to
> stop the practice they warned people about imaginary hazards of hooking
> up a second tv on your own (they are allowed to charge for doing the
> cabling).

And for rental of extra converter boxes and remotes (I think our extra box is
$5/month and the extra remote is $2).

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol