A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless

http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html

---

› See More: 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.

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.

"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ec44be4c-c79d-4ef8-bce5-0846bc01dfd9@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

Frank wrote:
> "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ec44be4c-c79d-4ef8-bce5-0846bc01dfd9@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> 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

"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ec44be4c-c79d-4ef8-bce5-0846bc01dfd9@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> 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...)

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.

"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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.