AT&T Quietly Adds Charges To All Contract Cell Plans

guttentag writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that AT&T Mobility, the second-largest wireless carrier in the U.S., has added a new monthly administrative fee of 61 cents to the bills of all of its contract wireless lines as of May 1, a move that could bring in more than a half-billion dollars in annual revenue to the telecom giant. An AT&T spokeswoman said the fee covers 'certain expenses, such as interconnection and cell-site rents and maintenance.' The increased cost to consumers comes even though AT&T's growth in wireless revenue last year outpaced the costs to operate and support its wireless business. The company has talked of continuing to improve wireless profitability. Citigroup analyst Michael Rollins noted that the new administrative fee is a key component for accelerating revenue growth for the rest of the year. He said the fee should add 0.30 of a percentage point to AT&T's 2013 revenue growth; he predicts total top-line growth of about 1.5%. Normally, consumers could vote with their wallets by taking their business elsewhere. AT&T would be required to let customers out of their contracts without an early termination fee if it raised prices, but it is avoiding this by simply calling the increase a 'surcharge,' effectively forcing millions of people to either pay more money per month or pay the ETF."

Comments

Surcharge

[rwise2112]

AT&T would be required to let customers out of their contracts without an early termination fee if it raised prices, but it is avoiding this by simply calling the increase a 'surcharge'

I love the way there's always a loophole!

Re:Surcharge

[bobthesungeek76036]

AT&T would be required to let customers out of their contracts without an early termination fee if it raised prices, but it is avoiding this by simply calling the increase a 'surcharge'

I love the way there's always a loophole!

It's the American way!!!

Re:Surcharge

[msauve]

Hey, ATT, I'm calling this paper bag full of shit, a "payment."

Re:Surcharge

[__aaltlg1547]

AT&T would be required to let customers out of their contracts without an early termination fee if it raised prices, but it is avoiding this by simply calling the increase a 'surcharge'

I love the way there's always a loophole!

There's not. This is blatantly illegal and a breach of contract.

Re:Surcharge

[Lithdren]

While true in theory, what ends up happening is you call to cancle because of the breach of contract, and you get yelled at and treated badly by their 'customer service' for 3-4 hours as you escilate up the chain trying to terminate your now null and void contract without paying the ETF, over 61 cents a month.

Most people will just cave and either switch once the plan is over, or not bother switching at all, because the hassel of getting these jerks to do what is legal and right will end up costing you half a days wage when you take them to small-claims court to get it overturned by a judge because they dont even bother showing up in court.

Oh but dont worry, if you DONT pay the ETF and ignore it, they'll send you to collections, where when you dispute the charge, will get added to your credit rating and affect you for the next 10 years or 7 years or whatever the hell it is, even after you get them to agree that the charges were wrong, unless you spend even more time writing letters and sending lawsuit judgement letters to the credit agencies to get it cleaned up. Even then, might not work.

Companies need to get slapped across the face when they pull this crud, individuals are unable to fight this kind of stuff without sacrificing more than what its going to end up costing them if they just put with it, which is of course excatly why AT&T and their kin do this kind of thing.

Re: Surcharge

[iamhassi]

Yes it's illegal, but they were hoping no one would notice. AT&T is not going to like what the FTC does to them when they finally get off their butts and do what taxpayers pay them to do. I'm sure the US Govt would love an extra half billion in "fines".

Re:Surcharge

[Rob the Bold]

AT&T would be required to let customers out of their contracts without an early termination fee if it raised prices, but it is avoiding this by simply calling the increase a 'surcharge'

I love the way there's always a loophole!

There's not. This is blatantly illegal and a breach of contract.

Perhaps our lawyers should have a talk with AT&T's legal office.

On second thought, a single lawyer would probably be hopelessly outgunned against a team of lawyers who themselves wrote the loophole for the law. And the legal costs just to recover $0.61/month would be prohibitive, to say the least.

No, a class action is the only way to go.

Except for the "no class action" clause in the AT&T's contract.

Well, we're screwed, then.

I guess the only remaining argument for getting a contract-plan for wireless service -- stable pricing for the duration of the contract -- just disappeared.

Now let's just hope that the no-contract month-to-month plans don't disappear.

Re:Surcharge

[serviscope_minor]

While true in theory, what ends up happening is you call to cancle because of the breach of contract, and you get yelled at and treated badly by their 'customer service' for 3-4 hours as you escilate up the chain trying to terminate your now null and void contract without paying the ETF, over 61 cents a month.

The only time I've ever been in dispute with a phone company, I made the choice to deal with it entirely via snail mail.

It's much quicker, since there's no frustrating wait in long queues, being put on hold, cut off or escalating to a supervisor. You can write a letter in 10 minutes, print it and mail it for a very small cost and then not worry about it until you get a reply again.

Also, letters get the attention of other parts of the company and generally yield a much better response, in that they bother to respond in a coherent manner rather than leave the onus on you. This is because snail mail is often used (still, amazingly) for important things for which they have to respond.

Re:Surcharge

[Monoman]

Oh yeah well if that happens then I will just let them know they are receiving a demerit each time my call is transferred. If I have to issue three demerits they will receive a citation. Four of those will result in a verbal warning and if they keep it up they will be looking at a written warning. Two of those and they will be in a world of hurt in the form of a disciplinary review, written up by me, and placed on the desk of their immediate supervisor.

Re:Surcharge

[Anonymous Coward]

So sue them for breach of contract. I'm sure the binding arbiter of their choice will be more than fair in settling the disputes on a case by case basis....

Re:Surcharge

[Big Hairy Ian]

I absolutely agree although I do get the impression you've been reading "How to win friends and influence people" :)

Re:Surcharge

[gstoddart]

There's not. This is blatantly illegal and a breach of contract.

Sadly, that contract says they can make a lot of changes whenever they want to -- like all modern contracts, the company basically says "we can do anything and you can eat shit".

Terms of service for a web site or a product pretty much all nowadays put the power entirely in the hands of companies to do as they please. And since corporate profits are the highest principle in the land, the courts have upheld that as perfectly fine.

If AT&T has decided they need to pad their bottom line by tacking on a little extra surcharge .. there's not a hell of a lot you can do about it. How many of us have received letters from our cell phone companies which more or less say "in order to keep corporate profits at record levels we will be increasing your costs"?

Nothing is illegal when you're a large company these days. And, since they've all updated their TOS to say you can't sue them in a class action suit, you don't have any recourse.

Re:Surcharge

[TheRealMindChild]

get yelled at and treated badly by their 'customer service' for 3-4 hours as you escilate up the chain

The one and only time I ever dealt with AT&T was back in the days of Windows 95, and I signed up for their internet service via the convenient icon already on my desktop. I only needed the internet for a day, and the following day, I canceled it. A month later, my card got billed. I called them and they didn't care. I tried to escalate the situation, but I only got a single transfer and that person REFUSED to transfer me anywhere else. She said she was the last stop in the line and there is no way I am getting past her or getting my money back. I actually had to go to the bank and fill out paperwork to have the charges reversed and a new card issued

Re:Surcharge

[tutufan]

It's not as immediate, but I maintain a "shit list" of companies that I will never deal with again (dire circumstances excepted). AT&T is already on it, and for much worse shenanigans than this.

The important thing, though, is to have that list and follow through. Don't think that it doesn't matter. One less customer pulls cash straight off the bottom line, and there's absolutely nothing they can do to change that.

Re:Surcharge

[serviscope_minor]

I do get the impression you've been reading "How to win friends and influence people"

Nope, 'fraid not.

Re:Surcharge

[Stormthirst]

This is what happens when companies are allowed to run rough shod over the populace. And then people on Slashdot piss and whinge when a government actually enforces the law the people want. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Surcharge

[jittles]

AT&T would be required to let customers out of their contracts without an early termination fee if it raised prices, but it is avoiding this by simply calling the increase a 'surcharge'

I love the way there's always a loophole!

The only reason this loophole works is because most people are too lazy to go through the effort required to rectify this $0.61 a month issue. Honestly, I don't blame them. If I were sufficiently interested in a problem like this (I'm not, I don't even have a cell phone contract), I would take AT&T Mobility to Small Claims court for breach of contract. I'd ask for damages and for them to pay me an early termination fee for having to deal with the headache of this issue. If thousands of customers did this, I think AT&T would just remove the fee entirely.

Re:Surcharge

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the sort of thing that Class Action lawsuits were designed for. Individually, bringing a claim for .61 cents a month just isn't cost effective, but as a class, it can present a risk of loss sufficient to make corporations reconsider the 0.3% revenue increase it would obtain by cheating its customers. Thanks to Congress and SCOTUS; however, corporations no longer have to fear class action claims for such things. They just need to place an arbitration clause in their contracts of adhesion.

Re:Surcharge

[LiENUS]

So you're saying a credit card doesn't go on your credit report if you fail to pay it?

Re:Surcharge

[jittles]

This is because snail mail is often used (still, amazingly) for important things for which they have to respond.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Why I just used snail mail on Monday to send a letter informing a management company that they were in breach of contract and that they had 7 days (by state law) to rectify the situation or they would be legally responsible for all sorts of damages, blah blah blah. Anyway. I had been calling and complaining (and even showing up in person) to said management company for 20 days and they did nothing. It wasn't until I filled out a form to file in court and sent it certified mail that they did anything. And let me tell you, they did something to rectify the breach that very day. Why? Because I had a little stamped piece of paper from the post office saying that they most certainly hand delivered my notice of breach of contract and the court system absolutely loves signed receipts. You can take your piece of paper (the one you sent, and the one you received) in and show a judge. You can't take your tier one support call into court unless you recorded it. Even then a tier 1 support person is probably not likely to get the company into as much hot water as a letter.

Re:Surcharge

[MacGyver2210]

AT&T are hands-down the shadiest mofos operating as a business in this world. From small print-approved snooping on your data, to no-tell-em fees that just pop up all the time, the customer's best interest is the LAST fucking thing they could care about.

We recently cancelled our business internet/phone with them, because they were adding on all sorts of 'additional value-added services' without even asking us(totaling hundreds per month), and our bills were(without the charges from these services) more than double what we were told they would be when we signed up. I have heard from several other people that this is the case for them as well - not sure if it's a regional thing, but everyone I asked was in the Midwest.

They have no respect for regulation, the law, or common decency, and the sooner that former-monopoly branch of an evil empire implodes, the happier I will be. Unfortunately, the only way this will happen is if you - the consumers - vote with your feet and stop allowing them to do this to you.

Re:Surcharge

[realityimpaired]

No, but a cell phone bill in arrears/collections won't hurt your credit rating. (depending on jurisdiction, blah blah)

So if they charge automatically to your credit card, tell your credit card that you had terminated service because they breached the contract, and that the charge is fraudulent. When I did that with my credit card, the charges were reversed, and the cell phone company in question never bothered to even try the collections route, because the credit card company had sent them a registered letter informing them of the reason the charge was reversed.

Re:Surcharge

[faedle]

What if I told you that Slashdot (like anywhere else) is made up of people, some of whom have differing opinions than the others?

Re:Surcharge

[realityimpaired]

If thousands of customers did this, I think AT&T would just remove the fee entirely.

I don't. The most you could possibly get if you went that route would be your $0.61, and the court filing costs which, depending on where you are, could be as little as $10. If thousands of customers did it, ATT would shrug and say "ok, at least our millions of other customers didn't... the one-time cost will be paid for by the increase within a month or two".

Re:Surcharge

[MacGyver2210]

Or, you know, you could just use a provider that isn't as evil as AT&T. There's absolutely no reason to use AT&T for anything, ever, except convenience. Sounds like that convenience just disappeared (again) so...is it time yet for everyone to drop AT&T and let them flail and fail while we watch grinning?

Re:Surcharge

[MacGyver2210]

I knew this was true since forever (EULAs and contracts have always been over-reaching and awful), but I just recently started to take action against it. I recently canceled a phone plan and my former cable contract after I got notices that the terms had been updated, and contacted them to tell them I didn't agree to the changes. Their response was pretty much "Oh well, go somewhere else then". So I did. I now have a far cheaper, less evil cell phone plan, and my cable service has no contract or termination fees.

There is always an option to do away with companies that disregard your rights. It's always worth finding the other option, and it's the only way these giant monopolizing bastards will ever learn: when their customers start leaving in the thousands.

Re:Surcharge

[Holi]

Fine, send it certified. Let them ignore it at their own risk. I'm sure the courts would look kindly on that.

Re:Surcharge

[JWW]

Don't send a letter to them.

I think its time to send a letter to my state's Public Utilities Commission with a copy to the state's Attorney General.

Re:Surcharge

[X0563511]

That would be a credit card, not a cell phone bill.

Re:Surcharge

[Laxori666]

This is what happens when companies are allowed to run rough shod over the populace and competition into that market is arbitrarily restricted by the government.

FTFY

Re:Surcharge

[tompatman]

I just bought two pre-paid phones and was planning to use ATT, but they infuriated me before I could become a customer. They have a pre-paid plan, but hide all information pertaining to the prices their site. Even the support person online couldn't find the info. I gave up and just signed up with T-Mobile, where I'm sure I'll be much happier. T-Mobile signed more new customers this quarter than any other carrier, it's no surprise why.

Re:Surcharge

[Anonymous Coward]

My impression of what will happen when they get your letter:

First Option:
-Receive letter
-Show to supervisor
-"HAHAHA this guy thinks we're going to let him out of our illegal charges! NOPE!"
-Send form letter, toss your letter, game over.

Second Option:
-Receive letter
-Toss letter in trash
-"What letter? We never got anything."

Anyway you go, good luck with getting that evil giant to do the right thing, for any amount of time or effort.

Sorry but you're completely wrong.
First, you send the letter via certified USPS, which means they sign for it so they can't pretend it didn't show up.
Secondly, snail mail doesn't get opened by call center flunkies or some outsourced group. You send it to their Corporate address, and if you're halfway smart you'll put it to the attention of their legal affairs department.
Point being, most of the trouble you run into over the phone is you're dealing with low-paid people who are required to work off a script which is basically a flow chart, and other than telling you to talk to their Legal group there is no escalation path for Legal matters. Snail Mail isn't subject to that process at all, there's so little of it anymore that there aren't large departments of people working the mail. It's being opened by the actual people in the positions who really do have the power and knowledge to properly handle the complaints.

But honestly if we really want any of this to change the only way to deal with it is a class action lawsuit.

Re:Surcharge

[hedwards]

Was that during a trial period or were you trying to game the system?

Re:Surcharge

[hedwards]

Just out of curiosity, which of the other 3 providers isn't evil? Seriously, I'm really curious.

Re:Surcharge

[serviscope_minor]

My impression of what will happen when they get your letter:

Your impressions are misplaced.

The thing is that letters are looked on kindly by the court system, and you can get into a lot of crap for ignoring then. And in the second case in particular there's a really huge risk.

In a big company, mail will be dealt with by the mail department. By the time it gets to whoever it's meant to get to, they probably won't know whether it was sent by certified mail or not. Lieing about receiving a letter is not worth their time.

Or if you really feel that they are going to do that, you can send the mail certified or with a return receipt.

-"HAHAHA this guy thinks we're going to let him out of our illegal charges! NOPE!"

That is by far the most likely response. But, I never said it would only take one letter. A little bit of persistence is required, but either way you'll waste a lot less time mailing it than phoning.

Re:Surcharge

[Rob the Bold]

This is what happens when companies are allowed to run rough shod over the populace and competition into that market is arbitrarily restricted by the government.

FTFY

Spectrum auctions that favor the incumbent players in the market (who have the money to "invest" in Congressmen and the FCC) aren't exactly "arbitrary". There's another auction coming up just now, Google "spectrum auctions" to see how Congress, interest groups of various types, carriers, wanna-be carriers, and the FCC are invested in the process. A little tedious, but interesting how these things get done.

Re: Surcharge

[berashith]

except that whatever fine ends up being imposed will be far less than the amount of revenue that ATT made from this move. And then the fine actually counts against revenue, so it just becomes a tax break on other profits.

Re:Surcharge

[gstoddart]

It's always worth finding the other option, and it's the only way these giant monopolizing bastards will ever learn: when their customers start leaving in the thousands.

Sadly, these days it's out of the hands of one set of giant monopolizing bastards and straight into the hands of another.

Since the big players have been steadily buying the small players, sooner or later, it's all the same people who own them. And where it's still multiple large corporations, they usually get together to agree on how to screw us over anyway.

In many market segments, the notion of a 'free market' is a laughable joke, since it's all controlled by a few multinationals.

Re:Surcharge

[TheRealMindChild]

No, there was no trial period. You paid from day one. My intention was to pay for one month and be done with it. I didn't use the service past the first initial day. I wanted nothing prorated, just my money back for a second month charge which should have never happened since I called and canceled the service on day two.

Re:Surcharge

[berashith]

and then they just buy up the competition that you moved to. It is really hard for a lot of people to escape a behemoth like this.

Re:Surcharge

[j00r0m4nc3r]

this is exactly what happened to me. used to have at+t and got so sick of them, switched to cingular. then at+t bought cingular. can't win...

Re:Surcharge

[tompaulco]

The last time I dealt with AT&T was about 15 years ago when I was signing up for long distance service after a move. My dad had worked at AT&T Bell Labs so I had some loyalty to the company. The lady on the phone put me on a long distance plan with no monthly fee and 7 or 8 cents a minute, I forget what it was now. They also put me on an international plan (my wife is from Korea) that was about $4 a month and 40 cents a minute.
The next month I get a bill for about $600 in long distance. When I look at the bill, they were charging me about 60 cents a minute for long distance and several dollars a minute for international. When I called about this, they said that these were the default charges because I was not on a plan. I told them that I was signed up for a plan the previous month and the details of the plan. They said "I''m sorry, that plan is not available in your area". I said that is not my problem. I was sold that plan and that is the plan I want and nobody even bothered to call to tell me that the plan they sold me is not available and would I be interested in an alternate plan. No, they just quietly put me on no plan at all and let the charges go. They were completely unapologetic and just said that the plan is not available and offered me a couple of options which were about twice as expensive. In the end, they refused to honor the plan they sold me and refused to even reprice the previous bill back to the plan that they had sold me. They knocked like $100 off of the bill expecting me to pay 80% of the cost for a mistake which was 100% their fault. I said I was not going to pay it and that is when they started trotting out the "we'll report you to collections" line. I told them that that was fine, I had just moved and I simply can't afford to pay for your mistake at this time. Finally, they agreed to put me on monthly payments to pay them for their mistake. As soon as I had them paid back, I switched companies and will never, ever deal with them again.
Unfortunately, since that time, most of the other wireless carriers have joined them on the list of companies I won't deal with. Pretty soon i will be forced into Luddite status by the fact that there are no wireless companies left that have not completely screwed me over.

Re:Surcharge

[Rob the Bold]

Just out of curiosity, which of the other 3 providers isn't evil? Seriously, I'm really curious.

T-Mobile and Sprint didn't even get nominated for the Consumerist's Worst Company in America tournament this year. AT&T and Verizon both were nominated -- AT&T went all the way to the "Elite Eight" before being defeated by 2-time Tournament Champion EA.

Obviously unscientific, but the contestants were nominated and voted on by disgruntled consumers, so they are representative of "how bad" these companies are.

From a "who's best?" standpoint, in 2012 Consumer Reports ranked the majors in order: Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and AT&T. A JD Power report based on "network quality" also put Verizon at the top of the list in most regions. As far as I can tell, the Power report doesn't reflect overall satisfaction, just voice and data performance.

Re:Surcharge

[IronChef]

There are better options. I am always surprised that more people do not use the cheaper prepaid carriers.

I have never had my prepaid carrier raise rates on me or add surprise charges. And, since they don't have my billing information and the service is prepaid, I remain in control of spending.

Hey, they still have problems, they're phone companies. But after being pushed down the stairs by ATT etc for years, I find prepaid to be a big improvement.

Re:Surcharge

[tompaulco]

I can't say for 100% certain that a cell phone bill in collections won't hurt the actual credit score, but I can say for 100% certain that it shows up on the credit report. As a landlord, I have to pull credit frequently, and there are items on there that you wouldn't think would end up on there, utilities, cell phone bills, other landlord judgments, cable bills, gym memberships, payday loan outfits, etc.

Re:Surcharge

[lightknight]

Well, look at it this way: according to the various Abrahamic religions, theft was the first sin. The Lord's prayer includes, in some versions, something to the effect of "forgive us for our thefts."

Why should anything ever change? Is not the goal, at the end of the day, to be the one to change the laws, such that you are now the one being stolen from, and have every right to exploit others as a form of social justice? Is this not what the whole of human history has, through one vantage point, reflected? Consider the Monarch, whose injury comes not just from his or her being afflicted with violence or disease, but his or her laws being violated, such that it is considered, with each violation, as an affliction of violence or disease upon the body of the Monarch.

     

Re:Surcharge

[Joe_Dragon]

and then you can go unlock your phone and go to t-mobile and pay alot less as you are useing your own phone.

Re:Surcharge

[tompaulco]

This is what happens when companies are allowed to run rough shod over the populace and competition into that market is arbitrarily restricted by the government.

FTFY

Restricted by the government and restricted by the fact that it costs a crap-ton of money to enter the market. Nobody who doesn't already own a wireless carrier can afford to create a new wireless carrier. Even if you started one extremely locally hoping to expand, you would fail because you would have to interface with the other carriers to get calls out of your area and they would just refuse to do business with you.

Re:Surcharge

[minkie]

A good way to get the attention of somebody like a phone company is to file a complaint with your state's Public Service Commission. The PSC will forward the complaint to the company, who will have to respond officially to the PSC. If they're going to jerk you around, that's the best way to jerk them right back.

Re:Surcharge

[ThatsLoseNotLoose]

3 providers? Aren't there 4?. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-mobile. T-mobile even dropped the contracts - sort of.

Also, there are an increasing number of no-contract and prepaid services that are becoming credible contenders.

Metro PCS, Virgin Mobile, Boost mobile, Straight Talk, Net 10. There are MVNOs for every one of the major services so you could stay with AT&T's network if you want.

Personally, I switched my family from AT&T to Ting 4 months ago (yeah, shamelessly putting my referral link in there). AT&T bill for a really pared back plan was $110, the Ting bill has averaged $40 and it's a better plan. But you do have to buy the phones.

Re:Surcharge

[idontgno]

And here, on Hypothetical Conversation Theatre, is the sparkling interplay between AT&T and the PSC:

PSC: Hey, I have a complaint from one "minkie", a customer of yours, that you're raising rates on him in violation of contract and without consultation or permission from us.

AT&T: Surcharge. It's called a "surcharge." We've instituted a surcharge. Our rates are completely unaffected.

Oh, right. "Surcharge." Completely different. Carry on.

Re:Surcharge

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Actually, let's see them ignore letters from lawyers in the inevitable class action lawsuit.

Re:Surcharge

[dryeo]

You're lucky. Every few months it seems I get a text detailing how some fee is going up. Last one I believe was text messages to the States going up to 30 cents a text. Of course I'm in Canada, the one country that makes the American Cell providers look cheap and reasonable.

Re:Surcharge

[fast turtle]

Better Yet, the company needs to be raped and then the corporate veil pierced with the CEO/CFO/CIO and the Board being held accountable then the corporation's existence being terminated (Killed). Do this a few times and suddenly corps will get the message and behave properly instead of as god damn meglomaniacs who think they can do no wrong. Buzz it's time to execute a few of them while bankrupting the god damn assholes running them. The only problem is, it's far more expensive then a simple bullet between the eyes for a corporation.

Re:Surcharge

[Dishevel]

This is the fault of the Congress.
They gave telcos this ability.
Do not let politics become a career choice. Nothing but bad comes of it.

Re:Surcharge

[idontgno]

It's illustrative to note that the classic "Cynic's Golden Rule" ("He who has the gold makes the rules.") is symmetric and reversible as well: "He who made the rules gets the gold.".

Re:Surcharge

[Hatta]

They knocked like $100 off of the bill expecting me to pay 80% of the cost for a mistake which was 100% their fault. I said I was not going to pay it and that is when they started trotting out the "we'll report you to collections" line.

That's when you trot out the "I'll see you in small claims" line.

Re:Surcharge

[RoknrolZombie]

^ This. A billion times this. The ONLY vote that we have anymore is with our dollar.

Politically we have no power. Legally we have no power. Socially we have very little power. The only power we have comes from the money we earn and spend. Withhold it from people (companies are people, right?) that you don't think deserve it.

Re:Surcharge

[Zordak]

This is the sole reason I'm on the fence about class actions. On the one hand, the consumer plaintiffs never get anything out of them. They're solely for the enrichment of plaintiffs' attorneys. On the other hand, it is often the only way to hold a big player accountable when it screws a whole lot of people just a little. It's like commissioning a privateer to fight pirates by saying, "Capture them, and any stolen booty you can find on the ship is yours to keep. Just get them out of my shipping lanes." (Which, by the way, is almost exactly what the King of England told Captain Kidd. Except he also said, "And I get a cut of the booty, too.")

Re:Surcharge

[tompaulco]

I just recently started to take action against it. I recently canceled a phone plan and my former cable contract after I got notices that the terms had been updated, and contacted them to tell them I didn't agree to the changes. Their response was pretty much "Oh well, go somewhere else then". So I did.
That may work when there is competition, but in some areas there isn't any competition any they can do what they want. Cable is an excellent example of this. There is no competition due to the last mile problem. Utilities are another. Your only recourse to a utility company cheating you is to cut off service, at which point, they notify the city and the city condemns your house for not having utilities.

Re:Surcharge

[compro01]

AT&T's contracts prohibit filing a class action suit against them and the Supreme Court backed them on it on the basis of the ancient Federal Arbitration Act. See AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

Re:Surcharge

[ne0n]

AT&T sounds a lot like Rogers Canada. Side note: the part about Hezbollah cloning Ted Rogers' phone isn't even a joke

I hope you added Monsanto and its spawn to your shit-list.

Re:Surcharge

[Applekid]

AT&T would be required to let customers out of their contracts without an early termination fee if it raised prices, but it is avoiding this by simply calling the increase a 'surcharge'

I love the way there's always a loophole!

There's not. This is blatantly illegal and a breach of contract.

Of course, no one is going to lawyer up over an extra charge of 61 cents, and, wouldn't you know it, the AT&T contract forces you to waive your right to participate in any class action lawsuit, and any disputes must go through kangaroo-court arbitration.

Thanks, Supreme Court!

Re:Surcharge

[HangingChad]

Companies need to get slapped across the face when they pull this crud

Who's going to do it? When people like Rand Paul step up to apologize to big companies on the rare times the senate even tries to get after some of the more flagrant abuses, what do you think is really going to change?

Who's in charge of the new consumer bureau? Oh, right, nobody! Because the GOP blocks every candidate the president tries to nominate unless Democrats agree to gut the agency.

So is it any big surprise AT&T thinks they can treat you like a bitch and get away with it?

Re:Surcharge

[idunham]

It's the "home court advantage".
Never call a telephone company about your plan.
And never email an ISP.

Re:Surcharge

[JazzLad]

I use Page Plus (VZW MVNO) and couldn't be happier. The $80 a YEAR plan is sufficient minutes for my needs & I already have wifi everywhere I spend more then 30 minutes at a time (not the grocery store, etc, but I can go sometimes as much as an hour without internet before getting the shakes ... :) ). Flip phone (forever battery life) + 7" tablet (Google Voice for text + Talkatone when I need to talk more) FTW.

Re:Surcharge

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you must be one of those folks who are always telling our agents that they won't need to bother to come in the next day because you'll have them fired. A customer pulled that line on one of our customer service folks the other day. Guess what? Everyone who works in a call center has been given that line at least once. Once when I used to take calls, a large meat packing and distributor corporation was going to have me fired because I was dispatching their emergency system down call and none of the folks who were supposed to be on call were answering. The CEO of that corp informed me that my incompetence (at somehow forcing somebody else to pick up a phone) was losing them around $100,000 per minute their system was down, and he told me that I wouldn't need to bother coming in to work the next day.

Do you think I even got a write up after trying to reach 20 different people for over an hour after my shift ended and failing to get a single answer?

Five years later, I'm now pretty much the de-factor senior developer, although my title is programmer. I still get forwarded emails every now and then by customer service recommending that I be fired and to get somebody competent to make some change to how their account works. Guess what? That somebody more competent is still me at the end of the day, and the reason they wanted me fired was either a bad change request I had gotten before or some kind of data entry error.

This may blow your mind, but the folks who respond to those letters and answer your calls are not empowered to make the kinds of decisions you're trying to fire them for not making. Therefore, they won't be fired. If you want to change an organization, it'll take more than some kind of arrogant review of some low-level employee who is following policy because they... you know... kind of want to keep their jobs.

I don't know why folks like you think that you're going to get somebody fired who was following procedure. This may be news to you, but no matter how bad you're pissing your pants, you're not going to get a front-line employee fired.

Actually, come to think of it, when I was trying to get that CEO some help, I even called people I wasn't supposed to. In theory, I should have at least gotten a write-up for doing that. Guess what? I didn't, because I did everything I could do with a phone and a list of numbers.

I'm sure if that CEO ever sees me in the street and knew it was me that he'd probably make me bloody. That's why I carry mace, though---stupid pinheads like you who think you have the authority to discipline and fire front line employees making barely over minimum wage over some company policy made way up the chain of command, who are in reality going above and beyond for you and doing everything they can with everything they have to work with.

Let's try to make this workable in your little macho world. You're given a specification by customer service, and you make a product according to that specification. Then, the next day you have a pink slip on your desk. Turns out the specification was wrong, and the customer wanted you fired because in his sole judgement, you're apparently 100% responsible for the miscommunication, so you are.

I hope that happens to you some time so you can grow up.

-Vel

Re:Surcharge

[Monoman]

I was paraphrasing a funny scene from The Office (American version).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fugGUgvtbO4

Re:Surcharge

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and that sort of thing would be enforceable by the contract if AT&T didn't breach it first. Class action suits are fair game now.

Re:Surcharge

[Like2Byte]

But, I never said it would only take one letter. A little bit of persistence is required, but either way you'll waste a lot less time mailing it than phoning.

At 46 cents(USD) (source: https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm) per stamp just how many letters (stamps) we talking to reverse a $14.64 (61 cent * 24 months) charge? Looks like the crossover is at 32 stamps (.46*32=$14.74)(USD).

Basically, if you make minimum wage (or somewhat over minimum wage) its worth your time to fight it. If you make substantially more, just what are you willing to volunteer to 'free the world' from their tyranny.

Is what they are doing right and proper? Probably not.
Is there much you can do about it? Again, probably not.

What's the solution then? Inundate your state's Attorney General's office with complaints. One .46 cent letter (per person) * 10000 complaints will get his attention. Contact your Congress critter, too. Then the local news stations.

OCCUPY ATT!

(Sorry, that was silly of me.)

Re:Surcharge

[suutar]

the downside, of course, is that one stamp is two thirds of the cost of one month of this charge. You gotta really feel strongly about the principle involved (or just want to get away from ATT :) to go through the effort

Re:Surcharge

[steelfood]

You should look into T-Mobile again. Buy your own phone, and sign up for one of those no contract plans. It wouldn't prevent this kind of B.S., but at least you could drop them and move to another carrier for doing it.

Re:Surcharge

[Miamicanes]

Yes, T-mobile can be a good option, except for the fact that if you subscribe to the one plan they have with 5gb HSPA+/LTE per month and nominally-unlimited calls & text, they might be a whopping $5/month cheaper after you subtract the ETF for somebody else from the retail purchase price of a $699 best of breed Android phone, divide the result by 24, and subtract it from the other carriers' monthly rates for comparable service.

The main theoretical benefit of T-Mo is the ability to buy arbitrary phones... but between 1700MHz HSPA+ (they're still refarming, and 1700/2100 support among non-American phones is still pretty rare) and LTE (in some places) that's every bit as proprietary and non-interoperable with imported phones as LTE from AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, the benefits are mostly academic. At best, T-Mobile is more like a step sideways that's a little cheaper and not much worse (or maybe a solid step up from Sprint overall).

Now, if you're an elderly person with a Jitterbug who uses it to call for a ride to church once a week, the equation might be a bit different. But if you have a high-end phone that's permanently in use throughout the day & you treat Youtube like a free on-demand radio station in your car, or you leave the phone on your desk at work like a picture frame streaming 4 security cameras from home all day so you can keep an eye on your cats while you work, most prepaid service will be either lacking or way more expensive.

Re:Surcharge

[mjc_w]

Nope. The problem is lack of government regulation.

Re:Surcharge

[evilviper]

No, a class action is the only way to go.

Except for the "no class action" clause in the AT&T's contract.

Well, we're screwed, then.

Those "no class action" clauses are likely unenforceable unless they give you a reasonable way to opt-out (and you're just too lazy to do so, like most customers).

Now let's just hope that the no-contract month-to-month plans don't disappear.

They won't... There's too many people on them, who would be willing to jump to the next provider at a moment's notice. If one of the big 4 dropped their contract plans, some tiny company would go around putting up cell towers, and trump them all.

Hell, WiFi tech is almost good enough that you could use APs to provide VoIP across whole metropolitan areas, for far, far less than the price of cell tower infrastructure. If competition doesn't get them, technology eventually will...

Re:Surcharge

[operagost]

That was one long WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. You could really hear the Doppler effect on that thing.

Re:Surcharge

[operagost]

Yeah, I'm sure it's just the Republicans' fault. Remember Bill Clinton signed that 1996 Telecom Act. But keep focusing on one party and see if the other one somehow won't decide to screw you in its lust for power.

Re:Surcharge

[lgw]

I've been happy with T-Mobile since they acquire VoiceStream 10+ years ago. There're about as dickish as a typical big company, don't get me wrong, but that's worlds ahead of the others. I may switch to their pre-paid plan soon, but that's just for cost savings, I've never had a contract with an ETF with them (paying full price for phones up front, of course).

Re:Surcharge

[xaxa]

Several of my friends from all over the UK switched to Three.co.uk in the last few months, and we met on holiday in Germany last week. They all complained that Three made it difficult to activate international roaming, and had excessive international charges (the maximum permitted by the EU by default, and poor deals) and a crap call centre.

Having read some of the posts on this article, I'm less annoyed with Three. My contract costs £6.90/month, for 500MB data and 200 minutes.

I think that's exactly what my friends have, but I went one step further and got £40 cashback by finding a deal online.

(I'm using a fairly old smartphone, an HTC Desire. It's probably time to upgrade, but I don't like throwing out mostly-working electronics.)

Re:Surcharge

[datavirtue]

This happened to me with AOL. They started charging for a streaming music service all of the sudden after offering it for free (2001). I got a freaking bill for $120. Had to reverse charges and ultimately have a new card issued.

Re:Surcharge

[bitt3n]

You can't take your tier one support call into court unless you recorded it.

I was wondering about this. Is it always legal to record such calls if you are yourself informed that the call is being recorded by the other party?

Re:Surcharge

[xaxa]

(Oh, I should say: it's not all unicorns and rainbows. I understand your US contracts generally cover the whole country at a sensible rate, whereas I'm currently in Poland. My German and British networks charge 9c/minute to receive calls, 39c to make them, 10c/text, *49c/MB* (!). These are the maximum amounts allowed under EU law, outside the EU (where the law doesn't apply, obviously) you can double, triple or even quadruple (e.g. in Africa) those figures.

It's almost impossible to find a good price for regular intra-EU travel, which is why I have the German SIM. The "travel bundles" most networks offer tend to be awful, like 25MB for a day, for around £2).

Re:Surcharge

[jittles]

You can't take your tier one support call into court unless you recorded it.

I was wondering about this. Is it always legal to record such calls if you are yourself informed that the call is being recorded by the other party?

Most states require both parties to be aware that the recording is taking place. Since most of those places inform you that the call is being recorded when you call in, you can record the call legally. I would start the recording from the warning on. And I actually have some SIP software that will play a tone every 5 seconds to make sure all parties know it is recording (quite handy if you're going to record calls). In any event, for extra safety, it doesn't hurt to remind the person that they are being recorded when you finally get them on the line.

Re:Surcharge

[RalphSlate]

Here's the rub - even if it is a breach of contract, you can't organize a class-action suit because the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for AT&T to put a clause in the contract that prohibits class-action suits. You have to sue AT&T individually for the 61 cents per month. Good luck with that!

Re:Surcharge

[fuzznutz]

One Sunday afternoon, I tried to refill a prescription at Walgreen's for my daughter. This was a refill for a prescription that had been filled there before. The insurance company rejected the claim saying that she was not a covered party. The pharmacist and I worked for an hour trying to get it to be accepted. He even called their hotline twice and read off all the claim and policy numbers manually. The next day, I called the insurance company and straightened it out. The girl in "customer services" could not tell me why it was rejected, nor would she give me any assurances that it would not happen again at a more critical time. She had no intention of making any extra effort to resolve the underlying cause for the claim being rejected. As far as she was concerned, the case was closed.

I wrote an email to the benefits manager of my company with my concerns. I received a phone call on Tuesday from a supervisor at the insurance company who researched the problem and discovered it was a transposed number in the claim. He even called Walgreen's to make sure it never happened again. He told me he planned to pull the phone call and if my version of what happened was true, he was going to fire the girl. I knew my story WAS true and I suspected she was a gonner.

I asked him firmly not to fire her and stated that it was not my intent. I just wanted her to fix the cause and make sure it did not happen during, say, an ER visit. It was two weeks before Christmas, and I didn't want to be responsible for getting her fired. She may have just been having a bad day. She probably never knew how close she was to me getting her fired and then saving her job.

Re:Surcharge

[fuzznutz]

The value to me for using a prepaid phone (Straight Talk) is that I'm not subject to AT&T or Verizon changing the rules in the middle of the game and penalizing me for bailing out just as we are discussing. Contracts are for losers that can't figure out that when you sign on for two years, your provider no longer has to provide a good value or good customer service. If it's no longer a good value proposition, I can port my number over to a different service; no harm done.

If you think it's only about money, then you are mistaken.

Re:Surcharge

[SoftwareArtist]

You know, I once had an experience with AT&T that was somewhat similar to this. The details were a bit different, but like you, they wanted me to pay a ridiculous amount for an international phone call. I spoke to a customer service rep who was very helpful, switched around some details on my plan, and told me the bill would be lowered to a much more reasonable amount.

Shortly after, I got another bill from them, still asking for the same ridiculous amount. I called them up, and after much grief was eventually told that no, my plan had not been modified and could not be modified, and I had to pay the whole amount. So in the end I paid it, then switched away from AT&T and have never done business with them again.

A few months later, they notified me I had a large surplus in my account, because the adjustment to the bill the first person had made actually did eventually go through. So they ended up refunding most of what I paid them.

Bureaucracy. It can be a powerful force for both good and evil. Unfortunately, it seems to be completely random which one it does in any case.

Re:Surcharge

[Miamicanes]

Maybe, but this is Slashdot, and users here are probably on the heavier end of data use. As a practical matter, only T-mobile prepaid is competitive with AT&T or Verizon insofar as raw speed and/or bulk gigabyte pricing is concerned... and T-mobile is *very* much "feast or famine". Where they're good, they're awesome. Everywhere else, they totally suck for data. There's no middle ground with them. You either have rock-solid 6-20mbps HSPA+ or LTE, or you're limping at 80-150kbps on EDGE (but still probably doing better than Sprint).

That said... T-mobile's coverage is now fairly decent, as long as the overwhelming majority of your use is in the 80% or so of urban America where they're good. Just don't even bother to *fantasize* about depending upon them for high-speed data when you go stormchasing in semi-rural areas, let alone western Kansas, South Dakota, or most of Alabama beyond cities like Birmingham, Montgomery, or Tuscaloosa. For stuff like that, you really need AT&T *and* Verizon... maybe US Cellular too, to avoid totally burning through your Verizon data. (Note: they don't like to talk about it much, but if you can pick up a cheap Verizon data modem or older hotspot for $10-60 on ebay, you can prepay Verizon data by the day, week, or month, and just keep the modem/hotspot around for a rainy day (ok, sorry... shamelessly bad pun).

Re:Surcharge

[StikyPad]

From your description, "they" were an individual customer service representative. As soon as one starts giving you pushback, take the operator's advice: hang up and try your call again.

Re:Surcharge

[NotBorg]

I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. [mechanical breathing noise]

Re:Surcharge

[LiENUS]

Credit cards are typically (although not always) unsecured. He said cell phones dont show up on your credit because they're unsecured debt, so by that logic if I don't pay my credit card bill it won't show up on my credit report either as my credit card is unsecured debt.

Re:Surcharge

[Stormthirst]

Thank you for demonstrating my point so well

Re:Surcharge

[Laxori666]

I didn't mean they should be disallowed from running rough-shod over the populace. I meant the government should not restrict entry into the market any more than it already is by the natural entry costs. Then it wouldn't matter if companies ran rough-shod over the populace because they would go out of business. I only want it one way.

Re:Surcharge

[OdinOdin_]

No No... you make your canned "This call is being recorded announcement" over the top of their similar announcement often played from a tape, just before a real person picks up the call.

Both parties get to keep their recordings to prove you have both announced this matter to each other.

I think it should be that if one party chooses to record a call then that automatically allows the other party to make a recording without needing to announce the matter. If one party makes a recording it should automatically become a reciprocal matter. More so if you have a recording yourself to prove such an announcement was made (by the other party).

Re:Surcharge

[compro01]

Nope. Read the case. Any breach of contract claim has to go through AT&T's selected binding arbitration.

Re:Surcharge

[kmoser]

It seems to me that when they announce, "This call may be recorded..." they are explicitly giving you permission to record the call.

Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[dmgxmichael]

deserves what they get. Worst Telcom in history (and that's an achievement considering how rotten all of them are.).

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[AlabamaCajun]

Learned that 20 years ago with their dial suck service and avoided them for all but the landline I'm stuck with until better network options become available. "Dull"house Cable is not an option with it's monthly rising costs.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[anthony_greer]

Many of us on ATT are not stupid at all - Many are grandfathered in on really old plans that they keep letting us carry forward each cycle! I have a plan from the old Cellular One, which became Cingular which much later became ATT Wireless...why on earth would I change when my rate hasnt gone up since 2003 (with the exception of the data package added in like 06)

I pay like $78 per month for what on ATT or VZW now costs about $120 or so - I get a new phone and sign a new contract every two years and they dont ever manke me change when my contract terms expire so...I would be nuts to NOT stay with them, right?

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[socrplayr813]

You can get unlimited talk, text, and data through Straight Talk or similar for less than $50 a month. Bring your AT&T phone and just buy a new SIM card, if you like (usually around $15 or less). Or if you're not overly concerned with having the fanciest phones (which these days doesn't make nearly as much difference as it did 2-3 years ago), you can get a phone on Verizon's network and possibly have better coverage.

Yes, I think you're nuts.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[gmclapp]

The only problem is that AT&T, like Comcast and Charter have a sort of 'geographical monopoly' for some services. I had this problem once when AT&T was my only option for internet. (barring satellite because latency on a good day can be between 900ms and 1200ms). So I had to deal with AT&T. They did suck quite frankly, but I've dealt with Comcast and they suck more for a higher price. The root problem is the lack of real competition between these companies. With the exception of Verizon, Sprint and similar cell phone only companies, they have other revenue streams. In the case of AT&T, TV and Internet service. That keeps them out of competition for certain amounts of revenue and allows them to bully their consumers...

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[gtbritishskull]

I pay $100 ($117 w/ taxes and fees) for unlimited talk, text, and web on 2 phones (through Tmobile). I get 2.5 GB of high-speed data and free tethering. It is also a no-contract plan (so if they try to charge me BS fees, I can vote with my wallet). I can get a new phone and pay for the phone over 2 years so, if the phone is $480, I pay $20 per month for the next 2 years (which would bring my total to the same as yours). But, I am happy with my current phone, so I get to pay $20 per month less than you. I do not think you are getting a good deal. I just think you are getting ripped off less than most of their other customers.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[realityimpaired]

So sign up for an MVNO that piggy-backs on their network and offers better plans....

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[MacGyver2210]

Yes, I think you're nuts.

Me too. Are you sure a new provider would charge that much? When was the last time you checked their plans/rates?

I have a plan on VZW that is pretty much as loaded out as it can be, which supports several phone lines, and it doesn't even cost $120/month.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[quarterbuck]

You can go to Straight Talk (Which is on AT&T network if that is important to you) and get Voice+Data at about $50. Assuming the cost of the phone is $600 every two years, this works out to $25 a month over two years. So a total of $75 a month .$3 a month cheaper and you don't have to add money if you are not using the phone at any point.
. And when you are done with your phone after two years, you can most likely sell it one ebay for $200 or so (the phone is always unlocked).

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[X0563511]

SIM card? What's that? I haven't seen one of those in a phone in years, over here.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[socrplayr813]

Straight Talk and the other prepay phone companies use the networks of the major carriers. They don't have networks of their own. If you've had issues with coverage, it was either a bad phone or you chose a network that already had bad coverage. It had nothing to do with Straight Talk.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[Grizzley9]

While I would agree with you, I don't have much choice until T-mobile gets their network in gear and expanded LTE coverage.

The others aren't an option due to coverage in my area, I'd try something like Net10 or SmartTalk but their coverage and services issues are also bad. T-mobile is about the only option for us and I'd switch tomorrow if they had LTE and decent coverage.

So if I want to use an iPhone5 or 6 with LTE around here without it being crippled, the only real option unfortunately is AT&T. Sure they're screwing you, but for most, it's not worth the fight over $0.61, and they know that.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[socrplayr813]

Where is that?

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM)

The GSM logo is used to identify compatible handsets and equipmentGSM (Global System for Mobile Communications, originally Groupe Spécial Mobile), is a standard set developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) to describe protocols for second generation (2G) digital cellular networks used by mobile phones. It became the de facto global standard for mobile communications with over 80% market share.

Also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subscriber_Identity_Module#Usage_in_mobile_phone_standards)

The use of SIM cards is mandatory in GSM devices.

In the US, AT&T and T-Mobile both use GSM for their networks, so any phone that uses them (including many prepay companies) will have a SIM card.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[Grizzley9]

You can go to Straight Talk (Which is on AT&T network if that is important to you) and get Voice+Data at about $50. Assuming the cost of the phone is $600 every two years, this works out to $25 a month over two years. So a total of $75 a month .$3 a month cheaper and you don't have to add money if you are not using the phone at any point. . And when you are done with your phone after two years, you can most likely sell it one ebay for $200 or so (the phone is always unlocked).

When I looked into it last night, Straight Talk is no longer giving out AT&T sims. They use the Sprint network now. And if you get an iPhone 5 you won't get LTE.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[djrobxx]

You can get unlimited talk, text, and data through Straight Talk or similar for less than $50 a month. Bring your AT&T phone and just buy a new SIM card, if you like (usually around $15 or less). Or if you're not overly concerned with having the fanciest phones (which these days doesn't make nearly as much difference as it did 2-3 years ago), you can get a phone on Verizon's network and possibly have better coverage.

Yes, I think you're nuts.

You're forgetting the value of the subsidized upgrades. That's worth something, especially when you can sell the old ones on eBay. AT&T's coverage is significantly better than Verizon in my area.

StraightTalk would not be a good deal for me. I pay $120 per month for two unlimited-data iPhones and a basic no-frills emergency line for Mom. We get at least 1 new subsidized phone every year. I do have limited minutes (550 shared) and limited texts (200 per iPhone), but I have tons of rollover minutes that expire every month and with iMessage, reaching the 200 text limit is rare. As long as AT&T continues to let me upgrade and keep my rate plan, I'm sticking with them.

I don't trust MVNO's anyway. I'd probably try that route if I were a new customer, but the "tower owners" have them by the balls. I wouldn't expect the good deals to last very long.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[jsm18]

Exactly. Prepaid cell phone service just got 61 cents a month more attractive.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[X0563511]

Apparently none of my devices are GSM, then.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[almitydave]

I have approximately the same plan as gtbritishskull, and it is, in fact, unlimited data, throttled back to 3G speeds after 2.5 GB has been used in a month (2GB on my plan). So it's the same type of "unlimited" as your plan. I can also select throttle trigger caps of 200MB and 5GB, for a few bucks less or more per month, respectively.

I've never hit my 2GB limit, since most of my data usage is while on WiFi, but I often watch Netflix during lunch at work, and have figured out that I could stream about one half-hour show per day without going over that limit. I don't know how much slower the limited speeds are.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[MastarPete]

Verizon has introduced Sim cards with their LTE devices/network.
http://support.verizonwireless.com/information/4gsim.html

I thought I read that Sprint is doing the same but they may be going with embedded SIMs from some devices. (embedded= not swappable, making it harder or impossible to use the device with another carriers)
I wasn't able to find a SIM specific support page like Verizon, only general results for devices with SIMs.
http://search.sprint.com/srchapp/ui.jsp?question_box=sim+card

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[tompaulco]

Many are grandfathered in on really old plans that they keep letting us carry forward each cycle!
I pay like $78 per month for what on ATT or VZW now costs about $120 or so -
You think that is good, how about a really grandfathered plan? Back when I was growing up, a telephone line that the whole family could use cost about $15 a month including all usage charges. With all the advances in technology, it is probably practically free now. Oh, no wait, it is like $50 a month for a land line now.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[evilviper]

I pay like $78 per month for what on ATT or VZW now costs about $120 or so - I get a new phone and sign a new contract every two years

If that's for one phone, that doesn't sound like a good deal, at all.

Boost Mobile (Sprint) has unlimited voice/sms/data on Android at $55/mo, and has "shrinkage" which drops that by $5 every 6 months (if you pay on-time). After staying for just 18 months, you're only paying $40/mo, indefinitely, with no contract and no fees. And that's the TOTAL price... No surcharges, no taxes, no fees, etc.

As for phones, Boost has some decent ones for $80. Get a new one every 2 years, and you're adding just $3/mo on to your bill, for a grand total of $44/mo., or a bit more than half what you're paying for your wonderful grandfathered-in plan.

I wouldn't be caught dead signing a cell phone contract. If Boost/Sprint ever pissed me off, I'd switch to some other service immediately... No fees, no nothing. That's probably why they just DON'T DO THAT to their customers, ever.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[DigitAl56K]

It is unlimited data. It's 2.5GB of high-speed, then unlimited lower-speed data. If you want unlimited high speed, then you can add that for $10/mo more. Likelihood is if you have Wifi at home and where you work and don't YouTube too much in between, you won't hit anywhere near 2.5GB/mo anyway.

Re:Anyone stupid enough to use AT&T

[anthony_greer]

Just went to ATT.com and my current plan equivalent would be $110, not $120, but the high end unlimited everything** plan you speak of would cost me $140 for 1 single smartphone.

** I have the old unlimited data, I selected the 5gb plan for comparative analysis.

cover certain expenses..

[gl4ss]

..which are the expenses you were supposedly paying for already.

ditch 'em. and sue 'em for screwing the etf.

what good is the rule, if they just add charges and still have you pay the etf?

Re:cover certain expenses..

[VortexCortex]

ditch 'em. and sue 'em for screwing the etf.

I agree. I'm just they're not screwing the IETF. So long as they're our bedfellows instead, we have a fighting chance.

Re:cover certain expenses..

[Big Hairy Ian]

I believe the words "Class Action" spring to mind :)

Re:cover certain expenses..

[gstoddart]

I believe the words "Class Action" spring to mind :)

And I believe you'll find they've added terms to the contract which prohibit you from doing that, and that the courts have upheld this,.

You have zero chance of a class action suit against them, because they already updated your terms of service to say you agree you can't do that.

Re:cover certain expenses..

[MacGyver2210]

Doesn't fly if it's not on the contract you signed. There are no contracts the court would uphold that just allow them to add provisions as they see fit, whenever they want, without even telling the customer. Many states even have their own laws against changing an already-signed contract without approval from all signing parties.

Re:cover certain expenses..

[X0563511]

How does that work once your contract is terminated?

Re:cover certain expenses..

[gstoddart]

Doesn't fly if it's not on the contract you signed.

Except the contract you signed says they can change things, and if you keep using it you've agreed.

There are no contracts the court would uphold that just allow them to add provisions as they see fit, whenever they want, without even telling the customer.

I wish that were true, and I really hope it is ... but I'm pretty sure the courts have upheld EULAs in all their hideous glory, and have upheld the inclusion of waiving your right to join a class action suit.

And, as pointed out in the summary, this isn't a change to your contract, merely a surcharge, which somehow apparently magically sidesteps everything.

I fear the legal climate has changed to the point where AT&T holds all the cards here. So unless the FCC or someone gets involved, consumers likely have very little recourse.

Re:cover certain expenses..

[hedwards]

Unfortunately, you're wrong. People who objected to the change could have ended the contract at that point and had the ETF waived. Anybody who stayed on after that would be considered to agree to the new ToS.

Which is really a moot point because there was never any informed consent for most customers at any point, they just signed the contract and assumed it wasn't too evil. Chances are good that they store they signed at didn't even have somebody qualified to explain all the fine print.

Re:cover certain expenses..

[MTEK]

ditch 'em. and sue 'em for screwing the etf.

what good is the rule, if they just add charges and still have you pay the etf?

I'm reading this on the TV (where text isn't the sharpest and apparently neither am I) and the word "etf" looks exactly like "elf", and I'm reading the latter and feeling really confused.

How To

[Anonymous Coward]

And here is a very succinct how to by someone who successfully ended their AT&T service sans ETF.

(Note it still did take 2 hours)

Ain't it great?

[bradley13]

"the new administrative fee is a key component for accelerating revenue growth for the rest of the year"

So, have I understood this correctly? If you have a contract with them, they aren't violating it, because they aren't raising your rates. They're just adding a separate administrative fee. Reminds me of the game airlines play: your flight is cheap, but you have to pay the fees for the airports, for fuel, for your luggage, for having wings on the airplane...

This is great for the bean-counters and marketeers, but it's unethical as hell. Why do big businesses lose their ethics? Does MBA stand for "Must Be an A**hole"?

Re:Ain't it great?

[dukeblue219]

At least the airlines have to advertise the full cost of a ticket (minus luggage which is legitimately an optional expense). If I go to United.com and their ad or search engine says I can fly to SF for $292 then it's going to be $292, with a base fare of maybe $240 plus fees and taxes. The phone bills are so much more frustrating because the advertised rate might be $39/mo but then you have no clue what will be added on top of that, and then they can add even more down the road.

Re:Ain't it great?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are violating it and people have already used the change to get out of their contracts

Re:Ain't it great?

[__aaltlg1547]

"the new administrative fee is a key component for accelerating revenue growth for the rest of the year"

So, have I understood this correctly? If you have a contract with them, they aren't violating it, because they aren't raising your rates. They're just adding a separate administrative fee. Reminds me of the game airlines play: your flight is cheap, but you have to pay the fees for the airports, for fuel, for your luggage, for having wings on the airplane...

This is great for the bean-counters and marketeers, but it's unethical as hell. Why do big businesses lose their ethics? Does MBA stand for "Must Be an A**hole"?

There's a big difference. When you buy an airline ticket, they tell you when you make the contract (i.e. buy the ticket) that there is an extra charge for baggage. What you agree to at the time you make the contract is part of the contract. This is not part of the contract. This is stealing.

Re:Ain't it great?

[ATMAvatar]

Why do big businesses lose their ethics?

That's rather easy to explain. Businesses never really had ethics. They're out to make money, and these kinds of situations are simple risk vs. reward calculations. The activity brings in more money, and any laws to curtail corporate misbehavior have long since been rendered toothless. The only consideration is whether customers would leave en masse, but between the early termination fees and the fact that most costumers have some pathological fear of standing up for themselves when a corporation jerks them around, that's rather unlikely.

Re:Ain't it great?

[Black Parrot]

Why do big businesses lose their ethics? Does MBA stand for "Must Be an A**hole"?

"Money Beats Anything". Why have ethics when you can have money?

Money is the root of all evil. They're trying to make the world a better place by limiting its distribution.

Re:Ain't it great?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Does MBA stand for "Must Be an A**hole"?

If the holder of one went straight for it instead of having a real job then probably yes. Those who had a real degree first and then later in their careers got it so they could move into management positions probably no.

Re:Ain't it great?

[bickerdyke]

If I go to United.com and their ad or search engine says I can fly to SF for $292 then it's going to be $292, with a base fare of maybe $240 plus fees and taxes.

That's a good one.

My last airline ticket costed me 515 Eur. That's what it was advertised for, and that's what I paid. Not out of range for a transcontinental flight. And can you imagine how my jaw dropped when I checked the passenger receipt and I saw that the price was composed from 125Eur airfare and 390Eur fees and taxes?

Re:Ain't it great?

[gtbritishskull]

I am pretty sure there was a law passed relatively recently (maybe a year ago) that requires airlines to show the full price including all taxes and fees. Before that I remember it being quite difficult to comparison shop between airlines (because their fees, which were not shown with the price, were different).

Re:Ain't it great?

[microcars]

So, have I understood this correctly? If you have a contract with them, they aren't violating it, because they aren't raising your rates. They're just adding a separate administrative fee.

If it is a separate administrative fee, tell them to bill you separately. Meanwhile, pay your normal bill.

Re:Ain't it great?

[jonr]

Why do big businesses lose their ethics? Does MBA stand for "Must Be an A**hole"?

Actually, yes. I can't find it, but I recall reading about a MBA project, where the students had to maximize the profit of some hypothetical mining company. The group that used child labor and other very shady practices scored highest.

Re:Ain't it great?

[Bigby]

Except there are laws to stop this. They want to make it look like it isn't a breach of contract, but their lawyers know damn well that it is a breach of contract. They just know that the ones who won't notice or care will bring in more revenue than those that call them on the breach...

Re:Ain't it great?

[Kardos]

Well, if the average revenue per user is order $60, and the price jack is 61 cents, then this revenue gain would be offset by roughly 1% of users leaving. That doesn't seem like a stretch despite the pathological fear you mentioned!

Re:Ain't it great?

[zer0nix]

Greed is the root of all evil. Money is an efficient means of financial transfer.

Re:Ain't it great?

[tompaulco]

And in some translations it is "a" root of all evil, not "the" root of all evil.

Re:Ain't it great?

[loneDreamer]

That's why, in Chile, all negotiated prices are all-including. Nothing of this "plus taxes and fees" crap that can mean anything. If the advertisement says 10, then you pay 10 and anything, even taxes, should already be included. Here in the US you can only hope your bill will be what they sold you and cross your fingers. With Verizon I got fees and surcharges for 300% of the agreed price for a phone line. The amount I agreed to? It was not even in the actual bill.

I love this show

[paiute]

Congressperson: That's fucked up. I should introduce legislation which would allow the consumer to get out of their contract if the carrier breaks it like this.
AT&T lobbyist: (Opens suitcase full of cash.)
Congressperson. Free market!

Re:I love this show

[Sockatume]

I'm picturing the Congressperson doing the Fonzie two-thumbs-up stance in the last line there.

Re:I love this show

[LordLucless]

Actually, if the Congresscritter in your example was supporting the free market, they'd have stood by their initial stance. Despite the name, the "free market" isn't a synonym "companies can do whatever the hell they want". The "free market" is a place where exchanges are carried out by two parties by mutual consent. It's in contrast to the mercantile model that preceded it, where frequently you had no choice but to deal with a particular company, as the government had granted that company an exclusive charter or monopoly in a particular area.

The free market can only operate in a situation where there are certain rules in place - you must compete with your competitors, not take out a hit on them, for instance. You cannot compel people to do business with you; they must do business with you because they want to. Another of those rules is the idea that contracts must be honoured. Allowing companies to break contracts without consequences is deleterious to the existence of a free market.

Re:I love this show

[Bigby]

Don't be so rational. Disparaging the free market is a rallying cry of many people who don't understand what a free market really is...

Re:I love this show

[jandrese]

Nobody who says the words "Free Market" today means that. They're all referring to letting business do whatever they want without pesky regulations or consumer protections or anything like that. Fuck the commons, Free Market!

Ahhh at&t

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so no kidding:

A while back my company was trying to resolve a billing issue.

We were under "foundation" billing. Whatever that means.

So the customer service dude on the phone gave us a URL where we could check our "foundation" billing. In this web portal, we were able to see all the other foundation accounts bills.

As in detailed bills of other people and companies, including call logs. There were thousands of these, all in PDF for the download. With everything you'd expect on a bill, like name, address, phone number, ammount due. I suppose anyone could have seen our bill too.

It reminded me of the at&t ipad "hacker" case.

Evil Company

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T overcharges many customers on every bill anyway. I have to call in every month to receive a credit to my account because of their business practice of overcharging and hoping customers don't notice. I've been an AT&T customer a few times over the years, and EVERY time they do this. It's not a mistake on their end, it's a deceptive business practice.

This new "surcharge" is just the tip of the ice-berg of AT&T's deceptive business practices. I know people who work there and most of them I've spoken with actually agree with me, thought they wouldn't go so far as to call the company "evil" as much as greedy and mis-managed.

How is a surcharge even legal in general?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Just wondering... How is it possible to add a surcharge on top of the contractually agreed charges? If it's not in the contract, then why pay? And if the contract stipulates that AT&T can add whatever surcharge they like, why are customers complaining?

Re:How is a surcharge even legal in general?

[Rich0]

And if the contract stipulates that AT&T can add whatever surcharge they like, why are customers complaining?

Such a contract would likely be unenforceable as a matter of law, or at least it should be. By their very nature the terms of contracts cannot be modified except by mutual consent. Contracts can include variable rates, but usually they need to be very well-defined. A contract that says you'll pay whatever expenses we happen to incur without any choice in the matter wouldn't qualify.

Re:How is a surcharge even legal in general?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the contract stipulates that AT&T can add whatever surcharge they like, why are customers complaining?

What good would complaining do? Who are you going to complain to? Call them up, and you'll be able to speak with a polite, Tagalog-accented customer service rep who will repeatedly tell you how very sorry he/she is that you are unhappy and is there anything else he/she can help you with today.

Or you could switch to Verizon, of course. I hear their polite, extremely sorry and eager-to-help customer service reps have Indian accents.

Re:How is a surcharge even legal in general?

[tompaulco]

How is it possible to add a surcharge on top of the contractually agreed charges?
Well, apparently, they can, so what is stopping you from doing the same thing? Introduce a new 64 cent "paying my bill" fee. Be sure and send them 30 days advance notification by certified mail so you know they got it.

Write to your state AG

[anthony_greer]

Part of what we pay for with state taxes is an Attorney General who amongst other things, is supposed to stand up for tax paying citizens in these sorts of situations - This is a clear david vs goliath contract law issue and a state AG or two suing these motherfuckrs could help...

I agreed to a particular price, if they can not offer the service and make profit for the price they offered it to me at, its their own bad business decision...

Re:Write to your state AG

[VortexCortex]

I agreed to a particular price, if they can not offer the service and make profit for the price they offered it to me at, its their own bad business decision...

Not only that, but the prices should never go up for the same service. It's not like the machines want better working conditions (yet). Growing revenue with a surcharge is not a valid way to grow revenue. You grow revenue by getting more customers, providing a better service, using more efficient hardware, PROGRESS. This is a pure example of profit for profit's sake. It's stealing, plain and simple. Taking from me without giving any benefit in return is stealing, even if the amount is too small for us to notice individually, in aggregate it's outright theft.

If I came home with a big pile of cash the question would be: "Wait, where did you get all this money?!" If I was AT&T my answer would be: "Uh, from customers?" "What did you do for them to get the money?!" "Nothing!" THAT'S STEALING. It would be one thing if they actually had higher costs to operate, the answer could be "I provided them with a service that cost more to provide", but that's a lie. Costs they're citing have actually GONE DOWN.

So long as it remains more profitable for companies to simply oversell and raise the prices to make profit vs using some profit to do the work to provide better services then you can expect this to happen again and again. What happens if you spend a bunch of profit to provide a better service? Your stock price goes down. Blame the fucking stock market.

Re:Write to your state AG

[GodfatherofSoul]

Paraphrasing a great line from The Grapes of Wrath, if you take a tire you didn't pay for that's a crime, that' stealing; if you sell a guy a tire with a hole in it that's 'good business'.

How to get out of your contract

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a good thread here detailing other AT&T customers experiences with getting out of their current contract without paying the ETF. That thread also contains extremely useful info about how to go to Arbitration with AT&T if they won't budge.

PUBLIC UTILIY?

[anthony_greer]

Why are cell phones not covered under public utility law like water, power or land lines?

The power company could ever pull this shit without state legislature approval and/or public PUC hearings.

At this point, there needs to be much tighter regulations since we have for all practical purposes an oligopoly in the USA.

Re:PUBLIC UTILIY?

[EmagGeek]

Your power company has a legal monopoly over you. So does your water company, and your sewer company. You cannot vote with your wallet. That's why they are regulated.

With cell phones and Internet, you CAN vote with your wallet, because there is free competition.

You agreed to the ETF when you signed your contract. It was not foisted upon you against your will. Neither was your choice of carrier made mandatory to you.

That's the difference.

Re:PUBLIC UTILIY?

[anthony_greer]

I agree that I agreed to the ETF at signing the contract, but I also agreed to pay a fixed and pre established monthly cost for services rendered. They are increasing the cost without revision of the contract - that would nullify it would it not? Or can I simply pay them (Bill Total LESS Amount of new fee) each month and wait till they ding my credit score for non payment of those fees when I switch carriers in a few months...

Re:PUBLIC UTILIY?

[EmagGeek]

You still cannot pay anyone you want for transmission or transition, as there is only one set of plant available to you for use. The generation part may be somewhat competitive and unregulated, but this is also typically the smallest part of the bill.

I pay 4.6c/kWh for generation, 6.0c for transmission, and 5c for transition.

You cannot typically set up rain collectors unless you purchase the runoff rights to your property. Otherwise you are stealing water. (depends on your state, but I am not aware of any Fee-Simple states that include runoff rights by default.

Many places with Gas also prohibit LP tanks for safety reasons. I've lived in several such cities where the rollout of NG was accompanied by a legal prohibition on in-home oil and LP storage.

Point is, your choices in terms of "utilities" are generally limited by statute in one way or another, in exchange for government protection against price gouging.

Cell phones are not a "utility."

Of course they added an administrative fee

[TWiTfan]

They have to administer all that new money coming in, don't they?

"Surcharge" is the new "Fee Hike"

[EmagGeek]

It all started when gas prices shot up and the "fuel surcharge" hit UPS and Fedex customers in the wallet. Now this.

Re:"Surcharge" is the new "Fee Hike"

[dbitter1]

In defense of UPS and FedEx (and I don't work for either), their surcharges are based on the published cost of diesel fuel... so yes, it changes month to month, but they don't get to dial it up when the donut fund is running low. It is fixed to something outside their control.

My favorite story about hidden cellular fees...

[kackle]

I brought cellular connectivity to a medium-sized town to connect the remote points of their water SCADA system. When looking deeply into the charges on their monthly cellular bill, I learned that they were (and still are) paying a 'municipal tax', that is, a tax, indirectly charged by them, to collect from any cellular users accessing the towers within the city!

Illegal???

[Cutting_Crew]

"An AT&T spokeswoman said the fee covers 'certain expenses, such as interconnection and cell-site rents and maintenance."

So my question is, is then why have you just now started to add this fee? Haven't you always had to pay for cell-site rents and maintenance? Simply adding the "surcharge" because you feel like it should be illegal.

Needs to stop

[markdavis]

>" Normally, consumers could vote with their wallets by taking their business elsewhere"

Hate to tell you this, but I think they all do that. Sprint has, Verizon has... not how T-Mobile does it. They all have one or more mysterious "fee" lines on the bill. It is a sham and why you can't believe any advertising from any cell company about the price of the plans. It is bad enough that in MY locality, wireless is taxed at something like 22%, then add "carrier surcharges", E911 fees, administrative fees, "Federal Univ Serv Assess Non-ID" fees, "State Gross Receipts Surcharge", "State Special Revenue Surcharge", "Regulatory Charge", and even f*ing sales tax (how can the state charge sales tax on a SERVICE???)

Then don't forget to add that data add-on charge and insurance protection in case you drop that $600 phone.

Before all the above, my plan for two phones is $107.99. And after- it is $159.48. 48% higher than the shiny number being advertised.

Re:Needs to stop

[realityimpaired]

There's something very wrong with your cell phone company then. My monthly fee is advertised as $60, and I pay $60 to the cell phone company. Harmonized sales taxes get applied to the bill, as with anything (that's not the Cell phone company false advertising, that's legislation that requires the advertised price not include tax), and every month I pay $67.80 for my service, with no term contract. That price has never gone up, and even though the plan I currently have is no longer offered, they have not made any move to try to force me on to one of their new plans.

You need to change companies, I think.

Re:Needs to stop

[markdavis]

Sounds like you might be using a prepaid-type (or month-to-month type) plan with no roaming allowed and no phone subsidies. That is essentially contract-free, so it is not the topic of the article and my followup.

Re:Needs to stop

[realityimpaired]

Except that it's not... it's a post-paid plan from a company that will subsidize the cost of a new phone if I decide I need to buy one. Nationwide network, no roaming fees, no long distance charges, and they don't charge extra to allow tethering.

They deal with phone subsidies as a running tab, which can have a balance between -$150 and $150, and to which 10% of the monthly fee is applied. If I cancel the service, I pay off whatever's left on the tab and walk away: that is the only ETP I incur. If I choose to buy a new phone, I can choose whether to use the tab to subsidize it or not, up to a maximum of $300 towards the phone if my previous balance is $150. And if I choose not to use the tab at all, I can opt out of it as long as I don't owe them money on it, and get 10% off my monthly bill.

My $60/mo gets me functionally unlimited domestic calling (5pm unlimited evenings/weekends, unlimited incoming, and 250 daytime minutes) and 6GB of 4G data, along with the usual suspects: call display/voicemail/3-way calling/call waiting, unilimited SMS/MMS and unlimited international SMS.

Re:Needs to stop

[IndieVoter]

Part of the issue is that consumer have become addicted to the 'free phone'. The carriers do not get the phones from the manufacturers for 'free'. They charge you a bit, then take the rest out in monthly charges. Easiest answer is to ban 'free' phones, unless they are really free. That would allow you to take your phone business to whichever carrier you wish at any time. Imagine what that would do for the consumer! But, look around. How many consumers can cough up the $600 for that iPhone? Especially since they are spending everything they make and more on other toys.

Re:Surcharge?

[Rob the Bold]

Another example is tips at a restaurant. You leave a tip as a reward for excellent service. If a restaurant puts a mandatory 'tip' for any reason on the bill, it is now a fee not a tip.

(I post with the assumption you are in the US. If not, US tipping practices do not apply, and your local custom may differ, so my comment will likewise not apply.)

Please tell me that you leave an "acceptable" tip for "acceptable" service, and you're not that guy who goes out with his co-workers and stiffs the waiter, leaving everyone else to subsidize you just out of embarrassment. (That's also usually the guy who tries to get the whole table on a single check, so he can chip in just the price of his entree, rounded down. Not the beverage, not his portion of anything he shared, like the cheesy-potato-finger-burrito-fries appetizer. Not the tax. And certainly not the tip. "That service was not excellent".)

Or the retiree who "never left more than a 10% tip, and I'm not gonna give one to these freeloading entitled kids now!"

Simple fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple fix

Call up AT&T and switch to a pay by check through the mail. The cost of billing and postage will cost them more than the 61-cents.

Re:Simple fix

[EmagGeek]

You know they charge you if you don't do paperless billing, right? It's something like $3 or $4/month.

Re:Simple fix

[tompaulco]

you mean they don't charge extra for that? here theres a an extra fee if you don't setup automatic payment via the bank

Well, there is probably not a fee for automatic payment, but if you call in to make a payment, they charge extra, and I don't know about AT&T but some carriers charge a "convenience fee" if you pay over the internet. It's insane. You save them money and they charge you for it.

dumb

[AxemRed]

I understand the need to add fees or increase rates. But it would have been a lot smarter just to add the fee to all new contracts or at contract upgrades rather than sticking it to everyone at the same time.

Re:dumb

[tompaulco]

I understand the need to add fees or increase rates.
I don't. They already have a bunch of sunk costs in equipment. Econ 101 says that each new customer's marginal cost is less than the last. So as they add customers, their price per customer goes down. So they are getting more and more profitable on each customer, and now want to heap profit on top of profit by increasing the price of service without increasing the service itself.

You've been judged, and found wanting

[PopeRatzo]

AT&T has decided its customers just have too damn much money.

Not the only ones

[Junta]

I think you can find instances of every carrier sneaking rate hikes onto customers with contracts. The contract only helps the carrier, never ever the consumer.

Thankfully, my contract is up next month. I'll be off to T-mobile no-contract plan.

Bend over...

[Anonymous Coward]

And this my friends is why business imposed rule (law for the average consumer since it's legally binding and generally not practical/worthwhile to fight for your average Joe) through contractual agreements that sign your rights away (including participating in class action suits) is a bad thing. I'd like to see consumers in mass refuse to sign agreements waiving all sorts of liabilities to businesses and rights of consumers. This will not happen and businesses are well aware of it. As such, businesses' legal teams can tuck away with all sorts of crap in contracts/agreements for product/services that makes me want to vomit.

"After all, why bother reading and comprehending that 14+ page document you're signing? Just initial these pages and sign here to get what you want, no one reads these things after all (except us--Good Corp.--and the courts) and this particular example you read about helps our consumers at a completely insignificant cost (it's only $0.63 here, $.53 there, ..., $6.56/mo tomorrow)! We Good Corp. sales associates verbally cross our hearts what we've told you is true (though statements are counter to the contract), even though it won't legally hold a candle to that contract you just signed symbolizing you: read, understood, and agreed to all terms expressed there in. It does make you feel better though, right?" Then average said consumer signs, agrees, and moves on.

Every time I see this happen I watch my options dwindle to: A) completely refusing a product/service (since all competitors have similar agreements) or B) am forced to buy in with everyone else. Please, stop being wreckless with your purchasing power people. Purchasing power is real, it's just being manipulated to the masses. When the bulk of consumers realize this, we'll all get screwed a little less, which means it's time to stock up on lube.

Re:Bend over...

[hedwards]

You can blame the courts for that. It astonishes me the complete and utter lack of common sense in the judiciary. We're not all rich enough to be able to afford an attorney every time somebody asks us to sign a contract. We don't have access to a law library to look up the precedence over whether or not they're allowed to call this a surcharge.

At the end of the day, the law needs to recognize that people can't sign away their rights. Especially in cases like this where the only competition also requires us to sign away our rights.

Re:Bend over...

[lightknight]

Heh. I don't know if you haven't taken a look at the judiciary lately...but they tend to be chosen from the same profile. Number one requirement? Belief that the system of justice they are presiding over is actually just. This typically removes any philosophers from the bunch, as they'd spend waaaay too much time weighing each decision, and questioning whether they were really doing justice. You also need people who believe they have heard it all, that there is a singular set model for living life, and that they are living proof of it: hence any time they need to figure out what someone did wrong, or should have done, they need only confer with themselves; anyone who even begins to think that there might be several different models to life or living, and that they don't know the correct answers, is going to be super dangerous on the bench. They also need to be chosen from what can be considered morally upstanding individuals: i.e. people whom there is little to find fault with over their personal life-style, as well as limiting (in hypothesis) blackmail attempts; the reality is that if you sit a judge who doesn't care about his or her wilder years on the bench, and wouldn't mind publishing photos / videos / re-creations of those events on demand, they are VERY difficult to control: they aren't hemmed in by social values (need to appeal to the masses), and they are immune to blackmail since they don't care what's published about them ("Hey guys, I heard you were publishing some photos of that one time that I was doing coke while making love to a prostitute and midget, in the back of a bus, which was smuggling Anthrax over the border for use in terrorist weapons; I've included some additional photos, and I'd take it as a personal favor if you'd choose one which gives a good shot of my face...those teenage years, oils and bacteria, acne, you understand; gotta run, just about the deliver a verdict on that one case everyone is scared to touch.").

Re:Bend over...

[sjames]

A good first step is to recognize that a contract cannot grant any party the right to unilaterally alter the agreement in any way. Next, recognize that no contract may be applied after the fact (especially shring wrap agreements), the deal is whatever it appeared to be the moment money was handed over. By default, that is assumed to be a sale.

Next up, we need to address the multi page walls of text. Start by re-considering the liklihood that the customer actually understood everything in it and limiting it to what an average person would have understood. Nobody should need a lawyer to understand a cellular agreement or buying a piece of software.

Wow, they need $.61 from each person when..

[Virtucon]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/23/4253874/att-new-1-2-million-smartphone-q1-2013-financials

They added almost 300,000 subscribers, sold 6 million phones and they grossed $16.4 Billion (up 3.4% from Q1 2012).

Yeah they really need that extra cash.

Re:Wow, they need $.61 from each person when..

[tysonedwards]

Of course!
All those damn new customers with their self righteous need to use our infrastructure and not have their phone calls drop as we only have 1 tower to cover a county!
And data?!?!? They want to get emails on their phones while they are at it!

Who is going to pay for towers for all those new people to use service?
It certainly can't be AT&T since all that new earning is obviously profit, not an expense.
Greedy customers!

Re:Wow, they need $.61 from each person when..

[Bigby]

They don't need it, but if it makes money, why not do it? What I don't understand is how $0.61 * X = $500,000,000. That would mean X is about 900m. There aren't 900m cellular customers in the world, let alone ones for AT&T. And a $0.61 surcharge isn't going to result in more customers...more like a loss in customers. Not enough of a loss in customers to make it an unprofitable move. But what math genius came up with half a billion in revenue for this?

Re:Wow, they need $.61 from each person when..

[Virtucon]

To be honest with you I fear that most folks don't really give a shit about $.61 in this country. That's why more of them don't go and yell at congress to change it. The practice, while predatory, is now just part of culture. Sad really.

Re:Wow, they need $.61 from each person when..

[dwpro]

$0.61*12*X=500M, since they do the surcharge every time the bill comes due, normally monthly I imagine. 68 million subscribers is a lot but fathomable.

It's only a small fee

[mrcullen]

designed to insure c level bonuses for their "innovation"

white collar crime does pay

[bzipitidoo]

Wish more people would not take this kind of stuff lying down. Especially in cases where the business is not a monopoly. For instance, I don't understand why anyone still banks at Bank of America. They don't have a monopoly, far from it, and they treat their customers like wolves treat cattle. And why does anyone pay for cable TV? Can't be for the absence of ads!

Cutting the land line doesn't help save money, not while the price of cell phone service remains outrageous. Internet service and phone service should have fallen well below $20 per month years ago. Over the years, hardware prices have dropped dramatically, but somehow these service providers have been unable to pass any of that savings on to customers. MMORPGs have been forced to offer alternatives to the crazy $10 per month kinds of plans. We have sub $100 laptops such as the Raspberry Pi. We even won the right to keep our phone numbers. Why can't we have $5 per month phone service and broadband Internet service?

Spend it on more hard drives!

[bill_mcgonigle]

76F34BB0EF7 849 Thu May 23 12:57:02 icinga@example.com
(host mx.cingularme.com[209.183.32.63] said: 452 Insufficient system storage (in reply to MAIL FROM command))
                                        6035551212@txt.att.net

There's my new catchphrase:

[tutufan]

"screwing the elf"

Yup, they really screwed the elf on that one...

Re:There's my new catchphrase:

[SteveFoerster]

ETF, actually, which doesn't have the same ring to it, especially if you were having a Liv Tyler moment there.

It's still a cost increase, and a fake one at that

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is now able to leave their contracts without a fee.

No court in the world would deny that it was a cost increase and a sleazy lowlife one at that.

Yay for alternatives

[sl4shd0rk]

Imagine if AT&T were the only game in town (Monopoly). Your only option would be to put-up-or-shut-up. Fanboism drives this sort of thing. And I'm not just picking on the iPhone crowd. Any corporation that can drop something shiny and have a customer base so willing to bend over for it would love to be sitting in AT&T's place. Think about how your future purchases are affected when "everyone is doing it". Be glad you can turn to many different alternatives right now. Alternatives are the only thing keeping these corporations from an all-out slave-driving of it's customers. No, the legal system is not protecting the consumer. Go google for copyright and patent issues if you need proof.

The root problem

[gmclapp]

The problem is that AT&T, like Comcast and Charter have a sort of 'geographical monopoly' for some services. I had this problem once when AT&T was my only option for internet. (barring satellite because latency on a good day can be between 900ms and 1200ms). So I had to deal with AT&T. They did suck quite frankly, but I've dealt with Comcast and they suck more for a higher price. The root problem is the lack of real competition between these companies. With the exception of Verizon, Sprint and similar cell phone only companies, they have other revenue streams. In the case of AT&T, TV and Internet service. That keeps them out of competition for certain amounts of revenue and allows them to bully their consumers...

meh

[sociocapitalist]

AT&T...it's just not worth it...

Re:Simple Greed

[anthony_greer]

Having bought a new car last year, Isat down with the dealer and made them tell me exactly what each of those ffees were and why I was paying them...It came down to this: $of the $500 in fees, $400 were state government fees of one sort or another, $50 was a processing fee to pay the salary of the team that processes the titles and registrations, saving me a trip to the DMV, so I gladly paid that There was a $ 50 fee for prep - which included cleaning it, filling the tank with gas, checking tire pressure , oil levels and such to make sure nothing was out of whack from the factory, and helping me setup my GPS nav system...

So of the $500 in fees, $400 went to the state, $50 went to the dealer to pay for the time of the staff to deal with the state, and $50 went to prep, of which $40 or so went back to me in the form of topping off the tank, want those dealer added fees to go away? push your state to reform taxation.

It's per-line...

[tmshort]

The $0.61 fee is per-line, so with my 5-line family plan, it's an extra $3.05!

class action

[Krau Ming]

deploying class action lawsuit in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Surcharge?

[realityimpaired]

Please tell me that you leave an "acceptable" tip for "acceptable" service, and you're not that guy who goes out with his co-workers and stiffs the waiter, leaving everyone else to subsidize you just out of embarrassment. (That's also usually the guy who tries to get the whole table on a single check, so he can chip in just the price of his entree, rounded down. Not the beverage, not his portion of anything he shared, like the cheesy-potato-finger-burrito-fries appetizer. Not the tax. And certainly not the tip. "That service was not excellent".)

It's actually quite common, in some parts of the world, to add a 20% gratuity to the bill automatically when there is a large group of people eating together, because it makes the discussion easier when you're dividing up the bill. In some parts of the world, it's expected that the gratuity will be added to the bill for smaller groups or individuals as well.

Quite honestly, I prefer to go to a restaurant that does this than one that doesn't, because I know people who work in the service industry and who don't make a living wage because of cheap tippers. Similarly, I would prefer to go to a restaurant that pools the tips as well, and I always make a point of asking the server whether the owner takes a cut from the gratuity, as the answer to that question will determine how big a tip I leave: if half of the money is going to the owner, I'll leave a smaller tip and find some other way to give the gratuity directly to the server. I'd rather that the minimum wage for servers be raised to match the minimum wage for the rest of us, but since that's unlikely to happen....

Re:Surcharge?

[Frankie70]

Please tell me that you leave an "acceptable" tip for "acceptable" service, and you're not that guy who goes out with his co-workers and stiffs the waiter, leaving everyone else to subsidize you just out of embarrassment

No. The restaurant owner is stiffing the waiter. If the restaurant wants his waiter to get a fixed percentage of tips, then he should increase the price of items in your menu and give the additional money to the waiter.

Tipping is a way for the restauranter to overcharge his customers and you are helping him to it.

I ditched them awhile back and it was good.

[SpaceManFlip]

There are better cell carriers now most places offering more competitive plans with no contract required. Time for all the slaves to break their chains and jump ship. Don't worry about the sharks, they are already full from eating moose turds.

All you need is an unlocked phone (or an unlock code for your AT&T phone) and you can move to a no-contract carrier with the same GSM radios with no up-front fees. I deliberately moved to another carrier with less coverage than AT&T and I still like it better, because I get unlimited data and everything with no dumbass "smartphone" fees added onto the bill. Whenever I find someplace that the coverage is gone, I just think back to my days in high school when I would have to call a girl on her house phone, or be at home when I was expecting a call because none of us had cell phones. Not such a big deal.

This is just an increase in price

[Skapare]

... since what was added was covered in the originally contracted and agreed pricing structure, already. So you can bet there will be a flurry of lawsuits against AT&T if they try to force an ETF.

Depends on what the initial contract says....

[mark-t]

Unless the initial contract states that they can add surcharges onto a customer's plan at their option, then it seems to me that one can just call them up and cancel. End of story. Calling it a "surcharge" is irrelevant to the fact that they would have actually changed their cell phone plan without prior approval by applying that surcharge onto the phone bill when it was not previously there and was not part of what one had originally agreed to pay.

If one agreed to a contract that explicitly allows them to add a surcharge onto the bill at any time, without any prior agreement on what that surcharge would be... that's just... unfortunate.

Re:Depends on what the initial contract says....

[hudsucker]

That's the catch. The standard Wireless Customer Agreement says that you can avoid the ETF if AT&T "increase[s] the price of any of the services to which you subscribe, beyond the limits set forth in your customer service summary" (emphasis added).

The Customer Service Summary (CSS) is the piece of paper that you get when you sign up, and is unique to you. You can download it from the online account.

The back page lists the estimated credits, adjustments, other charges, government fees and taxes. So you have no case as long as the fee actually imposed is less than the estimate in the CSS.

And guess what? My CSS from a year ago has a line item for "Other AT&T Surcharges" (for which there was no actual charge until now), and the estimated amount is higher than the new "Administrative" charge.

No wonder people who complain are told it isn't a breach of contract.

Re:Depends on what the initial contract says....

[mark-t]

Personally, I'd only agree to a contract plan that can guarantee that all of the rates and fees that I am paying will remain as they are, and not grow or be added to for the duration of the contract.

And fwiw... I actually do go to the trouble of getting this information when I sign up for a contract, and if I don't see it in the terms of service, I will get it in writing from a manager.

Administrative ?

[slash.jit]

How were they administrating all these months without these 61 cents ?

Where is that judge?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Remember that judge who pwned the patent troll attorney? The scammers make an settlement offer carefully calculated to be just a tad under the cost of litigation. The judge smacked them down and awarded a judgement against the lawyer, "carefully calculated to be a tad under the cost of mounting an effective appeal". AT&T is hoping people would not find it worthwhile to fight charges under 1$. But it adds up to several hundred million dollars for them.

Steal a million dollars from someone, they will fight back hard. Steal 1$ each from a million people, most wont care and the rest wont matter. Wish there would be a class action lawsuit and that judge would get it.

Virgin Mobile

[lazyron]

I know they piggy-back on Sprint, and I know they don't have the greatest service or the best phones but, for $35 a month it's pretty great. If we could get more people on board with lower cost carriers that would be a good way to send them a message.

A point my old boss made

[GodfatherofSoul]

The bank is always tacking on a new charge for service improvements. OK, if you've improved service shouldn't my charges go *down*?

There is only one way to combat this

[ChronoFish]

Everyone who is bitching about this must do the following:

1. Pick up the phone, call AT&T and voice your displeasure about the surcharge.
2. Tell the attendant that you will be leaving AT&T
3. Find a new service provider
4. Switch to new service provider
5. Use social networking/blogging to call out AT&T, explain what you did and who you went with - and repeat this message.

They will continue to do it as long as they get away with it. If it hits them financially they will back off. YOU have the power. Don't believe otherwise.

-CF

Re:Surcharge?

[ceoyoyo]

I was recently in Utah and we were chatting with the waitress in the bar. We'd been a little surprised at the "recommended" 18% tip since arriving in Utah. She told us that minimum wage for servers was something ridiculous like $2.50. So we all tipped 20%, cash, handed directly to her.

In sane places, minimum wage is minimum wage, no matter what you're doing. Tips are not a way for restaurants to advertise cheaper rates, they're an optional incentive the customer can use to reward good service. Anything else is just a false advertising scam.

Not $0.61 per account, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the charge is per line/phone on the account. i.e.: I have a family plan (no contract, way past that), and I am dinged 61 cents per line, and I have three lines on the account. That comes to a total of $1.83 per month, for the account.
Time to look for a better provider....

Replacing Old Revenue

[Striikerr]

I am guessing that this is their attempt to replace the cash cow that left with the advent of smartphones and builtin messaging apps like iMessage on the iPhone. We all know that the Telco's were totally screwing over their customers with these ridiculous charges for sending and receiving SMS messages. (there are various calculations out there which place the rate to be at about $1200.00 / MB). Since people are moving away from using SMS as heavily as they once did, AT&T is making up for that loss of huge profit by adding in this fee. There's no basis in reality for the justification that is presented. Where are the current monthly subscription fees going if they are't being used to maintain the infrastructure? It's a money grab, plain and simple and it's completely slimy of them to add it in as a fee, thus negating the ability to tell them off and leave without the ETF.

It's time to end telecom monopoly

[kawabago]

The phone companies should be broken up, again, and the parts sold off to Asian operators that know how to deliver the best service at the lowest price. Even if our telecom's could do that, they wouldn/t. That is why they should simply be liquidated.

Today's Lesson

[the eric conspiracy]

Never sign a contract with a phone company.

saves me money

[OrangeTide]

That's what I use and I'm happy with it. Given that I have two smart phones to pay for, I feel like I have an extra $50 a month in my budget.

Where I live...

[FuzzNugget]

This would be explicitly illegal and the carrier would face penalties. How's that unencumbered free market capitalism goin' for ya?

Re:Where I live...

[the eric conspiracy]

2012 GDP Rank: 1 15T USD

Pretty well, thanks.

And the TMobile comparisons vontinue

[rickb928]

As a TMO subscriber, I (now) fully understand the 'no contract' thing. If I fulfill my contract, and the 24 monthly payments for my phone, I don't pay for the phone any more. I can bail on the contract, but I agreed to pay for the phone, so the balance is due. This replaces the ETF, which was probably mostly to recover phone subsidy, though of course an ETF that doesn't decrease over the term of the contract is profitable. That means gouging, unethical, or usurous in this context.

But if your contract permits you to bail without ETF if the terms change, and the terms allowed include fee increases or new fees, vote with your feet. If not, well, this is not only NOT NEW for AT&T, but virtually every carrier has done this.

My intention with thge TMO 'no contract' thing is to outlive the contract. My last phone failed, so I lost that bet, but the two before outlived my contract by 6-9 months. Each time my monthly cost did not decrease, though I had fulfilled my contract, and supposedly paid the subsidy. I won;t do that again if I can help it, though I may one day buy a phone outright.

And please, please explain how Europe has it so right, where most users buy their phones. And explain, if you would, how that model could work here in the US, where there are at least 2 different technologies, and multiple spectrum differences. Could I take my TMO-branded phone over to Sprint? Can my Cricket phone work on AT&T? How about my AT&T phone on Verizon? Europe has it simpler with GSM the standard and fewer spectrum problems. Different market, different solutions. In the US, phone interoperability is largely nonexistent. You buy your phone from your carrier because it works.

Four words for you

[RobertLTux]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_server

"YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED"

If you have a messenger (of the court) drop the notice at the office its going to be very hard for them to claim otherwise

Re:Four words for you

[kelemvor4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_server

"YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED"

If you have a messenger (of the court) drop the notice at the office its going to be very hard for them to claim otherwise

Kind of seems a bit extreme for $7.32 (assuming you just started a year long contract). You could also go the route of just hiring some other dirtbag (aka attorney) and taking it straight to court if money is no object.

Re:Four words for you

[RobertLTux]

Extreme in this case is like OverKill (just ask the folks at schock mercenary about that one). besides i think the low end of YHBS is certified mail.

Balance the equation

[blueseraph]

I am out of contract and can leave if I wish. The income lost from loosing my family plan equals the fee from 147 customers. If 3.5 million people also have the same idea this would more than negate the $0.61 fee. Anyone want to create a petition to see if we can get 3.5 million people who are out of contract to say they will move on if the fee is not removed.

The horror

[Time_Ngler]

"61 cents!!?!?!?! No!!!!!" as crackles of thunder emanate from the nerd's basement

As long as it's in the advertised rates

[davidwr]

As long as all of their advertising has this charge included in the "big print" advertised rates, that's fine.

BIG PRINT: $50/month!!!!
Fine print: $49.39 + $0.61

is okay.

BIG PRINT: $50/month!!!!
Fine print: $0.61 fee not included

is NOT okay.

Turnabout

[GreyWanderingRogue]

Contracts are two way agreements right? Can't people turn around and start charging AT&T a new fee, say $0.61 Contract Adjustment Costs Fee, used for the administrative tasks of going over new and unexpected changes to the bill.

Credo Wireless

[Jaysyn]

Has anyone had any good experiences with Credo?

I thought this was fairly standard

[Control-Z]

I often see my Verizon home phone bill go up every few months, whether it be a few cents or more.

Re:I thought this was fairly standard

[DennyK]

Back when I was with T-Mobile (on an old plan long out of contract), my bill went up twenty or thirty cents every couple of months like clockwork, despite the base price never changing. By the time I left them, I was paying well over $50 a month for my $35 plan (which, being an old plan, was 300 minutes a month and no data service). Now I pay $25 a month plus sales tax for a Virgin Mobile plan with 300 minutes and unlimited data, and the price never changes.

Which Companies are on your shit lists?

[zer0nix]

To all of you who do this, would you mind making your shit lists public?

Re:Which Companies are on your shit lists?

[arkane1234]

If it's a business, it's on my shitlist.

Re:Which Companies are on your shit lists?

[Khashishi]

It's kinda pointless if everyone shares shitlists because then every company would be on it because every company is shitty.

Re:Which Companies are on your shit lists?

[tutufan]

ATT, Cracker Barrel (discrimination against gays), Optimum/Cablevision (outrageous treatment of their employees), pretty much any retail investment operation (excepting a few good apples like Vanguard and Schwab), almost anything that requires a contract/commitment (inevitably ripoffs). Lots more I'm not thinking of.

Someone mentioned Monsanto (who are definitely bad guys), and this points to one flaw in this idea, which is that some such companies are difficult to identify and shun. You do what you can.

Re:Which Companies are on your shit lists?

[Sabriel]

Hmm. So an app to scan them and warn you if you're about to buy a service or product on the shitlist of more than x% of users?

Re:Surcharge?

[tqk]

Please tell me that you leave an "acceptable" tip for "acceptable" service, and you're not that guy who goes out with his co-workers and stiffs the waiter ...

I've worked for many a corporation down through the years and despite their satisfaction with my work, not one of them has offered me a tip for doing good work. Yet you feel free to insult those patrons of yours who fail to tip. Why is your employer too cheap to pay what you're worth? Why do you let them get away with expecting me to make up the difference?

On the other hand, I've often felt insulted by those who do offer to tip me. It seems they assume I'm only doing that lousy job because I've no choice in the matter, which is a pretty arrogant assumption on their part.

I wonder why $0.61? $0.59 would sell much better.

[Roman Coder]

You'd think they would want to minimize the people who would want to fight this. You always round down from the dollar mark, not up.

Re:Surcharge?

[tompaulco]

Please tell me that you leave an "acceptable" tip for "acceptable" service,
I do, but I shouldn't. Instead, the restaurant owner should pay the employee compensation commensurate with expected performance. If I think the service was above and beyond expected performance, I should leave a tip. If I think the service was below expected performance, I should complain to the restaurant manager or owner and they should resolve the issue.
If I need to be managing their employees, then I expect to be paid in kind.

I sued T-Mobile over this

[imuffin]

When T-Mobile did this last year, I had to sue them in small claims court to get my ETF waived.

I decided I'm done with AT&T

[millertym]

Even before this story. Usually terrible customer service. Expensive. As soon as contracts are up in a few months I'm not looking back.

Surcharges

[tomhorn]

It's the new American Way. It works especially well with those who have payments automatically set up. Many times when you buy a one time service the fine print says you are enrolled in a monthly service for a fee oif $ xxx a month and if you don't cancel you will be charged forever. It used to be called fraud.
Tom Horn
hjttp://www.purewaterhq.com

Public utility commission

[tepples]

Your only recourse to a utility company cheating you is to

...bitch to the city utility regulators, whose jurisdiction the utility company accepted in exchange for access to the city's rights of way. See comments by JWW and minkie.

"survive termination of service"

[tepples]

The vast majority of terms that bind the end user "survive termination of service".

Cable is for sports and Internet

[tepples]

And why does anyone pay for cable TV? Can't be for the absence of ads!

Cable television and satellite television form an oligopoly on live sports telecasts. Or they pay for cable TV because they get it for free or nearly free with the purchase of high-speed Internet access.

Why can't we have $5 per month phone service

There is magicJack for $2.50 per month provided you already have low-latency Internet access. But then customer service costs labor, and the wired last mile costs labor, and cell towers cost land, and the price of land and labor will only go up over time.

Re:Surcharge?

[sincewhen]

This may surprise you, but in some other cultures, tipping is entirely optional as we ensure our employers pay a reasonable wage to their staff.

If I go and buy groceries at the supermarket, and the cashier is friendly and helpful, I don't pay extra on my grocery bill, or slip them a fiver. If I buy new tyres for my car, and get good service, I give them my repeat busines, not a gratuity.

Why should restaurants be any different?

That said, it is not unusual to tip wait staff when the food and service is good. So I guess that our conventions don't make sense either...

Re:Simple Greed

[sincewhen]

But that last $50 - the "pre-delivery" checks, are required on every vehicle, and should be included in the price.

Where I live, there is a concept of "Drive away price" or "drive away no more to pay" where the quoted price is what you will pay and includes everything.

fascism

[rollzone]

hello. ..."revenue growth" is corporate theft. fascism is destroying America.

Tax the surcharge

[markdowling]

Announce that all enterprises that impose a surcharge (see also airlines with their "fuel surcharges" etc) will be subjected to a 50% tax on the surcharge. Even Grover Nordquist would release the crazy long enough for his drones in Congress to vote for it.