AAA Matilda (Search Engine)
http://www.aaa.com.au/world/america/
Don't let AT&T get away with charging
you for nothing! FIGHT BACK!
It CAN work! (To some extent anyway.)
This page contains a large amount of text, but hopefully you, the gentle
reader, will take the time to read it in it's entirety, in order to get the
full message here.
This page contains actual email correspondence between AT&T and a former
customer of theirs. The headers of the email have been removed on this page
for the purpose of clarity, but the complete emails including all header
information is stored and backed up and is available for the purpose of any
legal action that may be taken against AT&T. Any and all complete information
shall be given to any law enforcement authorities, upon proof of their identity,
that might request such information and any such requests may be sent to
[email protected].
The intent of this page is to warn the people of the world about AT&T.
No copyright exists or shall be construed or enforced regarding the complete
content of this page. Anyone in the world is welcome to use any part of of
this page as long as the intent of this page is not compromised in such
use.
This page demonstrates the apparent lack of rational thinking and the apparent
stupidity of representatives of AT&T's customer service. It also demonstrates
a willingness on AT&T's part to side-step issues brought to them by their
customers. It also demonstrates an effort by AT&T to dissuade their
customers from realizing honest and open responses from AT&T. It further
demonstrates what can only be interpretted as either a scam or a lack
of adequate record keeping on the part of AT&T. In fairness, after much
hassle, I must add that this page also demonstrates that certain representatives
of AT&T can be sympathetic and helpful, if and when you can find them,
which can take lots of time and persistence. A complaint has been filed with
the FCC against AT&T in this matter.
The communications shown below start with the earliest and proceed to the
latest. The first communication was a customer service form that was filled
out on an AT&T web page. The email then followed. Then some results of
phone conversations are outlined. The name and account number and any identifying
information has been ommitted on this page for the purpose of privacy of
the abused customer. AT&T is fully aware of who it is because he has
contacted them and told them of this page. The column on the right contains
comments and thoughts of the abused customer and is soley his opinion and
not necessarily the opinion of the owner of this web space. Actually, the
owner of this web space is completely sympathic to the individual whose opinions
are expressed herein.
All the communications shown here actually happened and are demonstratable
with original emails if the need should arise.
| customer name: Xxxx Xxxxxx e-mail address: [email protected] source: ECare subject: AT&T Service Request category: Customer Assistance subcategory: Others subsubcategory: Others Customer Information: Telephone Number: (206) nnn-nnnn My most recent US West bill shows a charge from AT&T for $14.26. I called AT&T and found out that since September of 1997 I have paid AT&T $25.17. That makes a total of $39.43 that AT&T has billed me since September 16, 1997. I asked how many calls I have made using AT&T and the reply was "one call to Diamond Bar, CA for $1.68". I did indeed make that call, but that one call as far as my billing is concerned cost me $25.17 that I've already paid, plus a bill (which, by the way, I refuse to pay) for $14.26. Please DO NOT try to explain the Universal Connectivity Charge, the Carrier Line Charge or the Monthly Minimum Charge. I am NOT interested at all in your explanation of those charges. What I want to know is HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY CHARGING ME $39.43 WHEN THE ONLY SERVICES I HAVE RECEIVED FROM AT&T ARE ONE 6 MINUTE PHONE CALL TO CALIFORNIA??? Incidentally, nobody seems to be able to tell me who authorized AT&T to be my long distance out-of-state carrier in the first place! I have cancelled AT&T services through US West and have put a freeze (PIC) on all further out-of-state carriers. I will never pay the $14.26 AT&T charge on my current bill. US West says that's okay and my US West service will not be jeopardized and that the AT&T charge of $14.26 will simply be carried over to my next bill indefinitely. In other words, I will NEVER pay that AT&T potion of my bill. I feel that I am the victim of deception and theft. Do you think it is fair of you to charge me $39.43 for a six minute call from Seattle to Diamond Bar, California on March 15, 1999, which I have already paid for??? That is the total amount I've been billed, and that one call is the total services rendered. I do not think this is reasonable or fair and US West will not pursue collection as long as I pay the US West portion of the bill. Hopefully you (AT&T) will try to collect the $14.26 from me in order that we might deal directly in regards to these charges. I would like to settle this matter, but will continue to refuse to pay the AT&T portion of my current billing. My name is Xxxx Xxxxxx and I am authorized and on record with US West to handle this account (Account # 206-nnn-nnnn-nnn). |
I think this is a valid complaint. It's a lot to pay for next to nothing to a company that cannot produce evidence of ever being chosen by me to be my long distance carrier. |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Aug 24, 1999): *********************************************** Please note my response enclosed in asterisks below: *********************************************** On Wed, 25 August 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, We are dedicated to providing you with personalized service and to providing for all of your communication needs. We would welcome an additional opportunity to have you back as an AT&T customer and to re-establish your trust in us.
***************************************************** You are a valued online customer and we appreciate your business. If you need further assistance, please click Contact Us at the following URL: http://www.att.com/customer_service For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Tara
***************************************************** |
(NOTE: Here, I copied and pasted their response and then added comments
and sent it back to them.)
Notice how this starts with how sorry they are about my descision to cancel their service, while at the end of this letter they thank me for being a valued customer. They never really get over that part. It must be the way they end every communication regardless of circumstance or content. This is typical of their approach in any number of other matters as near as I can tell. And then, once again, Great God in Heaven! they're trying to solicit me again!!! What kind of fool do they take me for??? |
| On Thu, 26 August 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. I apologize for any inconvenience this ongoing issue may be causing you. Most long distance companies charge the same or similar charges. Below is a description of the charges you were billed. These charges will not be credited to your account. The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) permits local telephone companies to assess flat rate fees to long distance companies based on the number of telephone lines subscribed to the long distance company. These fees are used to assist local phone companies in covering their costs for connecting long distance calls to and from your residence. AT&T is recovering its costs for these flat fees through a separate charge on each residential customer's bill. This charge is called the Carrier Line Charge. For additional details on this charge, please visit the following URL: http://www.att.com/line_charge/ The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) requires AT&T and other long distance carriers to pay into the Universal Service Fund. This helps provide affordable telephone service and gives schools, libraries and rural healthcare providers access to the Internet. AT&T is recovering its costs for the required payments into this fund through a separate charge on each residential customer's bill. This charge is called the Universal Connectivity Charge. For additional details on this charge, please visit the following URL: http://www.att.com/connectivity_charge/ To compensate the costs associated with maintaining customer accounts, AT&T is implementing a Usage Minimum Charge. If you spend less than $3.00 a month in qualifying calls, your account will be charged the difference between what you use and $3.00. Qualifying calls include domestic and international direct-dialed long distance, local toll, AT&T Calling Card calls, operator handled calls and Directory Assistance. Taxes, Carrier Line Charge, and the Universal Connectivity Charge are excluded from the minimum usage calculation. You can obtain additional details about this charge at the following URL: http://www.att.com/usage_min/ If you need further assistance, please click Contact Us at the following URL: http://www.att.com/customer_service For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Jason |
Thanks for explaining THAT again to me for the gazillionth time. I also talked on the phone with AT&T customer service a number of times and they explained this stuff to me over and over, but that was not the issue as far as I am concerned. I want to know how they could expect anyone to pay that much money for one $1.68 call, since that is the only actual service I received. They are not addressing my concerns and only trying to mislead and misdirect me in this letter by citing all these absurd charges with official sounding names. |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Aug 26, 1999):
Yes, I already understood the charges that you have those fancy names for, which still does not change the fact that your records show me paying AT&T a total of $25.17 since Sept. 16, 1997 and a current billing of $14.26 while during the entire period since Sept. 16, 1997 I have placed only one call to California amounting to $1.68. What I'm saying is that this is NO BARGAIN. I think you would have to agree that $39.43 (less $1.68) is, from my wallet's point of view, quite a large charge for a six minute call, which is the only tangible service I received. Here is a communication I just sent to the consumer division of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC): I think the statement below will give you a better idea of my general complaint and confusion. I am aware that USW does not handle "long" long distance. I have already cancelled my AT&T service and put a PIC restraint on my USW account. There is a possibility that USW assigned AT&T to the account during its creation even though they now state that they do not automatically assign carriers in that manner. Maybe they did in the past -- nobody seems to know including the people I talked to at USW and AT&T. Here's a statement by me explaining (hopefully) some of my position: Here is, I hope, a better statement from me concerning the billing I received from AT&T (via US WEST): Account number 206-nnn-nnnn nnn nn was initiated on November 6, 1991 with US West by, and under the name of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, with Xxxx Xxxxxx (myself) being named as authorized to handle and be responsible for the account. US West claims that AT&T was somehow designated as being the long distance carrier for this account since the beginning of the account, although no records can be found stating who authorized AT&T to be the long distance carrier. AT&T claims to have received a service order from US West in November, 1991. They also claim that my service started at other dates. See below. When I asked AT&T (at least four different times, talking with at least four different AT&T representatives on the phone) when AT&T became my carrier they gave me at least four different answers including:
May 1, 1985 (account did not exist in 1985 so I assume they meant 1995).
The fact that they never gave me the same answer twice makes me wonder just what kind of authorization they have to go on, regarding me being billed by them. I'd be willing to bet that if I called them again they'd give me yet another date! I asked AT&T "What is the total amount of money that I have paid to AT&T for long distance service?" The reply was that their records only went back to September 16, 1997 and that I had been billed for and paid $25.17. I then asked how many long distance calls did they have records of me making and they said I had made one call to Diamond Bar, California on March 15, 1999 that lasted six minutes and cost $1.68. I did, indeed, make that call. I cannot contest the $1.68 charge to me by AT&T. My latest bill from US West dated August 16, 1999 shows a charge from AT&T for $14.26 and apparently is a billing encompassing two months. I made no long distance calls. The charges are for what they call "Universal Connectivity Charge", "Carrier Line Charge" and "Monthly Usage Minimum". Some points I would like to make are that, I always was under the impression that I was dealing with just one phone company, namely, US West. When I received the notice that AT&T claims I should have received (and probably did) that stated that they were going to be adding these charges to my bill, my assumption was automatically that this was US West talking to me and that the charges would be unavoidable and a normal part of US West's service. I didn't really take a good look at it all until I received my latest bill which was suddenly much larger than normal. The fact that US West is paid by AT&T to do AT&T's billing for them on the US West bill did nothing to help reveal to me that I was buying a service of which I wasn't aware. If I did the math right, it looks like I am paying about $7.13 a month to AT&T for making zero long distance calls and for some services with fancy names that they claim to be providing to me in spite of the fact that I am not making long distance calls using their service. Isn't there something really basic wrong with this scenario? The service is called "Long Distance"! What was I paying for? Certainly not long distance, except for the $1.68 call to California. I'm fairly certain AT&T has all their legalities covered and that ultimately I will end up paying. I just feel as though I have been overcharged and robbed by AT&T, who expresses no sympathy for me and seems only to add to the confusion by not really having a firm date of when my service started. The monetary amount involved here is trivial to me. The principals involved are not trivial to me. Something seems wrong here and I'm not a lawyer or expert in the field of telephone companies or their methods of operation, so I can't quite pin a name on what it is other than maybe "deception" or "theft" of some sort. Thank you for your time in this matter.
Xxxx Xxxxxx |
So I try to get it across to them again. |
| On Thu, 26 August 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. I realize you have already talked or written to us several times. I apologize for all of the confusion of different answers from our representatives. I would like to clarify the current charges on the August bill. The AT&T charges are for a three month bill cycle. The last bill you had AT&T charges on was the May statement. The minimum usage charge did not start until June 8th. The $6.00 is for June 8th to August 8th (two months at $3.00 each month). The Universal Connectivity Charge was $0.93 from May 8th to June 8th. The government raised the rate to $0.99 starting with June bills, therefore, $0.99 for two months from June 8th to August 8th would be $1.98. The Carrier Line Charge was $0.85 from May 8th to June 8th. Price was increased to $1.51 per month starting with June 8th to August 8th making a two month total of $3.02. These charges make up the total of $12.78 plus the taxes of $1.48 for a grand total of $14.26. You may avoid the $3.00 monthly minimum charge by signing up for the AT&T One Rate Online billing. I'm sorry I have no way of waiving the Universal Connectivity or Carrier Line charges. AT&T One Rate Online allows you to make state-to-state long distance calls from home for just 10 cents per minute with no monthly fee and the convenience of online billing. Your AT&T One Rate Online bill is automatically charged to your credit card or checking account each month. You can review your detailed online statement at your convenience from the secure AT&T Online Customer Service Site. You can enroll or obtain more information, at the following URL: http://www.catalog.att.com/cmd/eoffer/ **You must be an AT&T Long Distance customer to enroll in this plan. This plan is subject to billing availability and rates are subject to change. The only way to avoid all of these charges would be to call your local telephone company and have AT&T removed as the long distance carrier on this line. Again, I apologize for all the difficulty you have experienced with this. You are a valued customer and we appreciate your business. If you need further assistance, please contact us via the following URL: http://www.att.com/write/ For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Carol |
Oh, thanks so much for that "clarification!" What does that have to do with the complaint?
Now get this!!! They are trying to SOLICIT the distraught customer who is trying to complain!!! Gawd! What blatant idiocy! What nerve! Get out of here with that thing there! Hello? Is anyone in there? It's already a matter of record that I have already cancelled the AT&T service. Ineptitude seems to reign supreme at AT&T! |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Aug 27, 1999):
Please re-read my previous email. You will note that I have already cancelled AT&T as my long distance carrier. If you carefully read my prior letter you will see why I cancelled. I do not think paying $7 or so a month for a service I don't use is anything I (or anyone) would want to keep doing. Using a 10-10- number is a much more economical way for me to make an out-of-state call. For example, with 10-10-321 (who charges NO fees such as the Universal Connectivity Charge or Line Charge or Monthly Minimum), I can make a call for $.16 a minute and pay absolutely NO other fees. Thus, if I made a six minute call once in two years, it would cost me $.96. Compared to the $39.43 I've been billed for from AT&T in the past two years while I made one six minute call in that same period, I don't see how you could possibly expect me to ever sign up with AT&T again. With AT&T I was getting charged whether I made long distance calls or not! Why would anyone want to pay for nothing? I repeat, Why would anyone want to pay for nothing? I guess this is falling on deaf ears. I've made my statement and apparently AT&T has no morality or decency or sense of fairness or honesty. Just greed! If someone complained to me about paying for services when they received none, I believe I would have a real hard time justifying not giving them a refund. It would seem to me to be the honest and ethical thing to do and it would certainly improve public relations to be considered honest in providing actual service for actual money. I am tired of AT&T's unwillingness to address my concerns. The amount is trivial to me. The principle is not trivial. I have been in contact with the consumer division of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. They are attempting to take some kind of action on my behalf concerning this matter. You obviously did not read or are side-stepping what I said in my prior letter (which is still attached to the bottom of this communication). I can't believe, in this day and age, that a big company like AT&T can be so insensitive to their customers. I thought the trend was towards making people feel like they are well thought of and listened to by large organizations in order to improve relations with customers and potential customers. AT&T seems to be following the old tendency of cold, uncaring greed that we used to expect from phone companies. Good Luck.
Xxxx Xxxxxx |
I try to get them to listen... again... and again... and again... |
| On Fri, 27 August 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. Although we regret your recent decision to choose a different long distance provider, I can certainly understand your concern. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. The National Access Contribution and Usage Minimum Charge are fee's assessed to recover the cost to AT&T associated with providing access to a long distance network and maintaining customer accounts. Rather than pass these costs along in the form of higher per minute rates, AT&T has chosen to recover the costs in the form of flat rate fees and a minimum usage requirement. Most utility companies, including the local telephone companies charge a minimum amount per month in order to provide access to their service, whether the service is used or not. Thank you for your loyalty to AT&T products and services in the past. Your comments regarding your the National Access Contribution and the Usage Minimum Charge are important to us, and will be useful in maintaining and improving the quality of service provided by AT&T. We are dedicated to providing you with personalized service and to providing for all of your communication needs. We would welcome an additional opportunity to have you back as an AT&T customer. You have been a valued customer and we have appreciated your business. If you need further assistance, please contact us via the following URL: http://www.att.com/write/ For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Alan |
Oh boy! A new angle on what the charges are. That's still not the essence
of the complaint now, is it?
At least this time they recognized that I am no longer their "valued customer". |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Aug 27, 1999):
Yes. I get it. I understand your monthly fees and charges. AT&T thinks I am somehow responsible for bailing them out by paying these monthly fees and charges regardless of whether or not I make any long distance calls. You call it a long distance service and I don't even make a long distance call, yet I'm expected to pay for it. To me that's like going to the store and walking through the checkout stand and giving them money without buying a product. You want me to pay for nothing and that cannot be disputed! You billed me! I got nothing! Do the math!!! A service such as 10-10-321 does not incur any additional fees other than sixteen cents per minute for actual long distance calls. Many other companies only charge a monthly fee in the event that one makes an actual long distance call. Either of those methods make sense to me because the user actually makes a long distance call and therefore pays for long distance service. I am sending a copy of these communications to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, who is trying to help me in this matter. (Hello WUTC -- I wanted you to have a record of some of the kind of communications that have occurred between me and AT&T -- Thank you for your time and assistance.) Xxxx Xxxxxx |
They STILL don't get it!
Notice that I got in touch with a very helpful person from the WUTC. |
| On Fri, 27 August 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. I show that these charges have been explained to you in full detail. I understand your concerns regarding the charges, but they are correct and valid charges. I appreciate your comments and will forward them on for you. If you need further assistance, please contact us via the following URL: http://www.att.com/write/ For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Melissa |
Oh boy, Howdy! Now THIS is some REAL help, doncha think? (I'm being
facetious.) Have you noticed how every time they respond it is signed by a new name? There are all sorts of wonderous speculations that can arise when one notices this ploy. I can't imagine which of my speculations might be the actual reasoning behind why they keep switching me from person to person. Can you? |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Sept 2, 1999):
Yes. I understand that AT&T considers these fees and charges as valid, however, I don't, as I have stated several times in the course of these emails. That is why I have filed a complaint with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (where I have received much sympathy and advice on this matter) and another complaint with the FCC, who I am told is seriously examining these types of fees and business practices. AT&T also, in my opinion is not being candid with me as regards to the true nature of these charges. I have been told that some of the charges are direct results of Federal taxes being levied upon AT&T. (Please do not bother trying to explain them again to me!!! Your explanation does not convince me that they are reasonable or fair.) I can see how AT&T might justify raising their long distance rates for actual calls in order to cover their tax obligations, but I cannot see how AT&T can justify passing their Federal taxes on to their customers that don't even use their long distance service by imposing fees and charges. That just sounds criminal to me! Xxxx Xxxxxx |
I really did file a complaint with the FCC. I'm not quite sure if
my correspondence with the Attorney General's office qualifies as a complaint,
however, the WUTC is closely linked with the AG's office and I did lodge
a complaint with that office.
They will deny that the Feds hit them hard enough to trigger price hikes and new fees. |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Sept. 2, 1999):
Dear Melissa, Alan, Carol and Jason (all members of AT&T Online Customer Service staff), Are any of you authorized to give an honest answer to a simple question, namely, "If you were billed $39.43 over a period of about 2 years from a long distance carrier such as AT&T and you only made one 6-minute call for $1.68, would you think you were getting a fair return for your money?" If you can't answer that question, then I assume it is because company policy doesn't allow you to make or state your own judgments regarding fairness. How well does that speak of the company you work for? Does company "morality" (or lack thereof) rule over your own conscience? I am really curious. Is this how AT&T wants it's customers to view their employees and their operation? Just Curious, Xxxx |
I was feeling the anger quite well when I wrote this to them without
waiting for their reply to my last email.
You will notice that none of the addressees responded. Nope. They just passed it on, as usual, to the next flunkie in customer service. |
| On Sat, 04 September 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx XxYxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. I appreciate this opportunity to clear up any concerns that you may have regarding the AT&T National Access Contribution Fees. I want to emphasize that these fees are not imposed to cover AT&T's federal tax responsibility. AT&T does not profit from these charges. We collect the fees and then send them directly to your local phone company and to the Universal Service Fund. The fees then benefit everyone from your neighbor to urban school children, from public places such as libraries to the elderly and ill in rural areas. I do understand that you are dissatisfied with the fees. Every long distance customer, whether with AT&T or another major carrier is, charged for this type of fee, because every major long distance carrier is required to pay into these funds. I trust the information I have provided proves to be helpful. You are a valued customer and we appreciate your business. If you need further assistance, please contact us via the following URL: http://www.att.com/write/ For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Candi |
They open by spelling my name wrong. Cool! I'm making progress! They
might be real people after all!
Yeah! Right! Oh, yeah... now that's the issue I was getting at wasn't I? The National Access Contribution Fees. Huh? What planet are these people from!?!?!?
Notice that I am back to being a "valued customer" again. Hello? Hi Candi! Be sure to say "Hi" to Tara, Melissa, Alan, Carol and Jason for me down there in customer service! I think they ditched me! |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx Sept. 4, 1999):
Dear Candi, Melissa, Alan, Carol and Jason (all members of AT&T Online Customer Service staff), Once again you have side-stepped my questions. You also have apparently ignored the history of this email again. To clear up the latest response from you I will tell you (again) that I am no longer a "valued customer" of AT&T. If you had read the entire email you would have seen that. I have filed a complaint with the FCC telling them that I believe being charged $39.43 by a long distance carrier over a period of two years while making a single long distance call for $1.68 during the same period is an unacceptable rate. Your tactics of switching my email to another person every time I respond helps shatter my confidence in AT&T. It says to me that no one at AT&T Online Customer Service is willing to be responsible more than once in a row, or that AT&T will not allow an employee to talk to the same customer twice. That kind of thing inspires much speculation as to just exactly what your policies are regarding your customers. If this is any indication of the trends of big business I am now convinced even more than ever that this beloved country of ours is in deep, shall I say, doo-doo. Thank you in advance for yet another inane response. By the way, you spelled my name wrong. Xxxx |
Note that this time I mention that fact that I never get to talk with
the same person twice. Then note what happens after this -- Candi, bless
her cold little AT&T heart, actually responds again! But it's
short-lived, because after that it's just any old customer service representative
after another again... back to normal.
How do you like my "thank you" closing on this letter? |
| On Sat, 04 September 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. I appreciate this opportunity to address any concerns you have regarding AT&T charges and fees. The fees AT&T charges are necessary to offset the cost of providing basic service, which includes account maintenance, billing, and customer service costs. On an average basis, this cost exceeds $3 per month, even if no calls are made. I would have to say that yes, I feel that an average charge of $1.64 a month for maintenance of records for your account is fair. As with any utility, there is a cost involved in providing service. Even to those customers who do not take advantage of the service. I do understand your concern, and I hope that the information we have been providing you during our correspondence has helped clear up any concerns that you may have. You are a valued online customer and we appreciate your business. If you need further assistance, please click Contact Us at the following URL: http://www.att.com/customer_service For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Candi |
So here it is folks... the predicted inane response! Complete with a
referrence to an amount never before referrenced. Well, anyone can make a
mistake. I forgive you for that much, Candi. My last bill showed that I was
paying $7.13 a month for zero services rendered by AT&T. In my way of
thinking, when I can use a 10-10- service that charges ONLY for the calls
I make, that $1.64 (that erroneous number) would even still be too much to
pay for nothing!
DO THE MATH!!! |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Sept. 7, 1999):
Dear Candi, What the hey are you talking about??? What $1.64 a month? That's a new figure I haven't heard yet. Did you read the entire email history? If so, I'm so sorry that you have absolutely no reading comprehension. Oh well, why should YOU take the time to actually read and understand any communications from the public? I'm afraid I'll have to end this correspondence before I get so pissed off that I become abusive. The company you work for (AT&T) is jerking a lot of people around right now. They are too big to give a damn. They are staffed by imbeciles. Good night! Xxxx
|
So I wrote back...
It was the end of a beautiful relationship between me and Candi. She will always hold a special place in my heart. Too bad... she was the only one that ever talked to me more than once! I loved her so much... Fairwell, sweet Candi! |
| On Wed, 08 September 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. I apologize for any confusion or misunderstanding you may have experienced with your billing and correspondence with AT&T. I have taken the time to read all of your previous e-mail as well as the notes on your account. I cannot confirm the origin of the $1.64 mentioned in the previous e-mail. However, I can confirm the origin of your original switch to AT&T. On 08/01/98, AT&T received an electronic message from your local company stating that you had chosen AT&T as your long distance provider. Therefore, being an AT&T customer, you were then subject to any fees or charges that AT&T imposed upon its customers. The main question or resolution that you require from AT&T is a justification of being charged $39.43 for one call within a 12 month period. The simplest way I can respond to this request is with a comparison. The majority of your utility companies charge a monthly charge whether the service is utilized or not. If you do not use any gas in one month's time, you are still charged for service by the gas company. The same is true of the electric company. I am sorry if you do not agree with this billing practice. However, since AT&T is primarily a business, we have to impose certain fees to regain the specific costs involved with maintaining our company. Again, I apologize for the lengthy inconvenience you have encountered. You are a valued customer and we appreciate your business. If you need further assistance, please contact us via the following URL: http://www.att.com/write/ For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Dereck |
I was still wiping the tears from my eyes over the break-up between
me and Candi when I received this tasty little tidbit back from "Dereck".
This is a key communication. In it "Dereck" actually says that my service with AT&T started or was switched about a year ago -- Aug 1, 1998! You will see from the following communications between me and AT&T (and some of the previous ones also), that this is impossible! US West confirms also, that AT&T was my carrier since Nov 6, 1991. Just read on... it's all here... And Dereck, thanks for not calling me a valued AT&T customer, but I still don't like paying for nothing! |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Sept. 8, 1999):
I believe the reference to the $1.64 by an AT&T employee is really the $1.68 that I incurred as a result of an actual phone call that I made. That is the only charge out of the total amount that I have been billed ($39.43) that is for an actual phone call. I am not contesting the $1.68 charge for that call. In the email I am now responding to, you say "However, I can confirm the origin of your original switch to AT&T. On 08/01/98, AT&T received an electronic message from your local company stating that you had chosen AT&T as your long distance provider." Please DO "confirm the origin of" that "original switch to AT&T" with me by sending me a copy of that "electronic message" "on 08/01/98" to:
Xxxx Xxxxxx Also, in the email I am now responding to, you say "You are a valued customer and we appreciate your business." Please correct your records. As I have stated in previous emails, which you claim to have read, I am no longer an AT&T customer. I cancelled my AT&T service through US West, my local phone company, about two weeks ago. Xxxx |
The plot thickens! No such switch ever occurred or was ever authorized by me! Who is slamming my phone account? It's starting to look very fishy! |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Sept 9, 1999):
Dear Dereck, This is just another example of how AT&T has been adding to my confusion and suspicions regarding their tactics and business practices. Here is part of what you just wrote to me: On Wed, 08 September 1999, [email protected] wrote: ... However, I can confirm the origin of your original switch to AT&T. On 08/01/98, AT&T received an electronic message from your local company stating that you had chosen AT&T as your long distance provider. Therefore, being an AT&T customer, you were then subject to any fees or charges that AT&T imposed upon its customers... Sincerely, Dereck AT&T Online Customer Service If that is true, then I will have to file another complaint with the FCC accusing AT&T of slamming. I did not EVER authorize AT&T to be a long distance carrier for this account. What is perhaps even more interesting here is that AT&T is the ONLY long distance carrier that has ever been assigned to this account (and remember, I just cancelled AT&T on Aug 25, 1999 for the first time ever). Therefore your use of the term "switch" as in "switched to AT&T" is technically incorrect, since no other long distance carrier has ever been on this account. Furthermore, if what you say is true about AT&T being "chosen" to be the long distance carrier for this account on Aug 1, 1998, then how can you possibly explain the AT&T charges on my account prior to that date? That's a tough one, wouldn't you agree? Is there someone in a different department at AT&T that perhaps has a better ability to address my concerns than the people in AT&T Online Customer Service? I feel as though we are not making progress in this department. If possible could you direct me to a person with enough responsibility, that has a first and last name, or is in some way able to be held accountable for what they say on behalf of AT&T? Xxxx Xxxxxx |
So I wrote back again without waiting for a reply to my last letter...
Maybe "Dereck" is my new friend at AT&T! I sure hope he talks with me again... |
| On Thu, 09 September 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. I reviewed your multiple e-mail inquiries about the account 206-nnn-nnnn. At this time, I do not feel that this is a productive way of communicating over the issues you have. Please contact Customer Service at the toll free number, 1-888-9ATT-WEB, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and a representative will be happy to assist you. You are a valued customer and we appreciate your business. If you need further assistance, please contact us via the following URL: http://www.att.com/write/ For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Larry |
Damn! Dereck ditched me too! And I'm back to "valued customer"
status again! Yippee!
And now here's Larry... I don't think I like Larry that much. Where's Moe and Curly? |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Sept 9, 1999):
I must say that I too have noticed that this communication is very unproductive since no one at AT&T seems to have the attention span it takes to answer more than part of one question per email. What a sad state of affairs considering AT&T is supposedly a "communications" company. I near as I can tell you aren't even using real names so you can't be legally held responsible for what you say on AT&T's behalf. If I am wrong about this, then there shouldn't be a problem for you to respond to this following paragraph: I would like a reply concerning my request to "Dereck" regarding a confirmation of an alleged long distance carrier "original switch" to AT&T on my US West account that Dereck said occurred in August of 1998. For reference I am including a copy of that correspondence that I received from Dereck at AT&T Online Customer Service. I would like a copy of the alleged "electronic message" that Dereck referred to in that correspondence sent to me via US Mail. I await your reply. Xxxx Xxxxxx
Here is what I got from Dereck: |
By now they have probably taken Dereck, if that is indeed his real name,
out and shot him!
Alas! Poor Dereck! |
| On Thu, 09 September 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. I apologize for any confusion in this matter. If you would like to call us at 1-888-9ATT-WEB, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we would be happy to assist you with this matter. You are a valued customer and we appreciate your business. If you need further assistance, please contact us via the following URL: http://www.att.com/write/ For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Wendy |
Right! I'm so sure!
I've already called them about six or eight times! I want a paper trail. Forget that phone stuff! Besides, I'm still wondering what they did with Dereck! |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Sept 9, 1999):
Dear Wendy, I may call that number, but not until someone in AT&T Online Customer Service, preferably the person that calls him or herself "Dereck," responds to my request for a copy of the authorization for AT&T long distance service dated Aug 1, 1998, that "Dereck" says he found and refers to in a prior email. He said he can confirm the alleged letter of authorization. Are you ignoring my request? Would you like to see a copy of the email from "Dereck"? I await your reply. Xxxx Xxxxxx |
Dereck is dead isn't he! They offed him! Took him out and shot him! He's
Gone! Kapuwee!
Do you think I'll ever hear from Wendy again? |
| On Thu, 09 September 1999, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Xxxx Xxxxxx, Thank you for contacting AT&T Online Customer Service. I apologize for any inconvenience this matter has caused. I'm providing you a copy of the paragraph you are referring to. The letter you have questioned from Derek, states that we received an electronic message or feed from your local telephone company, not a paper letter.
-- What this means is your local service provider notified AT&T that you wanted to switch providers. It is your local company that does the switching. Again, we received an electronic message or feed directly from your local telephone provider, not a paper letter. We would not ignore a customer's clear given request, however, your most recent inquiries have not entailed a given request. If your current e-mail is in regard an adjustment for AT&T charges, your adjustment request has been declined by our service center upon numerous reviews. We believe that your concerns have been given the appropriate attention and investigation, and no further action is required upon our part. I hope this information helps. You are a valued customer and we appreciate your business. If you need further assistance, please contact us via the following URL: http://www.att.com/write/ For your protection, an original of this electronic mail transmission is being maintained in a secure file by AT&T. Sincerely,
Gail |
Woh! Is this AT&T? Part of this letter almost verges on pertinence!
No... wait... maybe not.
However, I did get a second confirmation (finally!) that they claim AT&T was "switched" to my account on Aug 1, 1998. This is a breakthrough (all kidding aside) since no such switch actually occurred or was authorized. How could it? AT&T was ALREADY on my account and had billed me for the previous month. No other carrier has ever been involed in this account and AT&T has only been cancelled once from this account and that cancellation occurred on Aug 25, 1999, NOT in 1998 or any other time! And I certainly never made any authorization for ANY long distance carrier! EVER! And US West claims they have ALWAYS been on the account since 1991! Something is wrong in AT&T's records without a doubt. |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Sept 10, 1999):
I would like have the following points clearly addressed and responded to by AT&T: 1. This email and my most recent prior email is in regards to an alleged "switching" of my long distance service carrier to AT&T, that you have stated (and confirmed in your most recent email reply) occurred on Aug 1, 1998. 2. I have NEVER authorized any such switch (except to cancel AT&T's service on Aug 25, 1999, which is not a switch) and I have NEVER had any other long distance carrier on this account. 3. US West claims that AT&T was somehow chosen by someone to be the long distance carrier on this account when the account was opened in Nov 1991, but no one at US West knows who made that authorization. 4. US West and I both have billing records clearly showing charges from AT&T prior to Aug 1, 1998. Why should I be switched from AT&T to AT&T? That makes no sense! 5. US West has no record of a "switch" to AT&T for this account and claims that AT&T has always been the long distance carrier since Nov 1991. I have asked them more than once and they always give me the same answer -- "AT&T became the long distance carrier on this account in Nov 1991". 6. Please explain the discrepancy between what you at AT&T say and what US West says regarding this alleged switch. 7. Since AT&T is the party that claims to have a record of the above mentioned "switch," it is, therefore, AT&T's responsibility to provide me with details concerning my account in regards to this alleged "switch". (See item 5, above, before telling me to check with US West about this "switch".) I shall, therefore, take AT&T's two emails that state that AT&T became my long distance carrier on Aug 1, 1998 as an official statement by AT&T. 8. In your prior email you state, "We believe that your concerns have been given the appropriate attention and investigation, and no further action is required upon our part." If that is true, then how can you justify the AT&T charges on my US West bills prior to Aug 1, 1998 when you claim that Aug 1, 1998 is the date that AT&T became a provider on this account? 9. I request that an officer of AT&T contact an officer of US West in order to clarify this matter and determine what has actually occurred between the two companies regarding my account and the authorization or assignation of a long distance carrier for this account. Xxxx Xxxxxx
|
According to their last reply, I guess I wasn't making it clear enough to them, so I wrote back... |
| (To AT&T from Xxxx Xxxxxx on Sept 10, 1999):
Dear Tara, Jason, Carol, Alan, Melissa, Candi, Dereck, Larry, Wendy and Gail of AT&T Online Customer Service, Just a note thanking you for attempting to assist(?) me in my quest for the truth with AT&T. You are all invited to visit a web page that has been created on my behalf that contains all the correspondence between myself and AT&T in the past two weeks or so. The web page is at: http://members.aol.com/VivaPORat/att.html Please feel free to pass this web page URL on to any and all departments within AT&T in order that they may share in what I can only say has been and continues to be, a most memorable experience. Sincerely, Xxxx Xxxxxx |
It is at this point in this history that this web page was begun. I therefore decided to invite all my buddies in AT&T Online Customer Service to come and visit the site. |
| This is as far as it's gone when this web page was created on Sept 10, 1999. Further emails will be added as soon as, or if, they occur and the time is taken to place them on this page. | |
| Update -- Oct. 21, 1999 -- AT&T STILL refuses to answer any more
of my emails!!! Go to hell AT&T Online Customer Service! Furthermore,
I guess AT&T must have strong-armed or bribed the fellow I was talking
with that works for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
because he refuses to correspond with me now, also! I have begun paying AT&T $1.00 a month to pay off the $14.26 that they ripped me off for and I will continue to make one dollar per month payments until I've got the bill down to twenty-six cents, at which point I intend to stop payment. That should cost them more than it cost me. Revenge is sweet! |
|
| Update -- Nov. 12, 1999 -- I have made a new contact at the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and have reinstated my complaint with another individual at that office against AT&T. | |
| Update -- Nov. 23, 1999 -- The above (Nov. 12) action got no results. AT&T now states that they did not start being my carrier on any of the dates that they formerly claimed other than November, 1991, thereby proving that many of their employees lied to me. | |
| Update -- Nov. 24, 1999 -- Now get a load of this! This is totally incredible! I just received my latest bill that represents the portion of the original account that was split off to a seperate billing for the AT&T charges. In this latest bill, AT&T tried to add charges for this month (Nov. 1999) for "National Access Contribution" and "Universal Connectivity Charge" and "Carrier Line Charge" and various taxes for a total of $2.79. Keeping in mind the fact that AT&T has not been a carrier on this CONTESTED account since August 28, 1999, I am completely stunned by their attempt to bill me for new charges. The account is closed you idiots! God! What a blatant rip-off attempt! Fortunately, I called AT&T on the phone when I got this new bill and talked to someone who identified themselves as Glenna in Residential Billing, Mesa, Arizona, Cubicle Number F3078C. Glenna assured me that the $2.79 charge would be dropped from this bill and that no further charges would be added again. That remains to be seen. | I can't help but wonder how many little old ladies out there all across the country are being hit with these kind of unwarranted and completely bogus charges. I would not be surprised to learn it is probably happening a lot. |
| Update -- Dec 11, 1999 -- Here is a copy of the text that I just sent
to several of the customer service departments at AT&T via their web
pages. Will I get a response? We'll just wait and see! I encourage you to contact me concerning the manner in which I have been treated by your employees and the practices of AT&T that have caused me to challenge your rights to abuse your customers. I vow to do anything I possibly can to see that the people of the world know that AT&T operates in manners that demonstrate that their company policies are those of crooks, cheats and liars. Please visit the webpage http://members.aol.com/vivaporat/att.html for a full unaltered account of the email correspondence that proves and demonstrates AT&T's lack of fairness and honesty. This page contains all the pertinent information regarding this case. I find it hard to believe, in this day and age, that a company so dependent upon having huge numbers of clients can have the nerve to treat their customers so poorly. This correspondence will be added to the web page cited above whether or not you respond. If you do respond, your response will be cheerfully added to that page. The information supplied in this communication is soley for the purose of contacting a representitive of AT&T and no permission for use in any type of marketing is granted by me. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Xxxx Xxxxxx |
I've tried contacting AT&T in this manner before and got no response. This time I sent it to several departments so maybe I'll get lucky and someone at AT&T will actually communicate with me. |
| Update -- Dec 27, 1999 -- Gloryosky! Here's a major breakthrough! Okay,
so AT&T did credit my account for $2.79 (see above), however,
they credited the original US West account number 206-xxx-xxxx 199 15 and
NOT the account that was split off due to AT&T charges (number 206-xxx-xxxxC
200 15) to which they tried to add that $2.79 charge two months after AT&T
was cancelled from my account. Probably another attempt to confuse me. It
sure would have confused me if I wasn't keeping such a watchful eye
on these bills nowadays. So, I called AT&T and talked with "Wendy" who
listened to my story and even got a representitive of US West on the line
in a conferrence call and we hashed it out. US West says they will tranfer
that $2.79 credit from AT&T back over to the bill where it first showed
up as a charge (where it should have been applied in the first place
-- what am I talking about! -- it was a bogus charge in the first place!).
Wendy (the nicest person I've ever talked with at AT&T) also listened
to my complaint about how I thought I had been slammed (signed up without
consent) and, LO and BEHOLD! she said she would give me a credit for the
$14.26 that showed up on my bill and got me into questioning all this. I
then asked why she couldn't also credit me for the $25.17 (less, of course,
the $1.68 charge for the actual call I made) that AT&T billed me prior
to that, and her answer was that her authority only goes back as far as the
$14.26 charge on my last bill when AT&T was still my long distance provider.
That sounds a little fishy, but this is AT&T we're dealing
with -- they often seem a bit fishy! What sort of funny rule is that, I wonder?
And how do they word it when they train their operators? I can't imagine.
Oh, well, the important thing is that I at least got the satisfaction of
potentially getting the outstanding portion of the bill wiped out! Wendy
said, however, that she would have to run this by her supervisor(s) and there
could possibly be a problem, but she felt pretty sure that, due to what had
transpired and because of all the little nuances of what was discussed in
the course of this call, she would be able to convince them to drop the charges.
She also said she would call me back if, indeed, there was any problem.
I told her to be sure and mention to her supervisor that I am probably costing
AT&T a lot more than all this could have ever been worth to them, if
she needs any extra leverage in her attempt to get these charges removed.
By the way, Wendy didn't give me a last name but assured me that I could
find her using her supervisor's name and their location information. I won't
divulge that here, since there's no reason for anyone to just bug Wendy from
out of the blue -- she's just another working stiff and no doubt gets underpaid
for her trauma. I feel sorry for Wendy, being so nice and helpful, yet having
to work for a major rip-off corporation. One more thing now has me wondering and that is, what is going to happen to this "split off" US West bill that contains the AT&T charges? When I made the call to AT&T this morning and talked with Wendy (as per the above), I still owed $12.26, since I made two payments of $1.00 each. Now they are going to move the $2.79 credit back to this bill where it belongs. Okay -- that will negate the $2.79 charge that they tried to hit me with two months after they weren't my long distance provider anymore. Then, they are supposedly crediting me $14.26. Since the bill now stands at $12.26, does this mean that AT&T is going to send me $2.00 back? In my wildest dreams I can't image that happening! Can you? Unfortunately, I neglected to ask about this potential refund aspect when I was on the phone with Wendy. I suspect they will simply drop the remaining $12.26 and think that they're done with it. Remember, Wendy said she would credit me $14.26. We'll see what happens. More updates will necessarily follow. |
I think I love Wendy Whotsername! She even has a sense of humor!
Ironically, I hope she doesn't call me back. How sad! Another lost love. So here I am thinking what a victory this is! Well, the REAL score is AT&T: $23.49 (or $25.17 minus $1.68), Me: $14.26 It's not really like I made $14.26 -- it's just that I may not have to pay $14.26 of the total disputed amount, so in reality it could be considered: AT&T: $23.49 (or $25.17 minus $1.68), Me: $0.00 Or is it... heck! I dunno! |
| Update -- Jan 3, 2000 -- Yay! More good news! More progress! This is
almost too good to be true! Today I called AT&T back to see if I could
actually get ahold of Wendy again as promised. Well, They switched me around
and around and I refused to give up so they eventually connected me with
someone in the same office as Wendy and it was some kind of supervisor named
"Julie." Wendy wasn't there today and none of her alleged supervisors were
there either, so I got to talk with Julie. Julie was nice! Julie assured
me that the account had been credited with, not $14.26, but with $15.13.
Where the 87 cents came from, well, I mentioned that discrepancy, but no
answer could be found. It's in my favor so I didn't argue too much about
it! So I then asked Julie about the prior charges (the $25.17 less $1.68
that Wendy couldn't help me with because she could only work on the last
billing -- see previous update above), and much to my amazement, Julie said
she would look into it and call me back. So I said, "okay" and we said goodbye.
Julie called me back in short time and said she could credit me an additional $19.49 that reflected charges from July, 1998 to August, 1999! Wowser! I almost fell off the floor! The amount credited beyond what was on the "split-off" bill will be credited to my regular US West account, she said. So that's a total credit back to me of $34.62. Thus, the total amount I've paid AT&T (that I or anyone is aware of anymore), being $39.43, of which I spent $1.68 of on an actual call, making the total contested amount equal to $37.75, from which we subtract the credit of $34.62, means that AT&T has now only stuck me for a grand total of $3.13. YAY! This is quite amazing! I am surprised that I got anything back at all. I feel this is a great victory, albeit, not a complete victory - they still got me for $3.13. Imagine what all this contention has cost both AT&T and myself in terms of time and money! I wouldn't be too shocked if it were in the many hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Think what good could have been accomplished with that kind of money. It's sad that it had to be wasted in this manner, wouldn't you agree? I feel strongly inclined to give up further pursuit of this abomination. I think I will. |
I hope this is an omen for my new year!
I think I love Julie now! If you have a dispute with AT&T, I hope you have the patience and persistence and time to badger them as I did, until I got at least some satisfaction by not letting them totally rip me off.
Final score: |
Click HERE to go to the original site.
Links to other sites
that deal with AT&T's rip-off tactics and poor
practices:
Near-mirror site:
http://www.fortunecity.com/business/filthyrich/759/index.html
AT&T Services Complaint Page:
http://www.bigwebs.com/webs/att/index.htm
AT&T rips off loyal customers:
http://osiris.rutgers.edu/~ken/ATT.html
AT&T Rip Off:
http://www.webcom.com/~duane/att.html
Jean Chemour's anti-slamming page:
http://www.scn.org/~bk269/slamming.html
Special Thanks:
The following links are listed here in thanks for helping to make this page
known by listings in search engines or other sites. The organizations listed
in these following links do not necessarily support the views and opinions
on this page.
AAA Matilda (Search Engine)
http://www.aaa.com.au/world/america/