Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Is Screwing Customers By Almost Tripling a Bogus Fee (androidpolice.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the hoping-no-one-will-notice dept.

AT&T has almost tripled the cost of the "Administrative Fee" featured in its wireless service bills. "Up until early this year, that 'fee' was typically assessed at $0.76 per postpaid line -- not nothing, but over the course of two years of service, it ends up being a little over $18," reports Android Police. From the report: Most recently, subscribers getting their statements for June are finding an Administrative Fee charge of $1.99 per line every month. That brings the two-year cost of this "administrative fee" to almost $50 for each line on your account. The fee was raised earlier this year incrementally in March (by $0.54), but this new hike comes just three months after the first one, and it's not even clear why.

AT&T is likely hoping subscribers just won't notice their per-line bill is going up $1.23 a month versus where it was a few months ago, and in the process, could net almost a billion dollars in additional revenue according to one analyst. This could allow AT&T to finance up to $10 billion in new debt to expand its ever-broadening media empire. The fee is being assessed against all postpaid subscribers, regardless of their service plan or any grandfathering. AT&T says the fee is related to its cost of doing business, in terms of interconnect fees with other operators and cell site rents.

83 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. AT&T says the fee is related to its cost of do by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's fine. AT&T can figure out to pay those costs, since it's not my fucking business.

    Maybe I don't want any administration of my line. I doubt I'll miss it, whatever it is.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  2. Why isn't this false advertising by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's part of the cost it's part of the cost. They advertise costs that are bfore Fees. People get this when it's taxes and 911 fees but fees that GO to ATT are B.S. deception.

    why not advertise free service*

    * plus $64/mo content delivery fee.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by Narcocide · · Score: 3, Informative

      It should be illegal, but as far as I know the law about including all taxes and fees in the listed price only applies to food.

    2. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      All of the fees go to AT they just give random justification for some.

    3. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I am waiting for every service to cost $1 (plus taxes and fees).

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by iTrawl · · Score: 1

      <sarcasm>Because advertising an all-inclusive price is socialist</sarcasm>

      In the UK they actually did get to the point where they advertised FREE BROADBAND (ADSL 17 Mbps max) in large letters and "line rental 19.99" in small print at the bottom of the TV screen. The regulators put and end to that eventually.

      --
      "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
    5. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      This. It is nothing more than deceptive advertising of the prices. All that matters to the customer is the total price. This advertising practice makes it hard to compare plans and carriers and it fools people into spending more than they intended because you never know that total until you get your first bill.

      In Canada, the CRTC has cracked down big time on that kind of deceptive marketing. We also don't have carrier locks anymore.

      If only you Americans could come up with some sort of government regulatory body to protect consumer rights from greedy telecoms. I'd suggest calling it "federal communications commission", but apparently that name is already taken by a very powerful lobby group only interested in maximizing profits for telcoms.

    6. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by hipp5 · · Score: 2

      It should be illegal, but as far as I know the law about including all taxes and fees in the listed price only applies to food.

      Not sure about US, but they've added that law to airline tickets in Canada (they must include base fares + taxes + airport improvement fees + fuel surcharges). It's a small thing, but man does it make life just a little bit better.

    7. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If it's part of the cost it's part of the cost. They advertise costs that are bfore Fees. People get this when it's taxes and 911 fees but fees that GO to ATT are B.S. deception.

      why not advertise free service*

      * plus $64/mo content delivery fee.

      The US allows you to advertise prices sans taxes and fees... to those of us in the ROTW, this seems pants on head retarded. When an airline advertises an airfare in the UK, this is the price I pay to get the airfare including all applicable taxes and non-optional fees.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by mjwx · · Score: 1

      For fees, I have no defense.

      For taxes, the issue is that sales (and other) tax(es) in the US are levied by states and other municipalities. So it would make it impossible to advertise a nationwide price. (Add even if you advocate replacing all the state sales taxes with a national VAT or sales tax, there are other location dependent taxes, e.g. hotel occupancy tax.)

      I can get the state sales tax reasons (which isn't an issue for most countries)... but for hotels, they know what the HOT and other fees are in advance and should advertise that as a final price. Its not like the hotels location is going to change in the next few months.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If only you Americans could come up with some sort of government regulatory body to protect consumer rights from greedy telecoms. I'd suggest calling it "federal communications commission", but apparently that name is already taken by a very powerful lobby group only interested in maximizing profits for telcoms.

      Nah, this isn't really a communications problem, it's more like a problem with trade in general. I think "Federal Trade Commission" would be a better name.

    10. Re:Why isn't this false advertising by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      And it was far too late, line rentals almost doubled before they did anything and they still haven't stopped line rental price increases afaik.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  3. Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee by WankerWeasel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's your chance to cancel. You have 30 days to notify AT&T from when they notify you of the fee change. Section 1.3 of the user agreement states you will be charged no early termination fee and can keep any promotional device you received. https://www.att.com/legal/term...

    1. Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Informative
      I've heard this particular trick mentioned before, but one would assume that the companies would be somewhat wise to it. At least if enough people took advantage of it, though I've not actually spoken with anyone who's done it, so it may be too underutilized for the carriers to figure out how to get around it.

      Here's the full text of the relevant section for anyone who doesn't want to click through:

      We may change any terms, conditions, rates, fees, expenses, or charges regarding your Services at any time. We will provide you with notice of material changes (other than changes to governmental fees, proportional charges for governmental mandates, roaming rates or administrative charges) either in your monthly bill or separately. You understand and agree that State and Federal Universal Service Fees and other governmentally imposed fees, whether or not assessed directly upon you, may be increased based upon the government's or our calculations.

      IF WE INCREASE THE PRICE OF ANY OF THE SERVICES TO WHICH YOU SUBSCRIBE, BEYOND THE LIMITS SET FORTH IN YOUR CUSTOMER SERVICE SUMMARY, OR IF WE MATERIALLY DECREASE THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WHICH YOUR AIRTIME RATE APPLIES (OTHER THAN A TEMPORARY DECREASE FOR REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE), WE'LL DISCLOSE THE CHANGE AT LEAST ONE BILLING CYCLE IN ADVANCE (EITHER THROUGH A NOTICE WITH YOUR BILL, A TEXT MESSAGE TO YOUR DEVICE, OR OTHERWISE), AND YOU MAY TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT PAYING AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE OR RETURNING OR PAYING FOR ANY PROMOTIONAL ITEMS, PROVIDED YOUR NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS DELIVERED TO US WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE FIRST BILL REFLECTING THE CHANGE.

      If you lose your eligibility for a particular rate plan, we may change your rate plan to one for which you qualify.

      It seems like there may be some lawyerly (read weasel) words in there that could get them out of this. They may have some wiggle room around the "limits set forth in your customer service summary" but I'm not an AT&T customer, so I'm not familiar with exactly how they operate.

    2. Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee by WankerWeasel · · Score: 3, Informative

      I did this myself back in 2007 when I left Sprint to switch to AT&T when the original iPhone was released. They let me out of my contract without an early termination fee (then my state Attorney General filed a suit against Sprint over their fees and I got a nice check in the mail on top of it all). Looking at Verizon's agreement it appears they may have the option to reverse any new fees and if they fail to do so in 60 days, then you can terminate.

    3. Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Informative

      “Services” are distinct from “Fees” by my read of it.

    4. Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Note that if you try to cancel, they'll just instead give you a credit equal to the increase to balance things out. AT&T's end of the contract is only void if they actually charge you more and you object to it, so that negates the "charge you more" part.

      This is a very common tactic in these situations on the carrier's part. They have no intention of breaking the contract and letting you leave with a phone that has yet to be fully paid off. But they also know that most people aren't going to haggle over $12/year, so it's a calculated risk that you'll simply go with the flow and pay the extra money.

    5. Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee by WankerWeasel · · Score: 1

      Most people aren't going to switch always. Where you gonna go? To another carrier that'll do the same thing? If you hated your carrier so much you would have switched the last time your contract was up. Instead, the vast majority stay right where they are even when their contract has expired.

    6. Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I switched from AT&T to ting.com several years ago, and haven't had to put up with any contractual BS from them at all. They use a straightforward only-pay-for-what-you-use-each-month model with no contract or "plan" required (you do need to bring your own phone though). With my usage patterns, I end up paying about half what I used to pay to AT&T each month.

      (disclaimer: I have no relation with ting.com, other than being a satisfied customer)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee by torkus · · Score: 1

      “Services” are distinct from “Fees” by my read of it.

      Just because they separate it doesn't mean it's legal. Government fees and taxes are separate and mandated outside of your contract - basically they aren't charging them, they're just collecting them for someone else who you have a separate agreement with (i.e. the relevant laws).

      However an 'administrative fee' levied by the carrier or as part of the carriers regular course of business is charged by, and paid to, them. Increasing that very represents a material increase in cost/charge by the provider and, some wrangling aside, I expect it would be sufficient to get you out of your contract. It might take a small claims court action (which they may try to force binding arbitration over) but enough cycles later you'll probably win.

      In the end, they figure enough people won't see it until it's too late and they've 'default accepted' by paying their next bill or not responding with 30-60 days. And then several million people pay an extra 1$ a month and ... guess who wins? It's not you or I for sure.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    8. Re:Now Is Your Chance To Cancel With No Early Fee by torkus · · Score: 1

      TBH if you wanted to get into the weeds and argue it in court, you'd probably win even if they credited you each month.

      The actual charges are going up even if they're being paid by alternate means. Probably depends on the exact wording...and how much you or ATT are willing to fight/spend over an ETF.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  4. The one that pisses me off by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is "Regulatory Compliance Fee". This is a fee T-Mobile charges me so that _they_ can comply with regulations. You know, like every other business on Earth does. But the line item makes it sound like a tax. They're hoping I'll blame the government for the cost of my cell phone rather than them and their damned hidden fees.

    I have to admit it does also irritate met that I pay a fee to extend service to rural communities who consistently vote against government assistance for such things. Not that I begrudge them phone & internet, but I wish they'd stop fighting tooth and nail against it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The one that pisses me off by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's wrong with making various costs individual line items? I'd rather that companies did it with everything down to the CEO's stripper and cocaine party expenses. Government regulations aren't free and your wireless carrier is going to pass any costs on to you regardless of whether they're from duly enacted laws or poor business decisions made by the company. At least you can see what the cost of those regulations are and if you don't feel as though you're getting your money's worth, petition your representatives in government for changes to those regulations.

      You're paying the full bill either way. Would you really be happier if it were just a single lump sum with no additional information? Ignorance may be bliss, but it isn't particularly useful.

    2. Re: The one that pisses me off by orlanz · · Score: 2

      This fee is to recoup their internal costs of complying with regulations. It isn't a direct cost from regulations. As long as you accept that it's the governments fault, they have no reason to improve their cost structure.

      Why should we as a consumer whose price reflects our demand & product supply; not the business's internal costs care about customs costs, transportation costs, retail shelf rental cost, website maintenance cost, etc? This is no different.

      This sector like many others (ie: restaurant) has certain regulations. That's the cost of doing business. They should not get to pull it out as "not us; we are just middlemen" on anything that isn't a direct tax or fee from the government or charity or whatever; payments that do not go to the vendor.

    3. Re: The one that pisses me off by alvinrod · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Does it really matter whether it's a direct $X tax or fee imposed by the government or merely the internal costs of dealing with some policy (e.g., data retention) that is government law as long as the amount is truthful? If the company is ineptly managed, I still end up paying more. If I care enough about it, I can compare the rate to another provider and see if they have lower fees.

      I get that at some point you have to stop breaking it down as I don't care that $0.000001 of those administrative costs were to cover paper clips or that $0.00003 of the advertising budget went to a billboard in a little league ball park, but I don't want "total: $85.73" to be the only line on the bill either.

      Ultimately, consumers are only going to be sensitive to the total cost, regardless of how it is broken down, but cost of business increases due to regulations are going to hit every company and are inescapable in that the cost is passed on to consumers. If it turned out that regulations were 50% of the total cost of doing business, you might be rather curious as to whether or not they were really necessary or what value these regulations were providing. In the case of taxi services, those costs seemed to be relatively high and people were rather remiss to pay them, which is why companies like Uber and Lyft have become so popular.

    4. Re: The one that pisses me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter whether it's a direct $X tax or fee imposed by the government or merely the internal costs of dealing with some policy (e.g., data retention) that is government law as long as the amount is truthful?

      Depends on your definition of "truthful" and how naive you are in believing AT&T are honestly reporting it. How would you feel if your restaurant bill had a 20% Not pissing in your soup fee?

      Any costs of doing business should be included in the base price, not added on after the fact as a bullshit fee that the business can increase with impunity whenever their profits start to slip or the board run out of coke.

    5. Re:The one that pisses me off by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with making various costs individual line items?

      Because the "free market" requires accurate information. If you don't know how much your bill will be, you cannot compare prices between suppliers.

      Free market advocates should be outraged at these fees.

      Most of these "taxes and fees" have no connection to the services provided. A few years ago, I rented a car at DFW airport and one of the "taxes and fees" that I had to pay was for the property taxes on the car. But the rental company did not have a cost that matched what they charged me. Yes, they had to pay property taxes for the car, but they would have to pay tax had I not rented the car and it stayed in the garage.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re: The one that pisses me off by houghi · · Score: 2

      The thing I want is the price tge monthly fee + a line per extra cost. And with extra cost I mean things like an international call or a call to a sex line. Not things that should be in the monthly cost, like toilet paper use. And as a European, I also want the taxes included. Ot is not as if I am not paying them.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:The one that pisses me off by mishehu · · Score: 1

      They can keep it as a separate line item, but as it's not a government mandated tax, it should under no circumstances increase my overall costs. We accept that government mandated taxes are not within our direct control and are subject to change regardless of what our service agreements spell out. But this is just a way to increase what I pay to them.

    8. Re:The one that pisses me off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's Nothing!!!

      The one that REALLY SHOULD piss you off to no end is the
      MASSIVE ILLEGAL SPYING that AT&T does on YOU with the NSA...

      Don't believe it? Think it's some conspiracy theory?
      FALSE.
      Looky here...

      https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs/

    9. Re: The one that pisses me off by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      How would you feel if your restaurant bill had a 20% Not pissing in your soup fee?

      Isn't that what the suggested tip amount is?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    10. Re:The one that pisses me off by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"is "Regulatory Compliance Fee". This is a fee T-Mobile charges me so that _they_ can comply with regulations"

      And ALL the carriers did that.... but....

      You must be on an old plan still. To my knowledge, all T-Mobile plans for the last couple of years are 100% free of all hidden/separate fees from their claimed price. They made the incredibly bold step to be the ONLY carrier to advertise plans at a dollar amount that simply includes EVERYTHING and does not change. If they advertise a $50 plan, that is what you pay, and nothing more. It is one of the disruptive things T-Mobile has been doing that makes me like them much more than any other carrier.

    11. Re:The one that pisses me off by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >does it really matter if you see them or don't?

      Yes it does. Because it isn't false advertising. Some of those "fees" are completely arbitrary, so carriers can hide anything they want AND they can raise those anytime because it isn't part of your "plan". With T-Mobile, you know exactly what you are getting and paying and it doesn't change.

    12. Re:The one that pisses me off by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Would you really be happier if it were just a single lump sum with no additional information?

      That's pretty much how price quotes work. The itemized fees don't show up in the ads when you're shopping around.

      We'll file your federal and state taxes for FREE*. (*If you qualify, but we won't tell you up-front if you do! Actual price disclosed after you give us your financial info.)

    13. Re:The one that pisses me off by torkus · · Score: 1

      You're paying the full bill either way. Would you really be happier if it were just a single lump sum with no additional information? Ignorance may be bliss, but it isn't particularly useful.

      Yes actually:

      Your cell phone service is $62.50 a month.
      Bill arrives - $62.50 due.

      That's greatly preferable: Your cell phone service is $49.95 a month
      Bill arrives - $62.50 due ... WTF? It was 50 bucks, why am i being charged 25% more?! Stupid fees and taxes and shit...why didn't they just ... ugh..

      Also as an example how virtually EVERY SINGLE OTHER COUNTRY includes taxes/VAT/etc. in the sticker price when you buy something. If it says $62.50 then you pay exactly. fucking. that. 'murica!

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  5. Re:they are not screwing anyone by jonsmirl · · Score: 2

    Verizon did this with FIOS a few years ago and cause me to cancel when my contract expired. They arbitrarily raised the rental fee of the mandatory STB $3 to $5 per month depending on model. Of course consumers got squat for this price increase. What pissed me off was seeing the CEO on the financial news networks crowing over and over about the new RECORD profits in the FIOS group. I knew exactly how those profits were achieved.

  6. Re: they are not screwing anyone by meerling · · Score: 3

    It's not like the company hasn't historically billed people for plenty of bogus things before that even AT&T couldn't explain to anyone, not even the federal inspectors questioning them on those, err, discrepancies.

  7. 'the cost of doing business' & providing servi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is supposed to be included in the fucking prices of your products and services, as is your profit margins.. 'above the line'.. neither belongs tacked on to the bottom of the bill masquerading as a tax.

    have the balls to raise the fucking prices above the line and in your advertisements. quit being sneaky little greedy shits.

    fuck at&t. fuck comcast. fuck charter. fuck time warner. fuck verizon. fuck uscc. fuck centurylink. fuck sprint. fuck tmobile. fuck directv. fuck dishnetwork. fuck. them. all. preferably with a very large rusty crowbar

  8. Re:AT&T says the fee is related to its profits by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Assuming there is no anti-competitive price fixing going on.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  9. This is an old AT&T trick by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    Many, many years ago I would get calls from AT&T offering me some amazing deal if I switched my landline service to them. I would ask them repeatedly whether that was the actual bottom line price that I would be billed for, and they would assure me it was. Then, I'd receive my first bill and it would be almost double what they said. I would call customer support, and they would tell me that the sales group was a different department and they shouldn't be making promises like that and it couldn't be changed. That happened twice. Finally I got rid of my landline and swore I'd never give AT&T another dollar of my money ever again.

    Until a couple years ago, when they bought DirecTV. Bastards, now they're getting money from me again. And that's another shady bill that gradually creeps upward every couple of months.

  10. They turned me into The Wanderer by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Informative

    They kept adding random services to our bill without asking, such as "phone insurance". We tried to stay with them because they were the only carrier that worked well in our area. For some unknown reason the other 2 carriers' cellular signals don't come in clear.

    But my otherwise patient wife got so fed up correcting bills that she cancelled AT&T, and adamantly refuses to go back. We now live with crappy reception from one of the other 2 carriers. I have to walk outside and go 2 blocks to use my cell-phone. We tried various gizmos to boost the in-house signal without success. We also have to keep our land-line.

    I curse AT&T and then tell myself at least I get exercise from this "exercise".

    Their telemarketers also call about once a week. I either hang up on them or do Trump impressions about what losers they are.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:They turned me into The Wanderer by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Get one of the femtocell devices or just enable WiFi calling (and put money into a good, pervasive indoor and outdoor WiFi system.

    2. Re:They turned me into The Wanderer by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Wifi calling doesn't work very well because our ISP is also spotty. Even when not slow, it goes in spurts/bursts, which creates delays long enough to affect it for phone use. Our only other practical ISP choice is ... AT&T.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:They turned me into The Wanderer by idji · · Score: 1

      Welcome to America, where monopolies reign.

    4. Re:They turned me into The Wanderer by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just buy AT&T service indirectly from an MVNO? AT&T gets the bare minimum from them for tower service and you get a decent plan at probably a better price than you're paying. Here's a list of all the MVNO providers that use the AT&T network.

    5. Re:They turned me into The Wanderer by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If you want to actually use 21st Century technology, your only practical choice, is to move.

      No, it's to get rid of #@*!&^ oligopolies so we have choice and they have actual competition.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  11. Postpaid ... by jetkust · · Score: 1

    Postpaid = They charge you whatever they want, and if you don't pay they sell it to a shady collection agency that will call you every day for the rest of your life and try to screw with your credit.

    You would think they would benefit from you paying for the service up front, and if they don't provide service they owe you a refund. But nope, they love them some collection agencies and you wasting hours disputing the overly complicated bill.

  12. Because it's a deceptive ploy by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the wording is specifically designed to make me think it's something other than a fee. It's supposed to sound like a tax. This in turn is supposed to drive me to demand lower taxes, most of which go to corps like T-Mobile.

    A single lump sum isn't trying to trick me into a public policy that negatively impacts my life and the public commons.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  13. I want the total in big print by tepples · · Score: 2

    I want the big number in the advertisement to be the total, not just one line item. This way I can quickly compare one carrier's total to another carrier's total.

  14. Re: they are not screwing anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have Comcast. I pay only the taxes (around $8 in Washington State) for voice service, no other fees, and $12/gig for data. I have never used a full gig, because I am surrounded by wifi. I call Germany twice or thrice a month, so international long-distance makes up the bulk of my bill.

  15. Too much Debt by BeemanIT · · Score: 1

    When you look at the Debt service providers have : https://investors.att.com/~/me... I can understand why. Total Debt is sitting at $163 B.

  16. Re:AT&T says the fee is related to its cost of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or they can take it from the "profit column" instead of making everything a pass-through. Companies aren't entitled to being stinking rich.

  17. Updated AT&T motto by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    Considering the AT&T logo is basically the Death Star, I think their updated corporate motto hits the mark:

    We are altering the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  18. Re: they are not screwing anyone by houghi · · Score: 2

    I used to call international as well. I used to call over VoIP. With the App on my phone, I paid 1 cent per minute and after er a topup of 10Euro, igot a month free.

    Do look if you top up, as the prices will increase. Just look for another one http://www.voip-comparison.com... or search for Betamax Voip Providers.

    If the one you had increased prices when uou seeyou need to top up, just go with another one and change your login and pasword in you app.

    You can then also use it if you are in Germany and need to call home.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  19. Re: 'the cost of doing business' & providing s by houghi · · Score: 2

    I would say: fuck the US companies. When I was there I had no idea how much Iwould pay after looking at a pricelist.
    As a European I am used to pay what I see listed. Not more. Not less. Taxes and service is included.

    When they changed the system for e.g. restaurants, they added the 16% service to it as well as the tax.

    Tipping is bot needed and I hate it. I do not tip the bankteller for doing their job. No need to do it for a waiter. And yes,I thought the same when I was one.

    Just show me the price so I can make a decussion.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  20. Submit FCC complaint by elumpkin · · Score: 1

    One can at least get something (paperwork initiated on the part of the Gov and provider) for your "administration fee" by submitting an FCC complaint: https://consumercomplaints.fcc... This will typically prompt a phone call from the service provider where they will explain the fee and possibly offer a reduced plan. Recent experience with "Welcome to the new Frontier" gained me a non-limited term, a ~$5 decrease, a $3 increase all offsetting a new $1.99 fee. (Net gain was essentially nothing except I got Frontier to spend some "administration time" on little o'l me.)

  21. So, they've raised a fee by $1.23/month? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Hmm. Wonder how evil that is. Let's see...

    $1.23/month would just about match inflation if the monthly bill were around $58/month. Which would about split the difference between their $40/month plan and their $80/month plan.

    No opinion (and no real desire to go data diving to find out) as to the "normal" ratio of $40/month and $80/month plans, so I'll go with a guess of a 50-50 split (note, based on the download speeds of the plans, I'd guess more $80 plans than $40 plans, but that's just an unsubstantiated opinion).

    So a Service Fee raises their annual rate to be in line with inflation. Color me horrified. No, wait, a better word might be "bored"....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:So, they've raised a fee by $1.23/month? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Nobody would be nearly as outraged if they simply raised their base rates. But using weaselly ways of hiding it is far worse - especially when pretending like it's as inevitable as a tax.

  22. Bogus fee by sad_ · · Score: 1

    they are not alone with their bogus fee's, any place where you get a 'detailed' bill will have some admin costs in some form or other that is just really vague and could be anything. it's also always on the bill, no matter what service you used, depending on who is behind the counter you get different answers on what it actually is.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  23. How do telecoms/cable companies get away with this by sabbede · · Score: 1
    Every other business builds their costs into the price of the product. Somehow phone and cable companies get away with adding hidden fees instead of just having to raise the price a little. Why do we let them get away with that?

    As much as I favor light-touch regulation, this is a case for legislative intervention.

  24. Re: they are not screwing anyone by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    I pay $30/mo for Black Wireless. After 2Gb data is throttled but it's not like I'm torrenting or watching movies either.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  25. Re:they are not screwing anyone by hjf · · Score: 2

    Playing the devil's advocate here: Inflation plays a role too. While inflation in the US is minimal, with the years it becomes signficant. In the case of the article, 76 cents in 1995 is $1,27 today. Shy of "twice as much".
    This is a purely objective point though. The reasons why they increase pricing is simple ("because they can"). But never disregard inflation as a factor too.

  26. Re: they are not screwing anyone by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    T-mobile has been pretty good at letting me stay on my legacy plan. I've hear the same thing from others.

    It's actually pretty cool that a plan with no contract doesn't use the no contract part to their advantage in that way.

  27. "resort fee" by ruddk · · Score: 1

    It's like mandatory "resort fees" in hotels. It's not just 299$, no it's 299$ for the room, 50$ resort fee, 24$ for parking, x$ tourist tax and then taxes on top of that. :D
    I suppose people just look at the price for what they were looking for and ignore all the mandatory addons.

    --
    L'Idiot
  28. Re:they are not screwing anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is inflation seems to be a good excuse for companies and utilities to raise pricing, but never seems to be a good excuse to allow people cost of living raises. It's not about inflation. If it was, the increase in what a company is taking in would be funneled out in salaries to the entire employee base. Instead, it's funneled directly to the owners and upper levels of management, while the rest of the people get dick and told to like it. Then the management wonders why we're angry as they report their record profits year by year and we're told they can't afford to pay us more come review time.

  29. Re:they are not screwing anyone by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Yes, but this is deceptive behavior because they still advertise the original Plan Price --- which hinders comparing services, since you never know exactly what the fees will be after you start service.

    JMO. Recurring line items for "Surcharge", "Tax", or "Fee" should be Illegal, and they should be required to include any fee they want to charge in the plan price --- and if they wish to increase the cost, then they must announce a change in the rates.

  30. Re:they are not screwing anyone by Rhipf · · Score: 2

    They are merely increasing profit without increasing the cost of the plan.

    All service providers have been doing this for years by itemizing the bill and adding on taxes and fees.

    So how exactly is adding an extra service charge to your bill not increasing the cost of your plan. The quoted figure may still be $xx.xx but the actual cost of your plan is going up with this new fee.

  31. Must be nice by nwaack · · Score: 1

    Boy, I sure wish the industry I work in could just randomly tack on a bogus fee to everyone's bills without any oversight whatsoever. "Had a bad month? No problem! We'll just raise our EOA (eat our asses) fee $1 for every customer. BOOM!!...REVENUE!!!"

  32. Somebody finally noticed by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2

    This is the kind of B.S. that's been around for years. Here's a list of the fees on my electric bill:
    Cost of electricity you used
    Customer account charge $15.12
    Delivery service charge $1.62
    Environmental benefits surcharge $0.47
    System benefits charge $0.11
    Power supply adjustment* $0.18
    Metering* $44.31
    Meter reading* $0.27
    Billing* $0.90
    Generation of electricity* $3.36
    Federal transmission and ancillary services* $0.32
    Federal transmission cost adjustment* $0.01
    LFCR adjustor $0.12
    Tax Expense Adjustor -$0.20

    Ridiculous, right? That "metering" fee for a whopping $44.31 is for a fancy shmansy meter capable of handling three-phase service. Here's the kicker: I don't have three-phase service. But the electric company refuses to come change out the meter.

    60% of Americans have no emergency fund. A lot have no savings at all. Bullsh*t like laundry lists of fees and getting addicted to a rental economy is why.

    1. Re:Somebody finally noticed by omnichad · · Score: 1

      What really gets me is "Generation of electricity." That is fully covered by the KWh billing. What could this fee possibly cover that shouldn't be part of the per-KWh rate?

    2. Re:Somebody finally noticed by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      My water bill is just as bad. Half of it is fees that you pay even if you turn off the valve at the street and never use it. We tore out our lawns and went low water landscape, cutting our usage in half. Our bill went down by around 25%. Then they jacked up the prices the next year because people were using less water, so it's steadily creeping back up to where it originally was.

    3. Re:Somebody finally noticed by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Think that is BS, you should get into the way we used to do toll calls. Say if I'm in Baltimore and I call my bookie in San Francisco, you'd think that is a straight shot? Well all of those cities between Baltimore and San Francisco have these phone lines going through them. They are money grubbing politicians so they insist on a toll to use it. This is why I could call my bookie three days in a row, for exactly the same amount of time and get charged 3 different rates, depending on how it was connected.

      I used to work for MCI and we had to keep track of all of that crap. Every little junction and rate it. Cha ching!

      So what you're seeing is a bunch of people with their hand out. Probably a lot of local politicians that make them name it something else so they don't get the heat. Environmental benefits charge or mayor cotton picker's re-election fund. Not saying that this is what that is, however it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

    4. Re:Somebody finally noticed by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I actually wish my bill was broken more like that. My bill is more of a "you used this much, now pay us $X". I wanted to know more, I remember taking a few years worth of electric bills, and putting them into a spreadsheet with the amount of kwh I used and the amount of money I paid. I figured that I could fit them to a line y = m*x+b, where m would be my rate (cost per kwh) and the intercept, b, would be the base fees that are tacked onto my bill that don't change depending on usage. Well, the data points when plotted up were more of a cloud, and while I could sort of fit a line to them, the slope was significantly higher than the rate they claim they charge for electricity. Bastards.

    5. Re:Somebody finally noticed by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      I look into this crap too particularly because they're pitching this insane peak demand plan where you get dinged for spikes in usage such as when your air conditioner compressor fires up. That can be a spike of 20 KW and they ding you for something like $17 per KW. So if the stupid meter happens to be sampling when the A/C turns on, look out because you're going to get a bill for several hundred dollars. But they don't tell you this. They say, "Oh, well don't turn your pool pump or irrigation pump on between 3 and 8 pm." Yeah, um, I don't have those. What's my A/C which I would use during the hottest part of the day going to cost? They won't tell you. Total B.S.

  33. Re:How do telecoms/cable companies get away with t by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Somehow phone and cable companies get away with adding hidden fees instead of just having to raise the price a little. Why do we let them get away with that?

    Don't tell me, let me guess: because their rates are regulated by the government, so they can't just raise the price?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  34. Re:How do telecoms/cable companies get away with t by omnichad · · Score: 1

    If the government left a loophole open so wide you can drive a truck through it, maybe they should change things and include all fees when considering the price. But no, most areas don't regulate the pricing.

  35. Re:How do telecoms/cable companies get away with t by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    Every other business builds their costs into the price of the product. Somehow phone and cable companies get away with adding hidden fees instead of just having to raise the price a little. Why do we let them get away with that?

    As much as I favor light-touch regulation, this is a case for legislative intervention.

    It shouldn't even really need legislation, it just needs the courts to agree that it constitutes fraud.

  36. Re:ATT sucks by SScorpio · · Score: 1

    They just really wanted... your two cents.

  37. Re:they are not screwing anyone by hjf · · Score: 1

    Aren't you outraged by the fact that, in a lot of US states, the price you see advertised is NOT the price you pay? You seem outraged about all those fees, but not about the "sales tax". Which is the same thing. Where there is no sales tax, you don't get that line item.

    Imagine if they were charging $1.99 for a burger in one state with sales tax, and $1.99 in a state without it. I'm pretty sure you would be MAD that they are pocketing the difference.

    How is this any different?

  38. Re: they are not screwing anyone by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    Mint Sim is only $15 per month for the same 2GB.

  39. Wells AT&T Fargo by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I'd receive my first bill and it would be almost double what they said. I would call customer support, and they would tell me that the sales group was a different department and they shouldn't be making promises like that and it couldn't be changed.

    Indeed! We've heard similar kinds of excuses in our dealings with AT&T. It's as if they have a database of excuses and recycle them and track what they used on who, and when.

    Excuse-A-Tron 9000 [TM]

    Maybe they purchased it from Wells Fargo.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  40. Re: they are not screwing anyone by toddestan · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the base price didn't increase, the service was still $69.99 a month or whatever it was. The increase was in the extra bullshit fees that live outside of the contract (but should part of the contract).

    You can try to challenge them on it, but you probably had to sign an arbitration clause so good luck with that.

  41. Re:How do telecoms/cable companies get away with t by sabbede · · Score: 1

    What? No. I'm not talking about regulating prices, I'm talking about pricing. Or perhaps more accurately how prices are advertised. Not including taxes and government imposed fees is one thing, breaking off part of the price you charge so that you can mislead consumers is something else entirely.