AT&T Is Screwing Customers By Almost Tripling a Bogus Fee (androidpolice.com) 149
AT&T has almost tripled the cost of the "Administrative Fee" featured in its wireless service bills. "Up until early this year, that 'fee' was typically assessed at $0.76 per postpaid line -- not nothing, but over the course of two years of service, it ends up being a little over $18," reports Android Police. From the report: Most recently, subscribers getting their statements for June are finding an Administrative Fee charge of $1.99 per line every month. That brings the two-year cost of this "administrative fee" to almost $50 for each line on your account. The fee was raised earlier this year incrementally in March (by $0.54), but this new hike comes just three months after the first one, and it's not even clear why.
AT&T is likely hoping subscribers just won't notice their per-line bill is going up $1.23 a month versus where it was a few months ago, and in the process, could net almost a billion dollars in additional revenue according to one analyst. This could allow AT&T to finance up to $10 billion in new debt to expand its ever-broadening media empire. The fee is being assessed against all postpaid subscribers, regardless of their service plan or any grandfathering. AT&T says the fee is related to its cost of doing business, in terms of interconnect fees with other operators and cell site rents.
AT&T is likely hoping subscribers just won't notice their per-line bill is going up $1.23 a month versus where it was a few months ago, and in the process, could net almost a billion dollars in additional revenue according to one analyst. This could allow AT&T to finance up to $10 billion in new debt to expand its ever-broadening media empire. The fee is being assessed against all postpaid subscribers, regardless of their service plan or any grandfathering. AT&T says the fee is related to its cost of doing business, in terms of interconnect fees with other operators and cell site rents.
they are not screwing anyone (Score:1)
They are merely increasing profit without increasing the cost of the plan.
All service providers have been doing this for years by itemizing the bill and adding on taxes and fees.
Re: (Score:3)
Verizon did this with FIOS a few years ago and cause me to cancel when my contract expired. They arbitrarily raised the rental fee of the mandatory STB $3 to $5 per month depending on model. Of course consumers got squat for this price increase. What pissed me off was seeing the CEO on the financial news networks crowing over and over about the new RECORD profits in the FIOS group. I knew exactly how those profits were achieved.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the base price didn't increase, the service was still $69.99 a month or whatever it was. The increase was in the extra bullshit fees that live outside of the contract (but should part of the contract).
You can try to challenge them on it, but you probably had to sign an arbitration clause so good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Playing the devil's advocate here: Inflation plays a role too. While inflation in the US is minimal, with the years it becomes signficant. In the case of the article, 76 cents in 1995 is $1,27 today. Shy of "twice as much".
This is a purely objective point though. The reasons why they increase pricing is simple ("because they can"). But never disregard inflation as a factor too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is inflation seems to be a good excuse for companies and utilities to raise pricing, but never seems to be a good excuse to allow people cost of living raises. It's not about inflation. If it was, the increase in what a company is taking in would be funneled out in salaries to the entire employee base. Instead, it's funneled directly to the owners and upper levels of management, while the rest of the people get dick and told to like it. Then the management wonders why we're angry as they rep
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't you outraged by the fact that, in a lot of US states, the price you see advertised is NOT the price you pay? You seem outraged about all those fees, but not about the "sales tax". Which is the same thing. Where there is no sales tax, you don't get that line item.
Imagine if they were charging $1.99 for a burger in one state with sales tax, and $1.99 in a state without it. I'm pretty sure you would be MAD that they are pocketing the difference.
How is this any different?
Re: (Score:2)
T-mobile has been pretty good at letting me stay on my legacy plan. I've hear the same thing from others.
It's actually pretty cool that a plan with no contract doesn't use the no contract part to their advantage in that way.
Re: they are not screwing anyone (Score:1)
I have Comcast. I pay only the taxes (around $8 in Washington State) for voice service, no other fees, and $12/gig for data. I have never used a full gig, because I am surrounded by wifi. I call Germany twice or thrice a month, so international long-distance makes up the bulk of my bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I pay $30/mo for Black Wireless. After 2Gb data is throttled but it's not like I'm torrenting or watching movies either.
Re: (Score:2)
Mint Sim is only $15 per month for the same 2GB.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but this is deceptive behavior because they still advertise the original Plan Price --- which hinders comparing services, since you never know exactly what the fees will be after you start service.
JMO. Recurring line items for "Surcharge", "Tax", or "Fee" should be Illegal, and they should be required to include any fee they want to charge in the plan price --- and if they wish to increase the cost, then they must announce a change in the rates.
Re: (Score:3)
They are merely increasing profit without increasing the cost of the plan.
All service providers have been doing this for years by itemizing the bill and adding on taxes and fees.
So how exactly is adding an extra service charge to your bill not increasing the cost of your plan. The quoted figure may still be $xx.xx but the actual cost of your plan is going up with this new fee.
Re: they are not screwing anyone (Score:4)
AT&T says the fee is related to its cost of do (Score:5, Funny)
That's fine. AT&T can figure out to pay those costs, since it's not my fucking business.
Maybe I don't want any administration of my line. I doubt I'll miss it, whatever it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming there is no anti-competitive price fixing going on.
Re: (Score:1)
AT&T can figure out to pay those cost
They did. It's a business, not a charity. You will pay it one way or another.
Re: (Score:1)
Or they can take it from the "profit column" instead of making everything a pass-through. Companies aren't entitled to being stinking rich.
Why isn't this false advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's part of the cost it's part of the cost. They advertise costs that are bfore Fees. People get this when it's taxes and 911 fees but fees that GO to ATT are B.S. deception.
why not advertise free service*
* plus $64/mo content delivery fee.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It should be illegal, but as far as I know the law about including all taxes and fees in the listed price only applies to food.
Re: (Score:3)
It should be illegal, but as far as I know the law about including all taxes and fees in the listed price only applies to food.
Not sure about US, but they've added that law to airline tickets in Canada (they must include base fares + taxes + airport improvement fees + fuel surcharges). It's a small thing, but man does it make life just a little bit better.
Re: (Score:3)
All of the fees go to AT they just give random justification for some.
Re: (Score:2)
I am waiting for every service to cost $1 (plus taxes and fees).
Re: (Score:2)
<sarcasm>Because advertising an all-inclusive price is socialist</sarcasm>
In the UK they actually did get to the point where they advertised FREE BROADBAND (ADSL 17 Mbps max) in large letters and "line rental 19.99" in small print at the bottom of the TV screen. The regulators put and end to that eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
And it was far too late, line rentals almost doubled before they did anything and they still haven't stopped line rental price increases afaik.
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada, the CRTC has cracked down big time on that kind of deceptive marketing. We also don't have carrier locks anymore.
If only you Americans could come up with some sort of government r
Re: (Score:2)
If only you Americans could come up with some sort of government regulatory body to protect consumer rights from greedy telecoms. I'd suggest calling it "federal communications commission", but apparently that name is already taken by a very powerful lobby group only interested in maximizing profits for telcoms.
Nah, this isn't really a communications problem, it's more like a problem with trade in general. I think "Federal Trade Commission" would be a better name.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's part of the cost it's part of the cost. They advertise costs that are bfore Fees. People get this when it's taxes and 911 fees but fees that GO to ATT are B.S. deception.
why not advertise free service*
* plus $64/mo content delivery fee.
The US allows you to advertise prices sans taxes and fees... to those of us in the ROTW, this seems pants on head retarded. When an airline advertises an airfare in the UK, this is the price I pay to get the airfare including all applicable taxes and non-optional fees.
Re: (Score:2)
For fees, I have no defense.
For taxes, the issue is that sales (and other) tax(es) in the US are levied by states and other municipalities. So it would make it impossible to advertise a nationwide price. (Add even if you advocate replacing all the state sales taxes with a national VAT or sales tax, there are other location dependent taxes, e.g. hotel occupancy tax.)
I can get the state sales tax reasons (which isn't an issue for most countries)... but for hotels, they know what the HOT and other fees are in advance and should advertise that as a final price. Its not like the hotels location is going to change in the next few months.
Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the full text of the relevant section for anyone who doesn't want to click through:
We may change any terms, conditions, rates, fees, expenses, or charges regarding your Services at any time. We will provide you with notice of material changes (other than changes to governmental fees, proportional charges for governmental mandates, roaming rates or administrative charges) either in your monthly bill or separately. You understand and agree that State and Federal Universal Service Fees and other governmentally imposed fees, whether or not assessed directly upon you, may be increased based upon the government's or our calculations.
IF WE INCREASE THE PRICE OF ANY OF THE SERVICES TO WHICH YOU SUBSCRIBE, BEYOND THE LIMITS SET FORTH IN YOUR CUSTOMER SERVICE SUMMARY, OR IF WE MATERIALLY DECREASE THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WHICH YOUR AIRTIME RATE APPLIES (OTHER THAN A TEMPORARY DECREASE FOR REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE), WE'LL DISCLOSE THE CHANGE AT LEAST ONE BILLING CYCLE IN ADVANCE (EITHER THROUGH A NOTICE WITH YOUR BILL, A TEXT MESSAGE TO YOUR DEVICE, OR OTHERWISE), AND YOU MAY TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT PAYING AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE OR RETURNING OR PAYING FOR ANY PROMOTIONAL ITEMS, PROVIDED YOUR NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS DELIVERED TO US WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE FIRST BILL REFLECTING THE CHANGE.
If you lose your eligibility for a particular rate plan, we may change your rate plan to one for which you qualify.
It seems like there may be some lawyerly (read weasel) words in there that could get them out of this. They may have some wiggle room around the "limits set forth in your customer service summary" but I'm not an AT&T customer, so I'm not familiar with exactly how they operate.
Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee (Score:4, Informative)
“Services” are distinct from “Fees” by my read of it.
Re: (Score:2)
“Services” are distinct from “Fees” by my read of it.
Just because they separate it doesn't mean it's legal. Government fees and taxes are separate and mandated outside of your contract - basically they aren't charging them, they're just collecting them for someone else who you have a separate agreement with (i.e. the relevant laws).
However an 'administrative fee' levied by the carrier or as part of the carriers regular course of business is charged by, and paid to, them. Increasing that very represents a material increase in cost/charge by the provider and,
Re: (Score:2)
Note that if you try to cancel, they'll just instead give you a credit equal to the increase to balance things out. AT&T's end of the contract is only void if they actually charge you more and you object to it, so that negates the "charge you more" part.
This is a very common tactic in these situations on the carrier's part. They have no intention of breaking the contract and letting you leave with a phone that has yet to be fully paid off. But they also know that most people aren't going to haggle over
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I switched from AT&T to ting.com several years ago, and haven't had to put up with any contractual BS from them at all. They use a straightforward only-pay-for-what-you-use-each-month model with no contract or "plan" required (you do need to bring your own phone though). With my usage patterns, I end up paying about half what I used to pay to AT&T each month.
(disclaimer: I have no relation with ting.com, other than being a satisfied customer)
Re: (Score:2)
TBH if you wanted to get into the weeds and argue it in court, you'd probably win even if they credited you each month.
The actual charges are going up even if they're being paid by alternate means. Probably depends on the exact wording...and how much you or ATT are willing to fight/spend over an ETF.
The one that pisses me off (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to admit it does also irritate met that I pay a fee to extend service to rural communities who consistently vote against government assistance for such things. Not that I begrudge them phone & internet, but I wish they'd stop fighting tooth and nail against it.
Re:The one that pisses me off (Score:4, Insightful)
You're paying the full bill either way. Would you really be happier if it were just a single lump sum with no additional information? Ignorance may be bliss, but it isn't particularly useful.
Re: The one that pisses me off (Score:3)
This fee is to recoup their internal costs of complying with regulations. It isn't a direct cost from regulations. As long as you accept that it's the governments fault, they have no reason to improve their cost structure.
Why should we as a consumer whose price reflects our demand & product supply; not the business's internal costs care about customs costs, transportation costs, retail shelf rental cost, website maintenance cost, etc? This is no different.
This sector like many others (ie: restaurant) h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I get that at some point you have to stop breaking it down as I don't care that $0.000001 of those administrative costs we
Re: (Score:1)
Does it really matter whether it's a direct $X tax or fee imposed by the government or merely the internal costs of dealing with some policy (e.g., data retention) that is government law as long as the amount is truthful?
Depends on your definition of "truthful" and how naive you are in believing AT&T are honestly reporting it. How would you feel if your restaurant bill had a 20% Not pissing in your soup fee?
Any costs of doing business should be included in the base price, not added on after the fact as a bullshit fee that the business can increase with impunity whenever their profits start to slip or the board run out of coke.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you feel if your restaurant bill had a 20% Not pissing in your soup fee?
Isn't that what the suggested tip amount is?
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's a deceptive ploy (Score:2)
A single lump sum isn't trying to trick me into a public policy that negatively impacts my life and the public commons.
I want the total in big print (Score:3)
I want the big number in the advertisement to be the total, not just one line item. This way I can quickly compare one carrier's total to another carrier's total.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the "free market" requires accurate information. If you don't know how much your bill will be, you cannot compare prices between suppliers.
Free market advocates should be outraged at these fees.
Most of these "taxes and fees" have no connection to the services provided. A few years ago, I rented a car at DFW airport and one of the "taxes and fees" that I had to pay was for the property taxes on the car. But the rental company did not have a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you really be happier if it were just a single lump sum with no additional information?
That's pretty much how price quotes work. The itemized fees don't show up in the ads when you're shopping around.
We'll file your federal and state taxes for FREE*. (*If you qualify, but we won't tell you up-front if you do! Actual price disclosed after you give us your financial info.)
Re: (Score:2)
You're paying the full bill either way. Would you really be happier if it were just a single lump sum with no additional information? Ignorance may be bliss, but it isn't particularly useful.
Yes actually:
Your cell phone service is $62.50 a month.
Bill arrives - $62.50 due.
That's greatly preferable: Your cell phone service is $49.95 a month ... WTF? It was 50 bucks, why am i being charged 25% more?! Stupid fees and taxes and shit...why didn't they just ... ugh..
Bill arrives - $62.50 due
Also as an example how virtually EVERY SINGLE OTHER COUNTRY includes taxes/VAT/etc. in the sticker price when you buy something. If it says $62.50 then you pay exactly. fucking. that. 'murica!
Re: (Score:1)
That's Nothing!!!
The one that REALLY SHOULD piss you off to no end is the
MASSIVE ILLEGAL SPYING that AT&T does on YOU with the NSA...
Don't believe it? Think it's some conspiracy theory?
FALSE.
Looky here...
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/
Re: (Score:2)
>"is "Regulatory Compliance Fee". This is a fee T-Mobile charges me so that _they_ can comply with regulations"
And ALL the carriers did that.... but....
You must be on an old plan still. To my knowledge, all T-Mobile plans for the last couple of years are 100% free of all hidden/separate fees from their claimed price. They made the incredibly bold step to be the ONLY carrier to advertise plans at a dollar amount that simply includes EVERYTHING and does not change. If they advertise a $50 plan, that is
Re: (Score:2)
>does it really matter if you see them or don't?
Yes it does. Because it isn't false advertising. Some of those "fees" are completely arbitrary, so carriers can hide anything they want AND they can raise those anytime because it isn't part of your "plan". With T-Mobile, you know exactly what you are getting and paying and it doesn't change.
'the cost of doing business' & providing servi (Score:1)
is supposed to be included in the fucking prices of your products and services, as is your profit margins.. 'above the line'.. neither belongs tacked on to the bottom of the bill masquerading as a tax.
have the balls to raise the fucking prices above the line and in your advertisements. quit being sneaky little greedy shits.
fuck at&t. fuck comcast. fuck charter. fuck time warner. fuck verizon. fuck uscc. fuck centurylink. fuck sprint. fuck tmobile. fuck directv. fuck dishnetwork. fuck. them. all. prefer
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They just really wanted... your two cents.
Company raises prices!! (Score:1)
This is an old AT&T trick (Score:2)
Wells AT&T Fargo (Score:1)
Indeed! We've heard similar kinds of excuses in our dealings with AT&T [slashdot.org]. It's as if they have a database of excuses and recycle them and track what they used on who, and when.
Excuse-A-Tron 9000 [TM]
Maybe they purchased it from Wells Fargo.
They turned me into The Wanderer (Score:4, Informative)
They kept adding random services to our bill without asking, such as "phone insurance". We tried to stay with them because they were the only carrier that worked well in our area. For some unknown reason the other 2 carriers' cellular signals don't come in clear.
But my otherwise patient wife got so fed up correcting bills that she cancelled AT&T, and adamantly refuses to go back. We now live with crappy reception from one of the other 2 carriers. I have to walk outside and go 2 blocks to use my cell-phone. We tried various gizmos to boost the in-house signal without success. We also have to keep our land-line.
I curse AT&T and then tell myself at least I get exercise from this "exercise".
Their telemarketers also call about once a week. I either hang up on them or do Trump impressions about what losers they are.
Re:They turned me into The Wanderer (Score:4, Informative)
Get one of the femtocell devices or just enable WiFi calling (and put money into a good, pervasive indoor and outdoor WiFi system.
Re: (Score:1)
Wifi calling doesn't work very well because our ISP is also spotty. Even when not slow, it goes in spurts/bursts, which creates delays long enough to affect it for phone use. Our only other practical ISP choice is ... AT&T.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's to get rid of #@*!&^ oligopolies so we have choice and they have actual competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you just buy AT&T service indirectly from an MVNO? AT&T gets the bare minimum from them for tower service and you get a decent plan at probably a better price than you're paying. Here's a list [androidcentral.com] of all the MVNO providers that use the AT&T network.
Postpaid ... (Score:2)
You would think they would benefit from you paying for the service up front, and if they don't provide service they owe you a refund. But nope, they love them some collection agencies and you wasting hours disputing the overly complicated bill.
Too much Debt (Score:1)
Updated AT&T motto (Score:3)
Considering the AT&T logo is basically the Death Star, I think their updated corporate motto hits the mark:
We are altering the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further.
Submit FCC complaint (Score:1)
So, they've raised a fee by $1.23/month? (Score:2)
Hmm. Wonder how evil that is. Let's see...
$1.23/month would just about match inflation if the monthly bill were around $58/month. Which would about split the difference between their $40/month plan and their $80/month plan.
No opinion (and no real desire to go data diving to find out) as to the "normal" ratio of $40/month and $80/month plans, so I'll go with a guess of a 50-50 split (note, based on the download speeds of the plans, I'd guess more $80 plans than $40 plans, but that's just an unsubstantia
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody would be nearly as outraged if they simply raised their base rates. But using weaselly ways of hiding it is far worse - especially when pretending like it's as inevitable as a tax.
Bogus fee (Score:2)
they are not alone with their bogus fee's, any place where you get a 'detailed' bill will have some admin costs in some form or other that is just really vague and could be anything. it's also always on the bill, no matter what service you used, depending on who is behind the counter you get different answers on what it actually is.
How do telecoms/cable companies get away with this (Score:2)
As much as I favor light-touch regulation, this is a case for legislative intervention.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell me, let me guess: because their rates are regulated by the government, so they can't just raise the price?
Re: (Score:2)
If the government left a loophole open so wide you can drive a truck through it, maybe they should change things and include all fees when considering the price. But no, most areas don't regulate the pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every other business builds their costs into the price of the product. Somehow phone and cable companies get away with adding hidden fees instead of just having to raise the price a little. Why do we let them get away with that?
As much as I favor light-touch regulation, this is a case for legislative intervention.
It shouldn't even really need legislation, it just needs the courts to agree that it constitutes fraud.
"resort fee" (Score:2)
It's like mandatory "resort fees" in hotels. It's not just 299$, no it's 299$ for the room, 50$ resort fee, 24$ for parking, x$ tourist tax and then taxes on top of that. :D
I suppose people just look at the price for what they were looking for and ignore all the mandatory addons.
Must be nice (Score:2)
Somebody finally noticed (Score:3)
This is the kind of B.S. that's been around for years. Here's a list of the fees on my electric bill:
Cost of electricity you used
Customer account charge $15.12
Delivery service charge $1.62
Environmental benefits surcharge $0.47
System benefits charge $0.11
Power supply adjustment* $0.18
Metering* $44.31
Meter reading* $0.27
Billing* $0.90
Generation of electricity* $3.36
Federal transmission and ancillary services* $0.32
Federal transmission cost adjustment* $0.01
LFCR adjustor $0.12
Tax Expense Adjustor -$0.20
Ridiculous, right? That "metering" fee for a whopping $44.31 is for a fancy shmansy meter capable of handling three-phase service. Here's the kicker: I don't have three-phase service. But the electric company refuses to come change out the meter.
60% of Americans have no emergency fund. A lot have no savings at all. Bullsh*t like laundry lists of fees and getting addicted to a rental economy is why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Think that is BS, you should get into the way we used to do toll calls. Say if I'm in Baltimore and I call my bookie in San Francisco, you'd think that is a straight shot? Well all of those cities between Baltimore and San Francisco have these phone lines going through them. They are money grubbing politicians so they insist on a toll to use it. This is why I could call my bookie three days in a row, for exactly the same amount of time and get charged 3 different rates, depending on how it was connected.
I u
Re: (Score:2)
I actually wish my bill was broken more like that. My bill is more of a "you used this much, now pay us $X". I wanted to know more, I remember taking a few years worth of electric bills, and putting them into a spreadsheet with the amount of kwh I used and the amount of money I paid. I figured that I could fit them to a line y = m*x+b, where m would be my rate (cost per kwh) and the intercept, b, would be the base fees that are tacked onto my bill that don't change depending on usage. Well, the data poi
Re: (Score:2)
I look into this crap too particularly because they're pitching this insane peak demand plan where you get dinged for spikes in usage such as when your air conditioner compressor fires up. That can be a spike of 20 KW and they ding you for something like $17 per KW. So if the stupid meter happens to be sampling when the A/C turns on, look out because you're going to get a bill for several hundred dollars. But they don't tell you this. They say, "Oh, well don't turn your pool pump or irrigation pump on b
Re: (Score:2)
What really gets me is "Generation of electricity." That is fully covered by the KWh billing. What could this fee possibly cover that shouldn't be part of the per-KWh rate?