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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[idunham]

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

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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..

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course they added an administrative fee

[TWiTfan]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

meh

[sociocapitalist]

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

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.

Administrative ?

[slash.jit]

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

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.

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.