Dear AT&T:
Yes, it took me way, way too long to dump you, but I liked the familiarity of a land line, and the comfort of never having a weak signal. Yes, I was too lazy to call your customer service team to renegotiate a lower monthly plan, because I knew you'd try and convince me to purchase some crapola that I didn't want, need, or understand. You blew it, however, when you INCREASED my monthly bill from $78 to $80 in January, because of your usual and customary increases.
So, much to the applause of my four adult children, and my budget watching spouse, I dumped your a$$ last month, and instead am paying $10.00 per month for the same service AND phone number. Even the same phone.
About that phone number: it's the same one I've had for 22 years, at the same address. So, was I a little chagrined today when I received a letter from you addressed to "Dear Valued Wisconsin Resident" informing me that it wasn't too late to change my mind? And that AT&T can give me great low prices? How about using my name: the one that has signed the 264 checks I've sent to you. How about offering to rework my plan, oh, I don't know, maybe four years ago when the last daughter moved out and the number of calls dropped to a trickle?
So, screw you, and stop sending me crap about bundling all your services.
Best personal regards,
Sir Lawrence
Amen. You could say the same thing about their wireless service.
"comfort of never having a weak signal"....lol
Interesting. I am getting ready to write the same letter to comcast and switch to U-verse.
Why don't y'all just bend over and blow them a kiss?
Quote from: tower912 on February 17, 2012, 07:40:23 PM
Interesting. I am getting ready to write the same letter to comcast and switch to U-verse.
you mean the same Uverse that my mother-in-law switched to and recieved a DVR that only turned on every 2nd or 3rd time and you had to unplug the power cord, plug it back in and wait 5+ minutes for it to reboot? That Uverse?
I've had unverse at two different homes now, and have been extremely pleased. When we first moved a little over a year ago, we were forced back to TWC because u-verse wasn't available. Fortunately, it got to our block a month or two later. Couldn't get away from time Warner fast enough. At&t is significantly cheaper, and significantly better in product, service, and support.
I dumped AT&T a few years back for a VOIP service. After a year of crapty voip calls, my wife demanded we take AT&T back.
Funny you mention the frequent AT&T letters about bundling ..we get one every few weeks, including in today's mail.
--
Not to threadjack, but as long as we're bitching about companies .. If you subscribe to the Journal-Sentinel .. check your bill against what is posted on their website.
I've subscribed 7-days a week to the JS for 20+ years now. Turns out, they had me on the sucker list, and were charging me ~70% more than what they advertised on their website all these years.
Quote from: MUEng92 on February 17, 2012, 09:00:34 PM
you mean the same Uverse that my mother-in-law switched to and recieved a DVR that only turned on every 2nd or 3rd time and you had to unplug the power cord, plug it back in and wait 5+ minutes for it to reboot? That Uverse?
99% of the time when mothers-in-law have run-ins with technology, it's called either "operator error" or "karma."
Quote from: tower912 on February 17, 2012, 07:40:23 PM
Interesting. I am getting ready to write the same letter to comcast and switch to U-verse.
Unless you're getting FTTH (which you likely are not) then you are getting an inferior service to Comcast at the same price (after promotions). Comcast may suck a hard one when it comes to customer service, but their product far exceeds what's being offered by At&T
"they're all pretty bad." -- Matt Guitar Murray.
Landlines? Writing checks? I thought this post would be dated 1990 :D
Quote from: GuyIncognito on February 18, 2012, 08:09:39 AM
Unless you're getting FTTH (which you likely are not) then you are getting an inferior service to Comcast at the same price (after promotions). Comcast may suck a hard one when it comes to customer service, but their product far exceeds what's being offered by At&T
I don't understand why you guys don't get Directv. I can hook you up, a quick private email is all it takes.
(Did you see what I did there? Was teal necessary? ;) )
Full disclosure, we subscribe to Comcast because I'm too lazy to make the change though we should.
I'm currently getting taken over a barrel by Charter to the tune of $150/month for internet and cable + HBO/SHO. (no extra packages, no DVR box, and about 40 HD channels... that is all they have?)
Oh, and the signal on MY CABLE goes to hell fairly often, and get the pixelation problem.
My other options are currently nothing... since I have trees that block any chance at a dish.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 22, 2012, 07:10:16 AM
I'm currently getting taken over a barrel by Charter to the tune of $150/month for internet and cable + HBO/SHO. (no extra packages, no DVR box, and about 40 HD channels... that is all they have?)
Oh, and the signal on MY CABLE goes to hell fairly often, and get the pixelation problem.
My other options are currently nothing... since I have trees that block any chance at a dish.
I had a pixelation problem with Charter. They came out for another reason and I mentioned it to them. They said there was a drain in the signal. Put a booster in at the connection (inside the house), the problem went away and has never come back. The problem I had was with digitatal and HD. I tried a booster you could buy at Best Buy or Radio Shack. DO NOT PURCHASE ONE OF THOSE. All they do is add intereference to the signal.
Had problems with U-Verse since i first got it. Minor inconveniences really.
U-verse still beats Time Warner. I'd take no Cable over Time Warner
i had ATT for about 5 years now, it works great and no problems. i will never go back to time Warner.
I was so fed up with Time Warner cable that I left them in 2000 and switched to Directv. I'm not a fanboi of them either as they also manage to pi$$ me off from time to time.
I think they all manage to suck at something and likely are pretty close in services and price so instead of assuming the grass is greener I just stick it out where I am and whenever I have problems that calling customer service won't help I visit the dbstalk forums and usually find a fix cuz I know if I'm having problems, thousands of others are probably experiencing the same problem.
Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 18, 2012, 11:01:44 AM
I don't understand why you guys don't get Directv. I can hook you up, a quick private email is all it takes.
(Did you see what I did there? Was teal necessary? ;) )
Referring to the teal.....about 3 years ago I signed up for the NHL Center Ice package on DirecTv on Dec 31st. The next day they started offering a package $50 cheaper. I called customer service and they said they could not do anything. I sent a PM to CBB and the next day my $50 was credited to my account. Just sayin'.
I d/c'd from the grid almost two years ago. I have a DB-4 antenna on my roof that pulls in all of the Chicago stations, most of Milwaukee, and occasionally some Rockford stations and NBC from South Bend. I have two TV tuner cards in a PC that run through Windows Media Center, so I can DVR two HD feeds and watch live TV on a third station simultaneously. I have a Netflix subscription, an MLB.tv subscription, and the wife and I get iTunes "season passes" for the two cable shows we can't watch online.
MLB - $120/yr
Netflix - $100/yr
iTunes - $50/yr
UVerse Internet Only - $480/yr
That's $750/yr vs. the nearly $1700/yr we were paying for UVerse TV & Internet. The PC setup cost under $600 all in (that thing paid for itself in a few months).
I would be willing to bet my family watches more TV than the average household, and between a DVR filled with new TV shows & old Simpson re-runs and a Netflix catalog whose size I have yet to comprehend, we never struggle to find something to watch, and never miss anything we want to watch. Even the in-laws know how to work my setup... although there's not much to learn when the entire user interface is controlled with seven buttons: up, down, left, right, OK, back and power.
The only problem I have is that occasionally I have to reboot the PC, which takes less than 60 seconds of my time... I'm not entirely sure how long the average customer service wait with the cable and satellite providers, but I'm pretty sure I've got that beat.
my problem lies in the fact that my wife and I watch HBO and SHO TV series constantly. There really is no back up plan (save torrenting) to watch those shows until they come out on DVD... and we just can't do it.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on February 22, 2012, 04:30:20 PM
Referring to the teal.....about 3 years ago I signed up for the NHL Center Ice package on DirecTv on Dec 31st. The next day they started offering a package $50 cheaper. I called customer service and they said they could not do anything. I sent a PM to CBB and the next day my $50 was credited to my account. Just sayin'.
Dude hooked me up to with an upgrade for a new HD receiver 7 months before I was due one.
Quote from: Benny B on February 22, 2012, 10:16:46 PM
I d/c'd from the grid almost two years ago. I have a DB-4 antenna on my roof that pulls in all of the Chicago stations, most of Milwaukee, and occasionally some Rockford stations and NBC from South Bend. I have two TV tuner cards in a PC that run through Windows Media Center, so I can DVR two HD feeds and watch live TV on a third station simultaneously. I have a Netflix subscription, an MLB.tv subscription, and the wife and I get iTunes "season passes" for the two cable shows we can't watch online.
MLB - $120/yr
Netflix - $100/yr
iTunes - $50/yr
UVerse Internet Only - $480/yr
That's $750/yr vs. the nearly $1700/yr we were paying for UVerse TV & Internet. The PC setup cost under $600 all in (that thing paid for itself in a few months).
How do you watch Marquette games on ESPN channels?
Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 23, 2012, 10:11:35 AM
How do you watch Marquette games on ESPN channels?
Typically live, in person. Otherwise, ESPN-3 has covered most of the road games over the past couple years. The only games I couldn't watch online were some of the OOC (which didn't really bother me), and the games on ESPNU (which aren't simulcasted on ESPN3).
If it's a game I absolutely have to see (so far this year, it's only been the Georgetown game in Jan), then I either get "creative" or go to the local watering hole.
Quote from: Benny B on February 23, 2012, 10:41:11 AM
Typically live, in person. Otherwise, ESPN-3 has covered most of the road games over the past couple years. The only games I couldn't watch online were some of the OOC (which didn't really bother me), and the games on ESPNU (which aren't simulcasted on ESPN3).
If it's a game I absolutely have to see (so far this year, it's only been the Georgetown game in Jan), then I either get "creative" or go to the local watering hole.
My experience with ESPN3 on Comcast has been hit or miss. Your situation would be a deal breaker for me. I want to come home, turn on the remote and have access to all my stuff on the big screen and know that it comes on immediately. No worrying about rebooting a computer or having to route things through a computer. I also want access to ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews all the time for things other than Marquette, Purdue, or whatever else is on. I need my Big Ten Network as well.
Certainly understand why you are doing it, to save some money. For me, for the convenience and knowing it's going to work and deliver the channels I desire, it's worth spending the extra money.
California iPhone user wins $850 from AT&T for reduced data speeds
By Greg Risling and Peter Svensson
Associated Press
Posted: 02/24/2012 01:20:47 PM PST
Updated: 02/24/2012 02:59:16 PM PST
SIMI VALLEY -- When AT&T started slowing down the data service for his iPhone, Matt Spaccarelli, an unemployed truck driver and student, took the country's largest telecommunications company to small claims court.
His award: $850.
Pro-tem Judge Russell Nadel found in favor of Spaccarelli in Ventura Superior Court in Simi Valley on Friday, saying it wasn't fair for the company to purposely slow down his iPhone, when it had sold him an "unlimited data" plan.
Spaccarelli could have many imitators. AT&T has some 17 million customers with "unlimited data" plans who can be subject to throttling. That's nearly half of its smartphone users. AT&T forbids them from consolidating their claims into a class action or taking them to a jury trial. That leaves small claims actions and arbitration.
Late last year, AT&T started slowing down data service for the top 5 percent of its smartphone subscribers with "unlimited" plans. It had warned that it would start doing so, but many subscribers have been surprised by how little data use it takes for throttling to kick in --often less than AT&T provides to those on limited or "tiered" plans.
Spaccarelli said his phone is being throttled after he's used 1.5 gigabytes to 2 gigabytes of data within a new billing cycle. Meanwhile, AT&T provides 3 gigabytes of data to subscribers on a tiered plan that costs the same -- $30 per month.
When slowed down, the phone can still be used for calls and text messaging, but Web browsing is painfully slow, and video streaming doesn't work at all.
AT&T did not say whether it would appeal the decision. AT&T area sales manager Peter Hartlove, who represented the company before Nadel, declined to comment on the ruling. He argued in court that his employer has the right to modify or cancel customers' contracts if their data usage adversely affects the network.
Companies with as many potentially aggrieved customers as AT&T usually brace themselves for a class-action lawsuit. But last year, the Supreme Court upheld a clause in the Dallas-based company's subscriber contract that prohibits customers from taking their complaints to class actions or jury trials.
Arbitration and small-claims court cases are cheaper and faster than jury trials, but they force plaintiffs to appear in person and prepare their own statements. In a class-action suit, the work can be handled by one law firm on behalf of millions of people.
That means thousands -- and possibly hundreds of thousands -- of people who feel abused by AT&T's policy could seek to challenge the company, one by one, in arbitration or small claims court. The customer contract specifies that those who win an award from the company in arbitration will get at least $10,000. Spaccarelli picked the same amount for his claim.
In his ruling, Nadel looked at the remaining 10 months in Spaccarelli's two-year contract with AT&T and took an average of what he might pay monthly for using additional data. AT&T charges $10 for every extra gigabyte over 3 gigabytes.
Nadel said it's not fair for AT&T to make a promise to Spaccarelli when he buys the phone while burying terms in his contract that give the company the right to cut down data speeds.
Spaccarelli, 39, researched his case for a few months, and then spent three days putting together a binder of documents to bring to court.
"I need the money, but for me, this case is not about money at all," Spaccarelli. "You don't tell somebody 'you have unlimited' and then cut them off."
Earlier this month, a Southern California woman won a small-claims action against Honda over the gas mileage she got out of her Civic hybrid car. She was awarded $9,867. Meanwhile, a class action against Honda over the same issue netted Civic owners a few hundred dollars each. The plaintiff, Heather Peters, is an ex-lawyer who had opted out of the settlement.
AT&T's throttling of "unlimited" data comes as it tries to deal with limited capacity on its wireless network. When the iPhone was new, AT&T had ample capacity on its network, and wanted to lure customers with the peace of mind offered by unlimited plans. Now, a majority of AT&T subscribers on contract-based plans have smartphones, and the proportion is growing every month. That's putting a big load on AT&T's network.
Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA also throttle users, but their policies are gentler. Verizon only throttles if the specific cell tower a "heavy user" subscriber's phone is communicating with is congested at that moment. T-Mobile's throttling levels are higher for the same price, and the levels are spelled out ahead of time. AT&T subscribers have no way of knowing if they'll be throttled before a warning message drops in. If they keep using their phones, throttling kicks in a few days later.
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_20038298