95 replies to this topic 2 votes

[billyea]

Scorbing, on 10 January 2013 - 19:33, said:

I'm overreacting? And you haters are not? All I did was post a concern over something AT&T did that I do not agree with and most of you blasted me with hate and insults, and you have the audacity to tell me I am overreacting? Really?

Scorbing said:

I think it is VERY disrespectful of AT&T ... I was fuming. This is totally wrong and uncalled for. Who the hell do they think they are ...

Bit more than just concern there bud.

[Steve B]

billyea, on 10 January 2013 - 19:43, said:

Bit more than just concern there bud.

Well considering he has had to deal with similar situations before and what the real reason for AT&T doing this is, I would be upset too. Cut the guy some slack.

[+Brando212]

Steve B, on 10 January 2013 - 19:48, said:

Well considering he has had to deal with similar situations before and what the real reason for AT&T doing this is, I would be upset too. Cut the guy some slack.

what real reason? you're just making speculations at that point

and like i said in my post on the previous page, the AT&T Navigator thing I can understand but the roaming is simply a safety net feature for if he decides to go out of the country for any reason and should in no way affect him if he does not

[Steve B]

Brando212, on 10 January 2013 - 19:25, said:

how is it ignorant and stupid? it's truth, your overreacting to something that shouldn't be that big of deal. the AT&T Navigation thing I can understand, but the roaming thing is just a safety net type thing and won't cost you a dime unless you actually do ever leave the country for vacation or something

it isn't any kind of safety net at all. Its a AT&T cash grab masquerading as something helpful because AT&T knows most people won't think to check or turn if off. Its potential huge money for them.

Brando212, on 10 January 2013 - 19:50, said:

what real reason? you're just making speculations at that point

Actually, I'm not. He's already said he's had to deal with similar situations before. I'm going by what he's said which is all anyone can do with anything posted on a forum at that point.

[+Brando212]

Steve B, on 10 January 2013 - 19:51, said:

it isn't any kind of safety net at all. Its a AT&T cash grab masquerading as something helpful because AT&T knows most people won't think to check or turn if off. Its potential huge money for them.

once again, you're only speculating that. are you that paranoid?

[Steve B]

Brando212, on 10 January 2013 - 19:53, said:

once again, you're only speculating that. are you that paranoid?

No i'm not. I'm actually quite content with what I have. However, when does a company NOT do anything to make more money? That's what companies are in business for.

[billyea]

Steve B, on 10 January 2013 - 19:51, said:

it isn't any kind of safety net at all. Its a AT&T cash grab masquerading as something helpful because AT&T knows most people won't think to check or turn if off. Its potential huge money for them.

It's a cash grab in the same way that Overdraft Protection is a cash grab for your bank. Yes, it's expensive and designed to make tons of money, but it provides utility and safety to the user and (at least for my bank) cannot be disabled.

[Steve B]

billyea, on 10 January 2013 - 19:56, said:

It's a cash grab in the same way that Overdraft Protection is a cash grab for your bank. Yes, it's expensive and designed to make tons of money, but it provides utility and safety to the user and (at least for my bank) cannot be disabled.

I could be wrong but isn't overdraft protection just a setup where funds are automatically withdrawn from Savings, CC or LoC to cover checking activity that would result in overdraft? Is there an actual charge for that? I know my credit union gives an option but its not required. When I noticed the international roaming a few years back, I asked for it to be taken off...they said it couldn't (AT&T)...while its quite possibly I was lied to or they were honestly mistaken, it certainly would play into the idea that AT&T is doing this in the hopes that some schmuck would roam and rack up all those charges. They don't add it as a safety net at all.

[billyea]

Steve B, on 10 January 2013 - 20:01, said:

I could be wrong but isn't overdraft protection just a setup where funds are automatically withdrawn from Savings, CC or LoC to cover checking activity that would result in overdraft? Is there an actual charge for that? I know my credit union gives an option but its not required. When I noticed the international roaming a few years back, I asked for it to be taken off...they said it couldn't (AT&T)...while its quite possibly I was lied to or they were honestly mistaken, it certainly would play into the idea that AT&T is doing this in the hopes that some schmuck would roam and rack up all those charges. They don't add it as a safety net at all.

Similar to AT&T, Overdraft Protection (and overdraft transfer protection, as you're talking about) does charge a nominal fee, but only if you're careless. For my bank, they make this mandatory because not being able to honour a transaction is very damaging for the reputation of all parties involved. It's like how not being able to make a call in a foreign country if you needed to could be catastrophic.

[Steve B]

IMO, thats a bit of a stretch. I don't see how it could be damaging to a bank's reputation. If there isn't money in the account, it isn't the fault of the bank but rather its the account holder whos at fault. Lol. Not being able to make a call in a foreign country wouldn't be catastrophic in this case because there are phones everywhere in the off-chance international roaming isn't activated. So it comes back to the fact that AT&T added this feature to peoples' accounts...not as a safety-net but as an under-the-radar potential cash grab that's sole idea is to hope that some people rack up huge bills before realizing what happened. Its not that theres only a small chance that people would actually be negatively effected by this but, its the reasoning behind it. Companies get away with more and more and consumer's rights become less and less. While voting with your wallet is huge...its not always a viable option and/or there aren't any viable alternatives.

[+Brando212]

Steve B, on 10 January 2013 - 20:01, said:

AT&T is doing this in the hopes that some schmuck would roam and rack up all those charges. They don't add it as a safety net at all.

this is just stupid, i'm not even going to comment on that
i will say though that you'd rather not be able to make a call at all when out of country then pay a small extra fee? i personally can't see the logic in that. it's the whole point of the service. it's there for if you need it

it costs AT&T more to route your call from other towers (same with any service not just AT&T) that's the reason there are extra fees for roaming

[CactuzJak]

Scorbing, on 10 January 2013 - 19:21, said:

My reply to your stupid, ignorant comment will get me banned from this forum so I won't bother. You are not worth it.

go right ahead, you can think you're justified in what you're thinking but the bottom line you're complaining over a free service.. if you complain well enough they could take roaming right off your account, but then say you go to mexico and you're on a walking trail in the middle of nowhere and you fall and break your leg.. but oh wait you can't call any body because you're making what you thought was a big moral stand over nothing.. then what?

[billyea]

Steve B, on 10 January 2013 - 20:15, said:

IMO, thats a bit of a stretch. I don't see how it could be damaging to a bank's reputation. If there isn't money in the account, it isn't the fault of the bank but rather its the account holder whos at fault. Lol. Not being able to make a call in a foreign country wouldn't be catastrophic in this case because there are phones everywhere in the off-chance international roaming isn't activated. So it comes back to the fact that AT&T added this feature to peoples' accounts...not as a safety-net but as an under-the-radar potential cash grab that's sole idea is to hope that some people rack up huge bills before realizing what happened. Its not that theres only a small chance that people would actually be negatively effected by this but, its the reasoning behind it. Companies get away with more and more and consumer's rights become less and less. While voting with your wallet is huge...its not always a viable option and/or there aren't any viable alternatives.

I think this conversation is starting to stray into the realm of speculation and the "Companies get away with more and more and consumer's rights become less and less" line honestly reminds me about how people complained about Windows 8 because "oh no, Microsoft is closing the ecosystem and I don't support that on principle" despite the ecosystem still being open.

But I digress.

Yes, indeed AT&T can gain from this in certain specific circumstances. It's possibly the reason they added it, but we won't know without speculation. The consumer can also gain from this in certain specific circumstances (by being able to use their phone) as long as they are made aware that they are roaming (and they are, it's not a surprise, you get a text).

[+Brando212]

Steve B, on 10 January 2013 - 20:15, said:

IMO, thats a bit of a stretch. I don't see how it could be damaging to a bank's reputation. If there isn't money in the account, it isn't the fault of the bank but rather its the account holder whos at fault. Lol. Not being able to make a call in a foreign country wouldn't be catastrophic in this case because there are phones everywhere in the off-chance international roaming isn't activated. So it comes back to the fact that AT&T added this feature to peoples' accounts...not as a safety-net but as an under-the-radar potential cash grab that's sole idea is to hope that some people rack up huge bills before realizing what happened. Its not that theres only a small chance that people would actually be negatively effected by this but, its the reasoning behind it. Companies get away with more and more and consumer's rights become less and less. While voting with your wallet is huge...its not always a viable option and/or there aren't any viable alternatives.

roaming for cell phones has worked the same way since before the 90's, it's concept hasn't changed much, if anything it's gotten a little cheaper from what it used to be. my question to you is why are you only complaining about it now?

[Steve B]

Brando212, on 10 January 2013 - 20:18, said:

this is just stupid, i'm not even going to comment on that
i will say though that you'd rather not be able to make a call at all when out of country then pay a small extra fee? i personally can't see the logic in that. it's the whole point of the service. it's there for if you need it

it costs AT&T more to route your call from other towers (same with any service not just AT&T) that's the reason there are extra fees for roaming

How is it stupid? Companies are in business to make money. Decisions and ideas that are handed down are with profit in mind. Small extra fee? Roaming is very expensive and will vary from country to country, hence the reason why AT&T has it on by default.

Brando212, on 10 January 2013 - 20:22, said:

roaming for cell phones has worked the same way since before the 90's, it's concept hasn't changed much, if anything it's gotten a little cheaper from what it used to be. my question to you is why are you only complaining about it now?

I'm not the one complaining, i'm helping the poor guy (OP) who came here with valid reasons and got nothing but flack for it.

billyea, on 10 January 2013 - 20:21, said:

I think this conversation is starting to stray into the realm of speculation and the "Companies get away with more and more and consumer's rights become less and less" line honestly reminds me about how people complained about Windows 8 because "oh no, Microsoft is closing the ecosystem and I don't support that on principle" despite the ecosystem still being open.

But I digress.

Yes, indeed AT&T can gain from this in certain specific circumstances. It's possibly the reason they added it, but we won't know without speculation. The consumer can also gain from this in certain specific circumstances (by being able to use their phone) as long as they are made aware that they are roaming (and they are, it's not a surprise, you get a text).

There isn't any speculation. I say that because 1) Companies are in business to make money. 2) Things are done that will increase profit markings, either in the short or long term. Business 101.