

AT&T Now Charging You an Extra $2/Month For Not Using Enough Long Distance - nextparadigms
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Now-Charging-You-For-Not-Using-Enough-Long-Distance-115869

======
rickdale
AT&T is the most scandalous business in the world. Recently due to the shitty
economy my family shut down our family owned and operated business and the
only company still giving us a hard time about canceling a contract is AT&T.

They said we agreed to extend the contract over the phone. We asked if we
called them or they called us. They said they called us. When we asked who the
spoke to, they said they didnt have name, but the person claimed to be the
owner. I asked the rep if my dog answered and barked would they extend the
contract and the rep said, "If it was interpreted to be a yes then he was
authorized to extend."

~~~
veyron
Aren't they required to record the confirmation if it is over the phone? And
if so, they should be able to replay it to you.

For example, if you try to do a balance transfer over the phone, they
explicitly read you they will start recording and then read you the terms and
ask if you accept. If you do accept, they can pull it up later.

------
daimyoyo
Someone from a 3-letter government agency needs to put a stop to this. If the
only way you can avoid this fee is to use more long distance than you normally
would, that seems beyond bad business. It's very likely criminal. As an aside,
I'm 30 and I've lived on my own for more than 10 years. I've never had a
landline and have no plans to get one.

~~~
hammock
What do you think is criminal about it?

~~~
masklinn
Isn't that some sort of forced sale/racket? "call long distance or else" does
not sound like good business.

~~~
tptacek
The worst possible interpretation of this policy is, "AT&T is now charging
$2/mo extra for land line service". I don't _like_ that, but it doesn't sound
criminal.

~~~
masklinn
No, that's the best interpretation of the policy, but it's not what they're
doing: apparently they're only charging $2/month if you don't call enough for
AT&T's taste.

~~~
MJR
Let's think about it this way. AT&T is now charging $2 a month to have
landline service. They will waive the fee for customers who use more than $2 a
month in long distance charges.

It's not a customer friendly policy, as it just serves to squeeze $2 from
customers who aren't using more services. But it's not criminal to add a
service fee(as much as I hate it as well).

~~~
overkil6
Heard at the grocery store: "You only bought 1 apple so we're charging you for
the price of two because of gas prices."

It's a cost that can't be quantified to the customer. Why not just jack the
monthly cost instead of tacking on a ghost charge?

------
1880
"(...) traditional landline users ( _all six of you left_ )"

Is having a landline so old-fashioned in the US? It's not the first time that
I see this kind of comment, but it's shocking to me, since for most ISPs in
many countries you _must_ have a landline if you want some kind of Internet
service, whether it's xDSL or cable.

~~~
mcantor
I have a DSL-only plan with AT&T. It works fine, but every time I call for
support, they ask me for "the phone number on my account", and I have to re-
explain ten times that I have _only_ DSL, and not phone or TV service. Often I
am told that it is impossible.

~~~
hammock
Whether you buy phone from them or not, you still have a phone number
associated with your account (cell phone etc), just a way to look up your
record.

------
jrockway
Whoa, what? There's still something called "long distance"?

------
jpwagner
Ha! This is just poor marketing. If they simply hiked up the price two bucks
and said "your first $2 of 'long-distance' is free" there'd be no hubbub.

------
fuzionmonkey
I'm tired of telco monopolies.

It should either be a proper utility run by the government or a free market
company that doesn't get government granted monopoly to certain areas.

A government run telco would pretty much serve the same purpose as the postal
service. The big brother aspect isn't appealing, but it I think internet and
phone is similar to power, roads, and water. Critical infrastructure shouldn't
be controlled by a handful of monopolies.

------
bugsy
AT&T is a really bad company and has been for a really long time. (Another
example company with a similar record is Allstate Insurance.) At this point in
time it is so well known and obvious, that anyone still using them is
basically a masochist that likes to be abused. I don't feel anyone else should
get involved in this situation at this point since it's obviously consensual
and people certainly have many other carriers to choose from. People in every
state in the US have access to a large number of telephone service companies.
There is not just one. No one is being forced to use AT&T. It is a free choice
to do so. If they were still a monopoly as Ma Bell then certainly I could get
behind proposals for government intervention and regulation but it simply
isn't needed here. Vote with your feet, or accept the dysfunctional
relationship you have chosen to be in.

~~~
dbingham
The choice isn't there. I have AT&T for a cable connection. My other option is
Comcast, which is just as bad. And Comcast only recently moved into the
neighborhood. I know many people who's only choice, literally, is AT&T for any
kind of connection. There's simply no one else around.

In terms of cell service, it's pretty much AT&T or Verizon. The other players
are tiny by comparison.

------
typicalrunt
Up here in Canada, TELUS did the exact same tactic with its landline
customers. I called them to complain but they explained that the fee was to
maintain their infrastructure, even though I wasn't using it (I never use
long-distance).

I asked them to put a block on my landline so that no long-distance calls
could be made. That somehow placated them enough to remove the maintenance fee
from my account. Within 6 months, I moved to another provider. I don't like
being charged for not using services so I vote with my wallet.

Is there any chance AT&T will allow customers to do the same as I did?

~~~
Karunamon
Telcos generally have monopolies when it comes to landline so.... no.

Coincidentally, this is why the government should step in.

~~~
dredmorbius
It's the governments, generally, who grant them the monopoly in the first
place.

Though if you look at the history of anti-trust and telcos in the US, it was
the anti-competitive practices of AT&T (as early as 1917), which resulted in
anti-trust actions being taken against them. At the time it was setting inter-
connect fees to other carriers sufficiently high that the competitors were
forced out of the market.

Now, why does this suddenly remind me of various "carriage fees" proposed by
contemporary broadband providers....

