Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T To Pay $700,000 For Overcharging Consumers

Posted by Soulskill on from the two-thousandths-of-a-percent-of-quarterly-revenue dept.

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports on an agreement between AT&T and the FCC which will require the telecom company to pay $700,000 to the federal government to resolve overcharging complaints. AT&T will also refund charges to customers who were switched from pay-as-you-go data plans to monthly plans after AT&T said they could keep the old plans. 'AT&T has also agreed to an extensive compliance plan (PDF), which includes: consumer notification, training of customer care representatives, and periodic compliance reports to the FCC. AT&T must also conduct additional searches of its records to identify improperly switched consumers and ensure appropriate refunds.'"

15 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. 700,000 dollar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    an ink dot on himalayas, when compared to unjust profits of telecom vultures

    1. Re:700,000 dollar by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just success is never villianized.

      Clearly some of AT&T profits were not just nor legal, or else they would not have had to pay this money back.

    2. Re:700,000 dollar by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      an ink dot on himalayas, when compared to unjust profits of telecom vultures

      I assume they get to write off 700K as losses when filing federal taxes? Plus another 2-3 million as a cost of locating and refunding the affected customers, so that the penalty is fully offset by a decreased tax liability.

    3. Re:700,000 dollar by interval1066 · · Score: 3

      AT&T has a duty, as a huge, multinational cororation, to play by the rules, I agree. All such entities do. But this anti-business atmosphere in this country is not good for business. The free market doesn't work if you disallow the profit motive. Few people invest, which is the engine that drives the market, for completely altruistic reasons. If you remove all profit from the risky action of investment you stifle business. We're already seeing businesses flee from California, If you drive them out of the country all you get are a bunch of jobless altruists. Private investors DON'T HAVE to invest in you, there's where you're missing the picture. Unless you like the way China is doing business I guess. But then they really haven't been communist for 20 years...

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  2. wow... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They'll make enough by lunch time to cover it.

    Big penalty, that...

    1. Re:wow... by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They'll make enough by lunch time to cover it.

      Quoth TFA -- "He added that AT&T had already discovered and corrected the issue by Nov. 2010, and had given refunds to customers who contacted AT&T."

      Whatever their fine is, it should be increase by 100-fold because AT&T discovered the issue 2 years ago, but only refunded customers who contacted them and complained. You'd think that if they discovered unfair customer overcharging, they would refund every affected customer?

    2. Re:wow... by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would be a violation of the Ferengi rules of acquisition: Once you have their money never give out back.
      AT&T is run by Ferengi right?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  3. That UK judge gives me an idea by Andrio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A much simpler and far more effective punishment would be if they were forced to run ads (on TV, magazines, online) to let the public know they were overcharging their customers.

    Fines don't mean crap to billion dollar companies. They need punishments that actually punish them.

    --
    The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    1. Re:That UK judge gives me an idea by Xelios · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fines would mean crap to companies and individuals alike if they were levied as a percentage of income instead of a flat amount. Is there any good reason why it isn't done this way?

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    2. Re:That UK judge gives me an idea by GNious · · Score: 3, Informative

      I understand that the EU does it that way - which is why everyone is whining that they are being too cruel to companies with the billion-dollars fines.

    3. Re:That UK judge gives me an idea by Murdoch5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The best punishment ever handed down was to a lady who used the sidewalk to pass a bus, the judge is making her wear a sign which has on it “Only an idiot would drive on the sidewalk to avoid the school bus.”. Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4630315/Woman-to-wear-idiot-sign.html#ixzz2BXro0Llo

    4. Re:That UK judge gives me an idea by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fines would mean crap to companies and individuals alike if they were levied as a percentage of income instead of a flat amount. Is there any good reason why it isn't done this way?

      Yes! Yes, there is. According to this article, AT&T paid zero taxes (received subsidies, even) in 2011, which means they probably had near zero official income in 2011.
      Maybe you can't pull such crap in UK, but in US percentage of corporation income is not the way to go.

  4. Funny how these sorts of lawsuits pay to... by 3seas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...not those who were damaged....

  5. It'll be a tough hour, maybe? by ceriphim · · Score: 3, Informative

    With their 2011 revenue (http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=22537), they generate roughly $697,615/hour in revenue.

    I take it the FCC isn't familiar with "Old Testament" -style justice...

  6. Don't Believe it by Murdoch5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    training of customer care representatives

    No company has trained customer care, I said it and I stand by it! If AT&T succeeds with this, they will be the first company to ever have trained ( not necessarily qualified ) customer care representatives.

    On a side note and unrelated, I once had an issue with a router where it wouldn't get an IP address from the modem, I called Dlink and the lady on the other end kept saying "I need the IP address of the router sir", I kept telling her it didn't have one and that was the issue, she had NO idea what I was saying and kept repeating the same phrase. Got to love trained customer care! Thats not even my best story!