AT&T false advertising...

[Hooka]

Hey! Good news, the internet is my friend! 1-800-331-0500 That's how I talk to AT&T. Any idiot who can type Google can find out how to talk to someone at AT&T or walk into their store. Stop blaming other people for mistakes you make. It sucks, yea. But you either say "Damn, I should have checked first, Oh well. I like it enough so I'll stick with it" or "Damn, I should have checked first, I can't use this. I'm taking it back" That's your job as a consumer. You can put down your "Destroy Corperate America" signs and start doing something useful now.

Walk into the store and do what? I was an ETF, AT&T had a team of trucks buzzing around my area. AT&T called me and said "Sir, we know that the cell coverage in your area is bad, and we have no plans to fix the problem, have a good day." That's not me coming down on corporate America, that's me saying AT&T is a crap company.

 

[Small White Car]

Now that's not a very good comparison. It's more like, if their 32GB plant was hit by a tornado and they had to give you a 16 and said in 3 months you can switch it out for free. Now... That'd be fine by me. I'd like to have something while I wait.

Well...it would be LIKE that, except it would be more like Apple is doing this, but refuses to TELL you about that plan. (Until you call them multiple times and continue to bother them.)

Again, I'm not complaining about what happened. I'm complaining about the way information was communicated to the customer.

 

[jaydub]

The willfully obtuse annoy me worst of all. If you don't WANT to respond to my point, that's fine, but responding to what I didn't say is just a waste of time.

I responded directly to what you did say. You asked if we'd be upset if we were sold a 32GB and were given 16GB. It's an issue of scale, but the argument is exactly the same.

 

[ViViDboarder]

The willfully obtuse annoy me worst of all. If you don't WANT to respond to my point, that's fine, but responding to what I didn't say is just a waste of time.

Isn't your point not to what I said as well?

Anyways. I'm going, but I thought I'd point out that there was coverage, but it wasn't as well as it was thought to be. It was likely effected by some other issues. It is evident by it dropping back and forth from edge.

The map said it may not be totally accurate and actual coverage may vary. Aparently it does.

I don't see the problem. Nobody was lied to.

If you have bad coverage. Have AT&T refund you. It's up to you. Just remember, nobody did anything "wrong" here. Not the buyer, not the seller. It's something difficult to predict, that's why they offer return and trial periods.

 

[ubersalad]

I am to the point where I "detest" my phone...

3G has to be turned off, battery life is worse than first gen, apps are buggy to the point where I won't bother to use them. Let's not even talk about my emails...this morning I just say f*&k to my phone as it was stuck on the email screen for a good 10 seconds.

I have developed some seriously hatred toward my phone...

 

[Small White Car]

I responded directly to what you did say. You asked if we'd be upset if we were sold a 32GB and were given 16GB. It's an issue of scale, but the argument is exactly the same.

What I imagined = Apple switches out one chip for a cheaper chip.

What you said = Drives format to different capacities than their reported size.


Those are totally different things. One is expected (yours) and one is not (mine).

 

[wreckshop]

Yea... But that's not the point.

They don't do it to "decieve" people. There are a lot of things that go into cellular cervice. Maybe from information getting from the people constructing the towers, hooking it up to the cell network, getting it legit with AT&T corperate and then getting it to the web developer... some information was put up prematurely. THAT'S why they have a disclaimer. They can't ensure that doesn't happen. Especially with their network! Probably caused by a dropped call!

That's bull. ATT knows exactly which areas its 3G networks already covers and how reliable that coverage is. It's not rocket science to reflect that on their own map. The only reason ATT shows future network buildouts on its current coverage map is because it doesnt want to look like its lagging behind VZW and Sprint in terms of 3G network coverage. Cant believe people are actually defending this shady behavior

 

[ViViDboarder]

Walk into the store and do what? I was an ETF, AT&T had a team of trucks buzzing around my area. AT&T called me and said "Sir, we know that the cell coverage in your area is bad, and we have no plans to fix the problem, have a good day." That's not me coming down on corporate America, that's me saying AT&T is a crap company.

Did they let you leave with no fee? And I meant go to a store and test coverage near you.

Well...it would be LIKE that, except it would be more like Apple is doing this, but refuses to TELL you about that plan. (Until you call them multiple times and continue to bother them.)

Again, I'm not complaining about what happened. I'm complaining about the way information was communicated to the customer.

That makes more sense

 

[jaydub]

What I imagined = Apple switches out one chip for a cheaper chip.

What you said = Drives format to different capacities than their reported size.


Those are totally different things. One is expected (yours) and one is not (mine).

it was your example!

 

[ViViDboarder]

That's bull. ATT knows exactly which areas its 3G networks already covers and how reliable that coverage is. It's not rocket science to reflect that on their own map. The only reason ATT shows future network buildouts on its current coverage map is because it doesnt want to look like its lagging behind VZW and Sprint in terms of 3G network coverage.

I'm sure every tower construction team member knows HTML and PHP. Lets just make sure they update right afterwards!

Have you moderated a website?

 

[kdarling]

I'm arguing that AT&T should only advertise 3G service in my area starting November 15. And for other parts of the country begin advertising when they begin activating their 3G towers.

I totally agree with you. Mapping something that doesn't exist yet, without marking it plainly, is deceptive.

That's one of the things I like about Verizon. They actually drive around and attempt to map their coverage (hence the origin of the "Can you hear me now" ads), instead of totally relying on computer models. They're really interested in fixing any dead spots. Doesn't mean they're always right, but at least they try.

 

[Small White Car]

it was your example!

Yes, it was my example. You then came up with a different example, pretended it was mine, and responded to that, as if I had said it.

I can't explain it any clearer than that.

 

[jaydub]

Yes, it was my example. You then came up with a different example, pretended it was mine, and responded to that, as if I had said it.

I can't explain it any clearer than that.

No, I merely illustrated that the example you used was flawed. You said it would be unfair if Apple did that. They do, but nobody seems to care about that too much.

 

[JML42691]

It is for 3 months out of a 24 month service commitment, so I do think that it is acceptable.

you

That is the most irresponsible advice people would give in these forums.

If you can get out of contract without paying for ETF, then get out of the contract right away. Any other advice is irresponsible.

Excuse me? Did you even read my post that you quoted? What advice are you reading out of what I said? There is not any advice being given there, I simply told him that I thought that it was acceptable for a cell company to list their service for what it will be 3 months in advanced for a data service. You are calling me irresponsible? And the only advice that I did give him in this thread is that he should stick with his service as it is only the speed of his data that he is not getting. I don't even think that you read what I typed, and yet you are still trying to flame me, nice try. And you are saying that just because he could get out of a contract without paying the ETF that he should, that is the absolute worst advice that anybody could give. Say some reason came up that gave me a reason to leave my contract with Verizon without having to pay the ETF, if I were to take your advice then I should cancel my contract immediatly, even if I were fine with the service. And by the way, as he agreed to the contract with his signature, and with the fact that there was a disclaimer on their website, I do not think that AT&T would view this as a reason to get out of the ETF.

So please think before you speak.

 

[oban14]

I know I'm calling for the free 25 bucks.

 

[bradl]

Yes but his "choice" to buy the phone was based on inaccurate maps that say there is 3G in his area now when it wont be there until November 15th. If AT&T knowingly but out Maps that said there was 3G service in an area now and they knew that area would not have 3G service till November isn't that deceptive.

Yes, but he is also saying that ATT shouldn't advertise 3G service AT ALL, because it isn't in his area, and that isn't right. If they have had 3G service in Las Vegas and Sacramento/Northern California for the past year and a bit, but not in his area, is it fair to say that ATT shouldn't have it up on their site because it isn't in his unique area?

That isn't right, and that's what I'm getting out of reading his post:

I don't think 3G should have been advertised as ACTIVE at ALL. Sure, AT&T cannot guarantee coverage everywhere but advertise in anticipation...? Three months?

I don't think that's right.

Emphasis mine.

Now, they should have said something about it not being in his area until a certain time, yes. Optimally, it would be nice if ATT had a list of approximate dates where 3G will roll out for the places that don't have it.

But it isn't right to cut off everyone when only one person doesn't have it.

BL.

 

[vega07]

Excuse me? Did you even read my post that you quoted? What advice are you reading out of what I said? There is not any advice being given there, I simply told him that I thought that it was acceptable for a cell company to list their service for what it will be 3 months in advanced for a data service. You are calling me irresponsible? And the only advice that I did give him in this thread is that he should stick with his service as it is only the speed of his data that he is not getting. I don't even think that you read what I typed, and yet you are still trying to flame me, nice try. And you are saying that just because he could get out of a contract without paying the ETF that he should, that is the absolute worst advice that anybody could give. Say some reason came up that gave me a reason to leave my contract with Verizon without having to pay the ETF, if I were to take your advice then I should cancel my contract immediatly, even if I were fine with the service. And by the way, as he agreed to the contract with his signature, and with the fact that there was a disclaimer on their website, I do not think that AT&T would view this as a reason to get out of the ETF.

So please think before you speak.

Regardless of whether you meant it or not (according to you, you did not), there was an underlying piece of advice beneath your comment. I got the impression from your response that your possible solution for me was to "deal with it" (like you said you would have done if you were in my shoes).

While I fully respect your comment, please don't be too quick to "flame" jamab (the best word I could think of at the moment but probably too strong to describe your response to jamab).

 

[deluxe498]

it really is false advertisement as it clearly states there is 3g coverage in your area. and in reality there isnt. i dont know how people cant see that.

 

[vega07]

Yes, but he is also saying that ATT shouldn't advertise 3G service AT ALL, because it isn't in his area, and that isn't right. If they have had 3G service in Las Vegas and Sacramento/Northern California for the past year and a bit, but not in his area, is it fair to say that ATT shouldn't have it up on their site because it isn't in his unique area?

That isn't right, and that's what I'm getting out of reading his post:



Emphasis mine.

Now, they should have said something about it not being in his area until a certain time, yes. Optimally, it would be nice if ATT had a list of approximate dates where 3G will roll out for the places that don't have it.

But it isn't right to cut off everyone when only one person doesn't have it.

BL.

I think you're thinking too literally but ok ok......maybe I should have been clearer. Yes, AT&T should advertise 3G service, but only with a clear disclaimer that it will only be available three months later.

 

[wreckshop]

I'm sure every tower construction team member knows HTML and PHP. Lets just make sure they update right afterwards!

Have you moderated a website?

Do you really expect people to believe that a multi-billion dollar corporation in the business of selling service on its networks has no idea what capacity future buildouts will have? Or that it has no idea what the current capacity of each active tower is? Or that updating a coverage map on a website is too difficult? Are you serious?

 

[bradl]

it really is false advertisement as it clearly states there is 3g coverage in your area. and in reality there isnt. i dont know how people cant see that.

Because we also see this on ATT's coverage viewer:

Map may include areas served by unaffiliated carriers, and may depict their licensed area rather than an approximation of their coverage. Actual coverage area may differ substantially from map graphics, and coverage may be affected by such things as terrain, weather, foliage, buildings and other construction, signal strength, customer equipment and other factors. AT&T does not guarantee coverage. Charges will be based on the location of the site receiving and transmitting the call, not the location of the subscriber. Your phone's display does not indicate the rate you will be charged.

Emphasis mine again.

Do we know that the OP isn't picking up another carrier's 3G coverage that ATT can recognize? US Cellular, for example? Granted, them showing possible coverage from another carrier doesn't bode well and they are working on getting their own 3G coverage there, but with the disclaimer above (that was there since 6/30/08), the public was duly informed. False advertising? No. Fine print? Yes.

BL.

 

[benflick]

I don't think that's my argument. I'm arguing that AT&T should only advertise 3G service in my area starting November 15. And for other parts of the country begin advertising when they begin activating their 3G towers.

exactly, i bet 30% of people who have the iPhone 3G got it because it said they have 3G coverage in their community. I don't care what people say, AT&T is lying when they do that.

 

[samab]

Excuse me? Did you even read my post that you quoted? What advice are you reading out of what I said? There is not any advice being given there, I simply told him that I thought that it was acceptable for a cell company to list their service for what it will be 3 months in advanced for a data service. You are calling me irresponsible? And the only advice that I did give him in this thread is that he should stick with his service as it is only the speed of his data that he is not getting. I don't even think that you read what I typed, and yet you are still trying to flame me, nice try. And you are saying that just because he could get out of a contract without paying the ETF that he should, that is the absolute worst advice that anybody could give. Say some reason came up that gave me a reason to leave my contract with Verizon without having to pay the ETF, if I were to take your advice then I should cancel my contract immediatly, even if I were fine with the service. And by the way, as he agreed to the contract with his signature, and with the fact that there was a disclaimer on their website, I do not think that AT&T would view this as a reason to get out of the ETF.

So please think before you speak.

Far from that --- I am not the kind of person that would tell people to get out of contract "on a techicality" --- i.e. the carrier start charging more on SMS and websites after websites were talking about the ETF loophole.

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/...-sms-rates-customers-now-free-of-their-contr/

But for a new customer who just sign a 2 year contract --- getting out within the first 3 days, the first 14 days and the first 30 days is the best advice anyone can give.

And if you read the OP's view on my comment --- he agree with me on my response to your comment.

 

[bluenoise]

I was in the "they shouldn't advertise 3G until they actually have it in that area" camp until I saw the OP say he occasionally gets 3G in his area. If that's the case, AT&T was honest. If there truly was ZERO 3G in his area, he wouldn't have seen it on his phone. That's not to say they don't need to improve the coverage for him, but it does indeed exist as the map has indicated.

The last time I looked at a coverage map, it was pretty zoomed-out, so I would never expect it to not have some little "holes" in the coverage based on very localized factors. For example, I get good 3G and EDGE signal outside my work building. But in my office, I get virtually no signal of any kind. Perhaps I should complain to AT&T because the map clearly shows coverage in 100% of the area in which my office resides.

 

[pavvento]

Although I haven't read through this entire thread, from what I've read I get the impression it is like a lot of threads on forums.

People claiming to be looking for advice, but have already made their minds up and just want to rant. If you just want to rant than be honest about it. If you're looking for advice than don't argue or try to disprove people who are offering the opinions you claim to be seeking.