Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32
  1. #1
    Joe
    Guest




  2. #2
    George Grapman
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    Joe wrote:
    > http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html



    I have a simple way of disputing bills:

    Always use a credit card. This puts more power in your hands.

    Waste little time with the front line people. Politely request a
    supervisor. If the supervisor refuses to help tell them that you plan to
    dispute the charge. Remind them that it takes a lot more work on their
    end than on yours. Tell them that when the company replies you will tell
    them you disputed it because ________was unwilling to help.

    Never accept "I can not do that". Tell them you believe they will not
    do it but you know that they can. If they disagree ask what they would
    do if their boss told them to do that.

    If all else fails get the companies main number, not the toll free
    customer service but corporate headquarters (yahoo finance usually has
    that under "profile"). Ask for the executive offices or the legal
    department. You will not get a CEO or senior v-p but you usually will
    get someone whose job includes keeping problems away from upper management.



  3. #3
    George Grapman
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    George Grapman wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html

    >
    >
    > I have a simple way of disputing bills:
    >
    > Always use a credit card. This puts more power in your hands.
    >
    > Waste little time with the front line people. Politely request a
    > supervisor. If the supervisor refuses to help tell them that you plan to
    > dispute the charge. Remind them that it takes a lot more work on their
    > end than on yours. Tell them that when the company replies you will tell
    > them you disputed it because ________was unwilling to help.
    >
    > Never accept "I can not do that". Tell them you believe they will not
    > do it but you know that they can. If they disagree ask what they would
    > do if their boss told them to do that.
    >
    > If all else fails get the companies main number, not the toll free
    > customer service but corporate headquarters (yahoo finance usually has
    > that under "profile"). Ask for the executive offices or the legal
    > department. You will not get a CEO or senior v-p but you usually will
    > get someone whose job includes keeping problems away from upper management.



    P.S. Two things that often get their attention:

    Consumer fraud.

    Small Claims Court.



  4. #4
    Frank
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless


    "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]m...
    > http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html


    Never had any problems with AT&T until Cingular took over. Big difference
    when AT&T was just AT&T with billing issues resolved quickly over the phone.
    My experience with Cingular is you just go around and around and nothing
    would be resolved even after they agree to it verbally. I just don't do
    business with Cingular or Sprint. Wish the old AT&T were back though.





  5. #5
    George
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    Frank wrote:
    > "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]m...
    >> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html

    >
    > Never had any problems with AT&T until Cingular took over. Big difference
    > when AT&T was just AT&T with billing issues resolved quickly over the phone.
    > My experience with Cingular is you just go around and around and nothing
    > would be resolved even after they agree to it verbally. I just don't do
    > business with Cingular or Sprint. Wish the old AT&T were back though.
    >
    >

    You haven't been keeping up. Cingular is gone and the remake of the
    original AT&T (not the AT&T previous to cingular) is back. Here is a
    helpful video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZErX...eature=related



  6. #6
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless


    "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]m...
    > http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html


    A brandy new webpage devoted to a "wrong" committed four year before?

    No offense, but while I don't put huge billing errors past companies like
    this, I do think they have better ways of making money than outright fraud,
    particularly when I've never seen anyone ELSE complain about "redated calls"
    either on Usenet or HowardForums.

    Unless this is a particular fraud they only committed on the web page
    author?

    Sorry- this story smells way too fishy- billing systems are all automated-
    no one is "sneaking" extra calls to any one person's account, and it
    concerns a company, frankly, that's no longer in business- the "AT&T
    Wireless" complained about in the article (that had no relationship with
    "AT&T" other than licensing the name) was bought by Cingular years ago. The
    fact that Southwestern Bell (the owner of Cingular,) years later, also
    bought AT&T (the long distance phone company) and renamed itself and it's
    wireless company "AT&T" is essentially coincidence, and not the same company
    our author is whining about.

    Ironically, BTW, is there a reason you didn't add the AT&T or Cingular
    newsgroups in your scattershot list? It would seem they have better need
    for this "warning" than Sprint or Verizon customers. (Of course, there it'd
    only generate a bunch of "funny, that's never happed to me" responses...)








  7. #7
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    At 09 May 2008 09:23:03 -0400 beadsbyirene wrote:
    >
    > Where have you been the past year? There is no Cingular anymore.
    > ATT bought
    > them out. If you're getting lousy service you're getting it from ATT

    which
    > normally doesn't give 'lousy' service. Their service is usually
    > 'abominable'.



    *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.






  8. #8
    Pangloss
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > At 09 May 2008 09:23:03 -0400 beadsbyirene wrote:
    >>
    >> Where have you been the past year? There is no Cingular anymore.
    >> ATT bought
    >> them out. If you're getting lousy service you're getting it from ATT

    > which
    >> normally doesn't give 'lousy' service. Their service is usually
    >> 'abominable'.

    >
    >
    > *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...





  9. #9
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    At 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400 Pangloss 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...


    Almost- SBC (now AT&T) bought BellSouth who owned 40% of Cingular (SBC
    owned the other 60%.)

    I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was always
    a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T and BS, SBC
    was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.





  10. #10
    LDC
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <[email protected]>
    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.



  11. #11
    George Grapman
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    LDC wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <[email protected]>
    > 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.



  12. #12
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was
    > always a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T
    > and BS, SBC was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.
    >
    >


    A tangled web we weave.....(c;

    BTW, the correct reference achronym for BS is actually B$, at least in
    South Carolina....
    Bell$outh....

    ,,,,sorta like Micro$oft.




  13. #13
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

    At 10 May 2008 08:37:56 -0700 George Grapman wrote:

    > > 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.


    No, it wasn't. "Cingular" was created by the consolidation of regional
    wireless carriers SBMS (Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems), BellSouth
    Mobility and PacTel. AT&T Wireless was a separate wireless company that
    existed contemporaneously with those regional carriers and was once owned by,
    then spun off of AT&T (the long distance company leftover from the Ma Bell
    breakup) long before Cingular acquired it.

    > 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.


    Kinda sorta- Cingular was created as a seperate company owned by SBC (60%)
    and BellSouth (40%.) Cingular bought AT&T Wireless (which was no longer
    part of AT&T, but had a license to use the AT&T name, which expired when
    Cingular bought them.)

    When SBC later bought AT&T (the long distance company) they renamed
    themselves AT&T, but didn't rename Cingular, due to BellSouth's objection.
    When SBC (now calling themselves AT&T) bought BellSouth a year later, that
    eliminated the objection to rename Cingular "AT&T Mobility."

    Ironically, the old AT&T Wireless (which Cingular bought) was only months
    away from having to rename themselves- their two-year license to use the
    name AT&T was about to expire, and AT&T (the LD company) was about to
    launch their own new wireless service as a Sprint MVNO (Mobile Virtual
    Network Operator.) SBC's purchase of AT&T scuttled that deal.






  14. #14
    Beachcomber
    Guest

    Re: A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless


    >Ironically, BTW, is there a reason you didn't add the AT&T or Cingular
    >newsgroups in your scattershot list? It would seem they have better need
    >for this "warning" than Sprint or Verizon customers. (Of course, there it'd
    >only generate a bunch of "funny, that's never happed to me" responses...)
    >


    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.



  15. #15
    CellGuy
    Guest

    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.




  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast