Slashdot Mirror


Second Time In 9 Months: AT&T Raises Phone Activation Fee $5, Now Charges $25 (arstechnica.com)

For the second time in 9 months, ATT is raising its activation and upgrade fee. In April 2016, the fee for non-contract customers was raised from $15 to $20. Today, it has been raised another $5, from $20 to $25, according to PhoneScoop. Ars Technica reports: As the mobile carrier switched from contracts to device payment plans, ATT initially did not charge an activation and upgrade fee for customers who brought their own phone or bought one from ATT on an installment plan. But in July 2015, ATT started charging a $15 activation fee to customers who don't sign two-year contracts. (ATT also raised the activation/upgrade fee for contract customers from $40 to $45 in July 2015.) The $25 fee is charged for new activations or upgrades when customers purchase devices on installment agreements, ATT says. Customers who bring their own phone to the network are charged the $25 fee when they activate a new line of service, but not when they upgrade phones on an existing line. "We are making a minor adjustment to our activation and upgrade fees. The change is effective today," ATT told Ars. ATT also still charges the $45 activation and upgrade fee on two-year contracts, but those contracts are "available only on select devices."

70 comments

  1. Probably to reduce churn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No contract is great, but if people start abusing it and switching carriers and porting numbers every month chasing a dollar here and a nickel there, they'll ruin it for everyone. It requires a certain amount of time and effort for the provider every time someone does this. I don't see this as a big deal. Now if it was a couple of hundred dollars, it would be a big deal.

    1. Re:Probably to reduce churn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yup... It takes a long time and a lot of strenuous effort to press that keyboard key.

    2. Re:Probably to reduce churn. by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      No not really all the setup and activation systems are fully automated unless something goes wrong and you have to talk to support.

      Porting might still have someone on the other end though I'm not sure about that one.

      IME the people that do that don't bother porting their number it doesn't bother them any but it's a PITA for everyone else that's trying to get a hold of them since they have a new number every other month.

      My guest guess is the activation fee is just a mislabeled tech support for your new phone fee.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re: Probably to reduce churn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not really with no contract any one can do it get a sim plop it in buy monthly or online or card done. its all automated. with contracts its a bit different but you probably can do it online but theres a lot more to it.

    4. Re:Probably to reduce churn. by torkus · · Score: 1

      Then charge for support.

      I can type an SIM card number and/or IMEI into a web portal. That portal can check validity and spit out a human-readable answer - invalid number, device not supported, already in use, OK-done. There's zero reason a "typical" activation needs a human involved from the carrier.

      Now, if I have problems with reading comprehension and want someone in India to "help" then sure...charge me for the luxury.

      Activation fees are virtually always nothing more than front-loading costs to make the advertised (recurring) price look better. Leases are a classic example: That $199 a month is really (at least) 50% higher when you factor in the "3500$ down plus taxes, DMV charges, lease initiation and disposition fees."

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  2. Corporate Arrogance by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, why did AT&T do this?

    Fuck You. That's why.

    Just another example of Corporate Arrogance, demonstrated by yet another Too-Big-To-Fail corporation who struts around with the confidence of knowing consumers won't actually do a damn thing about getting screwed over with unjustified costs that do nothing but line the pockets of the elitists.

    1. Re:Corporate Arrogance by skr95062 · · Score: 0

      Of course. Asshole Pai is now going to chair the FCC. That means everyone better get used to getting screwed as Asshole Pai absolutely hates consumers. Everything he has done on the FCC has been anti consumer and now he is going to be the chair. Hang on everyone it is going to be a bumpy four years.

    2. Re:Corporate Arrogance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why do you all insist on predicting a future you don't know... lacking a 1980's stainless steel-bodied car equipped with a flux capacitor? Once again a valid post about technology we all use.. is suddenly used as a soap-box when the incoming candidate doesn't fit your Utopian view of the world? Grow a pair there is no trophy for showing up after you leave the 8th-grade soccer program.

      This is likely a result of the influx of epically cheap Chinese smart phones (ZTE, Huwaei, etc.) sold as pay-as-you-go for ~50 dollars or less that people are buying and using to create a new phone plan with a corporate carrier. They aren't making profit off the phone (expected since the introduction of the iphone) so they have to find some mechanism to offset the cost of their brick-and-mortar stores.

      Peace out (and please stop using threads on technology-based themes like slash dot) to help you elevate your opinion another 10 inches closer to the stratosphere)

    3. Re: Corporate Arrogance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame Obama and Democrats.

      Oh wait, now I blame Trump and Republicans. For everything. They control the courts, the (worst) 30 or so states, the house, the senate and the presidency.

      So either government can't do anything, ir it us the Republica's fault for at least the next two years. Unless Pence also gets impeached.

    4. Re:Corporate Arrogance by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, and what exactly is the problem with this? If you don't like it, don't subscribe to AT&T. I don't.

      Personally, I use Ting. There's no activation costs at all, and I can activate my phone myself from their web site. (Not an employee, just a happy customer.) Why anyone continues to use the mainstream cellular companies instead of the MVNOs I have no idea.

    5. Re: Corporate Arrogance by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I completely disagree. I blame the Democrats for everything.

      I don't blame the Republicans. They're just being Republicans. It's like blaming a rabid dog for biting someone.

      But the Democrats brought all this down on us with their shenaningans and their insistence of coronating their queen Hillary instead of working to give us a candidate worth voting for. So a bunch of people voted 3rd-party, or sat at home, and we got this.

    6. Re:Corporate Arrogance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it now costs them $25 for an employee to push an enter key to "activate" your account.

    7. Re:Corporate Arrogance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why did AT&T do this?

      Fuck You. That's why.

      Just another example of Corporate Arrogance, demonstrated by yet another Too-Big-To-Fail corporation who struts around with the confidence of knowing consumers won't actually do a damn thing about getting screwed over with unjustified costs that do nothing but line the pockets of the elitists.

      Yes, and the bigger question in my mind is "Why are the phone prices STILL so damn high regardless of the company???"

    8. Re:Corporate Arrogance by starblazer · · Score: 1

      we said the same thing about Tom Wheeler and he didn't turn out nearly as bad as we feared.

    9. Re:Corporate Arrogance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By using Ting you're supporting Sprint and T-Mobile. Both of those companies are just as morally bankrupt as AT&T. While your bill might not list a mainstream cellular company, you do pay for services provided by one (actually two in your case).

    10. Re:Corporate Arrogance by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's impossible to avoid because there's only 4 networks in the US (Sprint, T-Mo, AT&T, Verizon). All the MVNOs work that way. The difference is that the direct customers of those networks get a worse deal, probably because of name recognition and also because they have to pay for all those fancy brick-and-mortar stores, whereas MVNO customers get a much better deal. The only way it really makes sense to be a customer of the mainstream networks is if you use a LOT of data and can't avoid it. But mostly, people subscribe to Verizon or whoever, pay $200/month, and blissfully stream all their music constantly, instead of subscribing to a MVNO and paying $30/month for just what they need.

    11. Re:Corporate Arrogance by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Stupid Slashdot should have a 1-minute edit option...

      Also, if you're worried about companies being "morally bankrupt", please point me to any large company that isn't. Such a thing does not exist. If you're going to boycott any company that's morally bankrupt, you're going to starve to death while you live under a bridge.

    12. Re: Corporate Arrogance by murphtall · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Not all MVNOs charge an activation fee for new devices. Cricket, for one, does not.

    13. Re: Corporate Arrogance by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      I specifically pointed out earlier that MVNOs like Ting don't charge activation fees.

    14. Re: Corporate Arrogance by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      While coronating is technically correct, 'crowning' rolls of the tongue better. BTW I agree. And remember, their constant insistence on gun control as a major plank - while the administration smuggled THOUSANDS of guns to Mexico that were - drum roll - even used in the Paris massacre.

  3. Fee seems like bad business strategy to me by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that when people are activating or upgrading a line they're free-agents in terms of cellular service and thus most likely to consider an alternate carrier. Charging them $25 right off the bat is a good way to discourage using your service. With customer acquisition costs as high as they are this seems like a penny wise and pound foolish fee.

    1. Re:Fee seems like bad business strategy to me by Desler · · Score: 1

      How cute. You think other carriers won't do exactly the same thing.

    2. Re:Fee seems like bad business strategy to me by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. But considering how they literally have paid people to switch perhaps not.

    3. Re:Fee seems like bad business strategy to me by Desler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except Verizon has the same charges and their's are higher.

  4. Ajit Pai thinks its a-okay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry! Ajit Pai will let them raise it many more times higher in the next four years. Can't let consumer protection get in the way of profits and greed.

  5. Welcome to Canada... by Nabeel_co · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...like 5 years ago. 10 more dollars and it'll be about what we pay here for activations today.

  6. The plan: Try to be the most abusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't want to let Adobe Systems, Microsoft, Monsanto, and others get ahead in being abusive.

  7. I activated my own phone on Ting by skogs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not only did I port my number over from V$$, but I activated it myself....for nothing...in about 10 minutes online. Since switching to Ting, I save at least $70 a month, and I have no hassles.

    --
    Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
    1. Re:I activated my own phone on Ting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do tell us more ?? What is Ting ?

    2. Re: I activated my own phone on Ting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ting is a mvo. Google it. If it's a plant, then they have been astroturfing for years.

    3. Re:I activated my own phone on Ting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ting is awesome for everybody except those who use a lot of data or still hang on to an 'unlimited' data plan elsewhere.. or only get a verizon network signal (which is a good chunk of rural parts of the country).

    4. Re:I activated my own phone on Ting by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Ting is great....if you don't actually use your phone much or use the smart part of your smart phone. If you actually use your phone and need data? Their service adds up pretty damned quickly.

      The last month I was on Ting it ended up costing me nearly $60 for minutes and data and I really don't use my phone that often, all it took was a sick relative and being stuck in the hospital waiting to find out what was going on to blow through the cash on their service. I want to be able to use my phone without having to worry about some unexpected event raising my costs so I ended up going to Cricket, its $70 for 2 phones with unlimited talk and text and 2.5Gb of data which I've found is plenty for watching YouTube when I'm stuck waiting somewhere.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  8. I'd switch by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    To Tmobile.

    Depending on the coverage in your area.

    Pretty good service, calling over IP, credits for every line you switch. One line unlimeted 4g hours and texting is like $70 a month tax and fees included.

    Fuck AT&T

    1. Re:I'd switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ 70 a month for a phone ?

      I pay the UK equivalent of about $8 a month.

    2. Re:I'd switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The UK also has a population density 10 times more dense than the USA. The problem with cell phones in the USA is that you have to support a huge rural area where very few people live but noone wants to lose signal just because they drive a little ways away from the population centers. Sprint actually covers the population center and major highways pretty well but sucks when you get into rural and even they have tried to cover some of the rural areas.

    3. Re:I'd switch by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      You pay the equivalent of $8/month for unlimited 4G?

      I call Bullshit. Googling this for 8 seconds it looks like unlimited LTE in the UK is the equivalent of $62-$90.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:I'd switch by mrbester · · Score: 1

      I'm on an unlimited data SIM only plan from Three. 40GB/month tethering and free texts as well. £12 including VAT.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    5. Re:I'd switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the disadvantage is you have to live in the UK. Where you can't own a McMansion full of guns and you have to do whatever the King of England tells you to do. No thanks!

    6. Re:I'd switch by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      For what? The $70 buys unlimited everything - voice, text, unthrottled data. What are you getting for $8 a month?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re: I'd switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is definitely not $8. And barely counts as a cell plan.

    8. Re:I'd switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what? The $70 buys unlimited everything - voice, text, unthrottled data. What are you getting for $8 a month?

      Limited LTE is NOT "unlimited everything"

    9. Re:I'd switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pay the UK equivalent of about $8 a month.

      Really, wow. Fuck you you sanctimonious prick.

    10. Re: I'd switch by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Calls, texts and data with tethering. Doesn't include hookers, so, no, not really a cell plan. /s

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  9. Feeling the AT&T love by buss_error · · Score: 4, Informative

    In a small town in Texas, AT&T removed the copper network. Those with POTS lines (nearly everyone as cell coverage is bad at best) were deprived of telephone service. AT&T's response: Here's a free cell phone. Oh, you want it to -work-? That'll cost you - double what your copper line did. More if you didn't sign a 2 year contract.

    AT&T also removed the copper network and sold the scrap.

    When I say "Feel the AT&T Love" - I'm not talking about the good kind of love.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    1. Re: Feeling the AT&T love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you should move to a better state if you don't like they way yours regulates megacorps.

    2. Re:Feeling the AT&T love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In a small town in Texas, AT&T removed the copper network.

      That's not legal, unless the folks on whose land those lines runs give ATT permission to do that.

      The folks in that small town (_which_ small town, BTW?) have noone to blame but themselves.

      _Always_ read and thoroughly understand the fine print.

    3. Re:Feeling the AT&T love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telcos DO NOT GIVE A SINGLE SHIT ABOUT YOU!!!
      AND they sold you and ALL your call details going back 30 YEARS out to the GOVT ... FOR FREE.

      It's LONG PAST time that you band together and launch a public media campaign against them.
      Because since they know THEY HAVE YOU BY THE BALLS regarding needing service, and their competitors are just the same assholes with a different name, the only thing you can do since switching does you no good, is to VERBALLY ROAST THEM OVER IN PUBLIC.

    4. Re:Feeling the AT&T love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      {{fact}}

    5. Re: Feeling the AT&T love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one state in the USA that so much as asks if it could at least get a reach-around.

    6. Re: Feeling the AT&T love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NH. We're the single state that has a government department who's single purpose is to approve or veto other department's decisions. We're by no means perfect, but sometimes we get it right.

    7. Re:Feeling the AT&T love by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That sounds highly illegal. Those lines aren't owned by AT&T as they were paid for by subsidies over the years.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  10. May I suggest ... by BenBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google's project fi? Just pay for the data used, penny a meg, 20 bucks for unlimited voice/text. Not associated except as a fairly new customer ... Liking it so far.

    1. Re:May I suggest ... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      That's pretty expensive. There may be some prepaid plans that are worse ($30 for 1Gb+unlimited V&T is probably hard to beat), but once you get to the regular subscriptions from the big four, especially family plans, it's really poor value.

      I was always surprised Google structured Fi that way, it struck me that building a phone service around a price schedule is doomed to failure. Sooner or later everyone else changes their prices (or what you get for those prices) and suddenly your innovative pricing doesn't look so great any more.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:May I suggest ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10.24+tx a gb?
      That's pretty nasty.

    3. Re:May I suggest ... by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Is it? Don't the big 4 charge around $20-$30 per line? That's not any cheaper. Project fi is really useful for people who heavily use wi-fi but occasionally need to do some remote web browsing or maps when away from home or work. I personally use a couple hundred megs a month on average as both home and work have wi fi and I do not use my phone as a primary media consumption device. (I don't watch movies on it, etc, I just use it like a tool and only when I need it to get somewhere or call someone)

    4. Re:May I suggest ... by BenBoy · · Score: 1

      That's more-or-less my use case too; I don't use much data out of wi-fi areas, so my bill (two phones, each with a GB of data) runs about $55. It's a lot less than I was paying for att (90+ bucks for two phones plus 6 GB take-or-pay that I never used all of but once). Perhaps everyone else is doing better? The magic for me is that I only pay for the cellular data I use. No complex roll-over schemes; If I don't use that 1 GB, they give me the money back on the next bill (penny a MB). If I use more, it's still at that 10 bucks per GB rate. The support, which I've used a couple of times now, is first-rate ... after the big two (U.S.: Verizon and AT&T), it's somewhere between refreshing and just weird.

  11. Meanwhile, they're losing the most subscribers by Halo5 · · Score: 2

    They're going to "compete" themselves right out of business. I switched from AT&T to Google Fi, got 5 new phones, and my bill is STILL cheaper!

    --
    665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
  12. Let's have government set prices! by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just another example of Corporate Arrogance

    Without the Capitalism in general and the greedy KKKorporation$ in particular, how would the gentle and human-faced Socialism even know, what to mandate?

    From flush toilets, to personal automobile, to "EpiPen" — wonderful things get made and offered for sale by the folks seeking to profit from the sales.

    Some of these wonderful inventions are then mandated by the government — for example, in most of the US an apartment can not be offered for rent without a) refrigerator; b) stove; c) flush toilet. But without the greedy (and arrogant) corporations making those things available — and affordable — first, how would these regulators even know, what to mandate?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  13. What's up with "ATT" in TFA?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does /. have some kind of ampersand shortage?? Should we be crowdfunding to buy more??

  14. Phone activation fee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? A phone activation fee? How can they possibly justify something like that?

  15. Stupid by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    This is a rather foolish maneuver because there are more choices for wireless service now than there has ever been. Prepaid phone service no longer has the stigma that was once attached to it so the large tier 1 carriers have to be careful about raping the consumer's wallet. MetroPCS has partially-subsidized phones and Tracfone has an equipment lease program. Neither company charges an activation fee and their monthly service charges are inclusive of taxes and fees. Unless you travel overseas, there is almost no reason to go postpaid at all because you can get a good deal on prepaid family plans.

  16. Why not? They're emboldened by Trump by waspleg · · Score: 1

    Do you really think anything will happen no matter what they do at this point? The FCC laid down before he was even officially in office. That lets you know where this is going. Expect the death net neutrality and more bullshit like this very soon.

    1. Re: Why not? They're emboldened by Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cute. You still think it was actually net neutrality and that the democrats supported it. What you think was net neutrality was just a marketing scheme.

  17. Too Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cell service is too cheap, carriers need ways to retain customers to prevent churn. I propose the following:

    -Early payment fee
    -Late payment fee
    -Fee payment fee
    -Fee payment fee recovery fee
    -Fee payment fee recovery fee surcharge
    -Fee payment fee recover fee surcharge levy

    -Cancellation Fee
    -Activation Fee
    -Continuation Fee
    -Paper bill fee
    -E-billing fee
    -Minimum usage fee
    -Under usage fee
    -Over usage fee
    -Connection Fee
    -Disconnection Fee
    -Call busy fee
    -NSA fee
    -CIA fee
    -FBI fee
    -Trump Tax(tm)

  18. Unlimited plans going up $5....again by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    My unlimited plan is going by $5. I believe they did this a year or so back too.