Skip to main content

New AT&T?, Not Quite

I had an AT&aT account many years ago and could go on about nefarious billing problems, service outages and the like, but while related that is not the subject of this post.

 Welcome to the NEW AT&T, same as the old AT&T!

 Over the last weekend I decided to cancel my phone services with them because frankly it doesn't make sense to have a land line when I do all my calling via cell. However I do obtain my internet access via AT&T and decided to keep that service.

 However during the call to one of the NEW AT&T reps he noticed that I had been paying for their DSL Extreme 6.0 service all while getting only a 3.0 service. This had been the case for about 3 years since I upgraded to the service. The cost difference between the two per month is five dollars. However when you multiply that by 36 you get a nice refund right? Nope. According to the AT&T rep I could only get a refund of the last six months. "

So what of the last 30 before that?" According to the rep those overcharges had to be disputed within 60 days of each bill they appeared. "How would I have known that?" I asked. The rep couldn't answer that question. "So" I continued,

 "What you are telling me is that you took my money without delivering a service and now will not refund it?" "It's not that way sir...." the rep stammered. "Well what way is it?" I asked? "How can you take money for a service you never delivered"?

 Again silence.

 After informing the young man that I would take this up with the local Public Service Commission, BBB, FTC, etc, I hung up.

 But you have to ask, "Is the new AT&T?" To me it seems just like the old.

Had a rip off experience with AT&T?  Let me know.


Technorati Tags: , ,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Comments

retire05 said…
Mac, here is my suggestion (after 33 years with AT & T)

Call back and ask for a First Line supervisor. You will be given to a dept. supervisor but ask if they are a First Line. If they say "no" demand a First Line.

Tell the First Line your problem and ask that you be give a full credit for services not received that you were charged for. If you still don't get satisfaction, ask for a Second Line.

Get names all along the way and write them down along with their position. Inform management that you will file a FCC complain to being charged for services not rendered. It is illegal for them to not give you full credit due. The rep was b/sing you saying there is a six month window.

You have my email so if you have any other questions, let me know. Also, let me know how it works out.
Jack Moss said…
Thanks Ret,

I will do that, but today I switched to comcast internet. It's faster, and Dad always said that the quickest way to voice dissatisfaction was to walk with the checkbook.

I've been an on-time loyal customer for 20+ years but no more. I hope it was worth it for the $300 they ripped from me.

I'll try the other methods as well to recoup what I can.
retire05 said…
Mac, it doesn't matter that you have now switched services. And the money AT & T owes you is a matter of principal (at least it would be with me).

But you might be pleasantly surprised what AT & T is willing to do when you take your complaints to management.

Just a thought.
Thanks for the nice blog. This is very useful and interesting.I read this and my self very appreciate with this blog. It is illegal for them to not give you full credit due. The rep was b/sing you saying there is a six month window.


quran

Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?

**UPDATED AND BUMPED****

As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Is the lid about to be blown off Able Danger?

Those who have been wishing for a full blown Able Danger investigation are about to get their wish. The "gate" has been unlocked.

9/11 Iraqi Connection

With Democrats calling for yet more investigations into pre-war intelligence, and Republicans like myself pushing back to help their 'sudden amnesia”, the growing stories of Able Danger and even China Gate, are beginning to make news.

The three main theories about why Able Danger hasn't gotten out of the "blog stage", are 1) To hide Clinton era responsibility for stopping the 9/11 attacks, and/or 2) To hide the truth behind China-Gate, or 3) The facts show that there in fact was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11.

Taking either one you can see why the Clinton worshipping MSM for the most part hasn't touched the story. Of the later point, Democrats, the MSM and even some of our investigations state that there was no 'direct' link between Iraq and 9/11. Say otherwise and the MSM will slice and di…

Able Danger - Pulling Back the Covers of the real Clinton Legacy

First, let's dispense with the bull crap. The meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officer Al-Ani, on April 8th, 2001 happened.

Yet, just don't mention it to the MSM, becaue since May of 2002, the MSM declared an all out assault on the story. A meeting incidently, that the Czech government has to this date stood by.

Let's review a little history:

October 13, 2001: Story of the meeting is leaked from somewhere in the Czech foreign service.

yet.....

October 20, 2001: Ny Times, John Tagliabue writes a story citing other Czech officials said the meeting never took place.

so.....

October 26, 2001: Czech Minister of the Interior, Stanislav Gross has a press conference not only confirming the orginal report but giving further details of Atta's other trip to Prague in June 2000.

then.....

October 27, 2001: The NY Times "recants" the October 20th denial.

The story continues it's oddessy of 'back and forth' until May 1st, 2002, when Walter P…