AT&T Is Very Disrespectful To Its Customers


Recommended Posts

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?

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.

  • Like 2

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Every phone company in Canada has roaming on by default. Now, I do get a text when I go into another country for 'special rates' to avoid roaming, but I can't disable roaming. Roaming is a fundamental feature.

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.

yeah and you know why it's as expensive as it is and why it varies from country to country? because the companies whose towers get used in other countries to allow your phone to work charge AT&T a lot for their use (this is speculation from me the same way you speculate AT&T is just trying to drain your pockets with roaming)

Every phone company in Canada has roaming on by default. Now, I do get a text when I go into another country for 'special rates' to avoid roaming, but I can't disable roaming. Roaming is a fundamental feature.

I think all carriers now do have the text notifications or some kind of customer notification system in place. Now, the reason why they do that is because the carriers get so much flack in the media and regulators for bill shock. The carriers fought tooth and nail to avoid having to implement these notifications. They would rather consumers rack up huge bills and then try and make people pay them.

yeah and you know why it's as expensive as it is and why it varies from country to country? because the companies whose towers get used in other countries to allow your phone to work charge AT&T a lot for their use (this is speculation from me the same way you speculate AT&T is just trying to drain your pockets with roaming)

Again, it isn't speculation on either of our parts. AT&T does get charged fees for its customers using another carrier's network. Those fees are passed on to the consumer with markup. Roaming will rack up bills if you're not careful. As I stated before, carriers fought tooth and nail against consumer protections that are in place now such as the text notifications of roaming. That right there shows that they have only profit margins in mind which is what every company does....as companies are in business to make money.

With that said, I'm off to get ready for work. To the OP, I'm sorry that you came here to vent frustration and got nothing but flack. I felt you have valid reasons to be upset and its just sad when people weren't more understanding of your situation whether or not they agree with you. Good luck.

I think all carriers now do have the text notifications or some kind of customer notification system in place. Now, the reason why they do that is because the carriers get so much flack in the media and regulators for bill shock. The carriers fought tooth and nail to avoid having to implement these notifications. They would rather consumers rack up huge bills and then try and make people pay them.

Again, it isn't speculation on either of our parts. AT&T does get charged fees for its customers using another carrier's network. Those fees are passed on to the consumer with markup. Roaming will rack up bills if you're not careful. As I stated before, carriers fought tooth and nail against consumer protections that are in place now such as the text notifications of roaming. That right there shows that they have only profit margins in mind which is what every company does....as companies are in business to make money.

With that said, I'm off to get ready for work. To the OP, I'm sorry that you came here to vent frustration and got nothing but flack. I felt you have valid reasons to be upset and its just sad when people weren't more understanding of your situation whether or not they agree with you. Good luck.

(Y)

OP needs to learn definition of dissrespect:

Definition of
DISRESPECT

1

:
to have disrespect for

2

:
to show or express disrespect or contempt for
:
,
<
disrespect
ed
the officer>

so explain exactly how they insulted you?

And you can kiss my post.

3.0 TERMS RELATING TO YOUR DEVICE AND CONTENT

3.1 Your Device

Your Device must be compatible with, and not interfere with, our Services and must comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. We may periodically program your Device remotely with system settings for roaming service, to direct your Device to use network services most appropriate for your typical usage, and other features that cannot be changed manually.

You agree that you won?t make any modifications to your Equipment or its programming to enable the Equipment to operate on any other system. AT&T may, at its sole and absolute discretion, modify the programming to enable the operation of the Equipment on other systems.

If you bought a Device from AT&T, it may have been programmed with a SIM lock which will prevent it from operating with other compatible wireless telephone carriers? services. If you wish to use this Device with the service of another wireless telephone carrier, you must enter a numeric Unlock Code to unlock the phone. AT&T will provide the Unlock Code upon request, provided that you meet certain criteria including, but not limited to the following: (a) your account has been active for at least sixty days and is in good standing (i.e. it has no past due amount or unpaid balance owed AT&T); (b) you have fulfilled your Service Commitment by expiration of any contractual term, upgrading to a new Device under AT&T?s standard or early upgrade policies, or payment of any applicable ETF; ? your Device has not been reported lost or stolen; and (d) AT&T has the Unlock Code or can reasonably obtain it from the manufacturer. AT&T will unlock a maximum of five phones per account, per year. For Devices sold with a Prepaid Plan, AT&T will provide you with the Unlock Code upon request if you provide a detailed receipt or other proof of purchase of the phone and AT&T has the Unlock Code or can reasonably obtain it from the manufacturer. For further details on eligibility requirements and for assistance on obtaining the Unlock Code for your handset, please call 1-800-331-0500 or visit an AT&T company store.

You are solely responsible for complying with U.S. Export Control laws and regulations and the import laws and regulations of foreign countries when traveling internationally with your Device.

http://www.att.com/s...TermOfMyService

  • Like 2
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!