Actually, the reason they don't warn people about excessive usage is because they don't know about it. It's the way their billing systems are designed.
Telco usage is gathered throughout the month from multiple places, including many vendors. A vendor is any data network, be it ATT, L3, or, in this example, the Canadian tower owner that was carrying this usage. This usage is compiled into a database, and at the close of your bill cycle, is counted, rated to your price plan, summed, taxed, and billed.
No telco (as far as i know) keeps a running tab of your charges, though I don't actually work for ATT mobility. It would be a huge issue to attempt to do so for all 100 million phones out there. I personally would not be willing to spend additional money each month for that service, when I can instead just monitor my usage. If I go to a foreign country where I'm billed per minute (or apparently per KB) I know to not use too much. I feel bad that this guy didn't know to not do that, but we can't always expect to have our hands held, as has been stated in several other comments.
So, to summarize, no, ATT didn't notify him. They probably didn't know themselves till it was over. The Canadian company wants their money (they bill ATT for usage, often at MORE than the telco charges individuals). Should ATT not even TRY to collect what's owed them?
But it's easier to blame the company, I understand, and frankly often do it myself.
By the way, you may have guessed... I work in Telecommunications billing, so I have some knowledge in this matter. ATT was probably as shocked as the customer was when that bill went out.
No company likes to do that, they know it will cause customers to be unhappy. If he works with the company, they may settle for a smaller amount, if he is polite and works with them.
Parent has several errors in their comment, as shown:
AT&T is not AT&T now, because the name was sold to an abusive west coast telephone company named SBC.
1. The name was not sold to and abusive west coast Telephone company. The COMPANY was sold to an abusive Southern (Headquartered in San Antonio, Texas) Company named SBC (At least he got the name right)
My understanding is that everything else of value in the original AT&T was sold piece-by-piece, and SBC bought mostly just the name. My understanding is that the SBC trademark was worse than useless because the company is so abusive. So, the managers bought another name.
2. Your understanding is wrong. AT&T had, it is true, already sold it's wireless division to Cingular, but the core company (LD) was still there. SBC DID want the name, but mostly because it is the pre-imminent name hen discussing telephone service. SBC wants a globally known name, and now has it. Even in those places where it is not available, people know who AT&T is.
Apparently, for $16 Billion SBC got AT&T's VOIP customers, and the AT&T name.
3. $16 Billion got the whole ball of wax, including ALL AT&T customers, as well as (and most importantly) the AT&T calling network, that SBC didn't have. SBC had previously had to rely on a third party to "carry" their calls, and pay for the service. People who work in telecommunications will know how important this was.
AT&T's VOIP customers were Sheila and Gerald Funk, who have since moved to Elbonia. Wait... That last sentence my contain an error.
4. This is partly true. There are not many AT&T VOIP customers. Yet. If you didn't realize it, though, it takes some setup to carry several hundred million calls per day. The "Old" AT&T had worked farther toward that goal than SBC had. When SBC bought AT&T, they bought all of AT&T's technology, as well.
So, what we are seeing is SBC mismanagement under a new name. Soon just saying the name AT&T will cause people to become upset.
5. SBC has, in the past 17 years under Ed Whitacre, grown from a local, no name baby bell to having bought almost ALL it's siblings (still working on Verizon, not looking good on that front) and being a GLOBAL company, with almost $245 BILLION in market cap. That's not what I call mismanagement... How is YOUR company doing?
Yes. I work for the "New" AT&T. I worked for SBC. I'll be the first to knock them, but at least do it with the true things they do wrong. There are plenty.
>However, it should have investigated this company more thoroughly for human rights issues before it awarded the contract in the first place.
By that same logic, isn't it true that the consumer (I have two iPods) is to blame because we didn't check for those same violations? Or are we shielded by the "it's not my fault, blame them" idea?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the reason they don't warn people about excessive usage is because they don't know about it. It's the way their billing systems are designed. Telco usage is gathered throughout the month from multiple places, including many vendors. A vendor is any data network, be it ATT, L3, or, in this example, the Canadian tower owner that was carrying this usage. This usage is compiled into a database, and at the close of your bill cycle, is counted, rated to your price plan, summed, taxed, and billed. No telco (as far as i know) keeps a running tab of your charges, though I don't actually work for ATT mobility. It would be a huge issue to attempt to do so for all 100 million phones out there. I personally would not be willing to spend additional money each month for that service, when I can instead just monitor my usage. If I go to a foreign country where I'm billed per minute (or apparently per KB) I know to not use too much. I feel bad that this guy didn't know to not do that, but we can't always expect to have our hands held, as has been stated in several other comments. So, to summarize, no, ATT didn't notify him. They probably didn't know themselves till it was over. The Canadian company wants their money (they bill ATT for usage, often at MORE than the telco charges individuals). Should ATT not even TRY to collect what's owed them? But it's easier to blame the company, I understand, and frankly often do it myself. By the way, you may have guessed... I work in Telecommunications billing, so I have some knowledge in this matter. ATT was probably as shocked as the customer was when that bill went out. No company likes to do that, they know it will cause customers to be unhappy. If he works with the company, they may settle for a smaller amount, if he is polite and works with them.
Yes. I work for the "New" AT&T. I worked for SBC. I'll be the first to knock them, but at least do it with the true things they do wrong. There are plenty.
>However, it should have investigated this company more thoroughly for human rights issues before it awarded the contract in the first place.
By that same logic, isn't it true that the consumer (I have two iPods) is to blame because we didn't check for those same violations? Or are we shielded by the "it's not my fault, blame them" idea?
welcome our new rainy overlords. No one said it yet?