AT&T Is Very Disrespectful To Its Customers

[argonite]

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.

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

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.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

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 Subscriber²]

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.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

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 Subscriber²]

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.

[argonite]

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 Subscriber²]

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.

[argonite]

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 Subscriber²]

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.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

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]

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?

[argonite]

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).

[Brandon H Supervisor]

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 Subscriber²]

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.

[argonite]

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.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

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)

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

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.

[Scorbing]

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)

[SirEvan]

OP needs to learn definition of dissrespect:

Definition of

DISRESPECT

1

:

to have disrespect for

2

:

to show or express disrespect or contempt for

:

insult

,

dis

<

disrespect

ed

the officer>

so explain exactly how they insulted you?

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

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