Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

My Fight w/ AT&T

Status
Not open for further replies.
kkachurak said:
And I think that's commendable. My point is, not everyone is like you. And many more individuals have opinions that (in others opinions) are more absurd than mine, currently.

My opinion is that a carrier with the Jesus Phone shouldn't create sudden and magical exceptions to the rule and exclude other users that offer to compensate to meet the requirements of the rule. I'm not whining. I just don't think it's right. I bought the phone and paid $400 smacks anyway.

I'll tell people AT&T poorly manages their killer devices and they should wait and see what killer devices come out on another networks and see if they're handled more appropriately.
Click to expand...

They don't poorly manage their killer devices when the only change they made in their service was allowing MORE people to be upgrade eligible. What are you going to tell people?

Person A: Hey, I'm thinking about switching to ATT, kkchurak, what do you think?

You: I dont know man, ATT is pretty dicey.

Person A: Why do you say that? They have good service around my area.

You: I'm just not impressed. They didn't make an exception on my account and allow me to be upgrade eligible for a new phone before my contract which I signed said I would be.

Person A: ...
 
EnderTW said:
The problem was they gave the discount after the fact.

This was AT&T's mistake. They need to either 1) Give it to everyone or 2) give it to no one.

The OP has a point. His "2 year contract" had nothing about 99 dollars a month being the magic number to be eligible in one year.

This is what most of you are missing.

Yes it is absurd of him to think handing $120 would be equivalent to their rate system. However the bottom line is that AT&T shouldn't have offered the new discount plan unless it would be applied to all, and at the same time declaring 99.99 as the "magic" number for next year.
Click to expand...

But that's just childish. 'If I can't get the upgrade pricing, no one should be able to'. Sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? People should be thanking AT&T for bending the terms and conditions to allow more customers to upgrade than would otherwise be entitled. It's just sour grapes if you aren't eligable and are now kicking up a huge fuss about it.
 
Badandy said:
EDIT: Ok, NOW the OP is whining. Look, you should be upset with yourself, not ATT. They're not doing anything wrong. You set this thread up as a test of your logic to see if there was anything flaws with your thinking. You've now morphed it into "I'm the consumer!! ATT has to obey me!".
Click to expand...

Actually, that's precisely how it works. Corporations have to obey consumers. If they don't, they go out of business.

GM made awful cars at high prices that couldn't compete. Consumers said, screw this, and they went out of business.

Circuit City had a horrible retail experience with prices that couldn't compete. Consumers said, screw this, and they went out of business.

The only reason that AT&T is able to stick it to us is because they know that the Jesus Phone is still exclusive to them. When that changes, it will be a whole different ball game.
 
There's a reason why everybody hates cell phone carriers. Once you sign the contract, you're basically screwed into their terms, no matter how stupid they are.
 
marksman said:
I like how you refer to this as a debacle.

The only debacle is that adults are entering into contracts without a clue as to what they were doing.

I honestly had some sympathy to people who got into ARMS and had the mortgage rates jump through the ceiling due to unscrupulous lenders and such. However, now I realize that I should not have any sympathy, as a percentage of the population is dumb and/or ignorant and refuse to take responsibility for the adult things they do and want to blame someone else.
Click to expand...

Trust me, most of the people knew exactly what they were doing. They just want to "act" dumb now. It was all for greed. Not that that has anything to do with this thread....lol
 
kkachurak said:
Actually, that's precisely how it works. Corporations have to obey consumers. If they don't, they go out of business.
Click to expand...

Really? Wow, there goes all I've learned in my years of education and experience.

GM made awful cars at high prices that couldn't compete. Consumers said, screw this, and they went out of business.
Click to expand...

This isn't a valid analogy. You want a valid analogy?

"I knew GM made awful cars when I was looking for a new vehicle, but I bought one anyway. Then, GM started making better cars, that's not fair."
 
"exclude other users that offer to compensate to meet the requirements of the rule. "

The offer was made to those that MET the requirements - not people that, once knowing about the requirements, offered to meet them.

Since you studied hospitality - let me put it in terms I HOPE you can understant.

You run a hotel. You have people that can sign up for an email newsletter or updates from your website. You send an eblast to stating that those that stayed at your hotel 3 times get a discount for their next visit

A customer comes to you and says "Well I signed up - but I've only stayed at your hotel once before. I know your criteria for the promotion that I heard about from my friend states a minimum of 3 times - so how about I give you some cash now (less than what you would have gotten from me if I had actually stayed here) and you give me the discount.
 
The first problem is referring to a phone or any object as a jesus device.

Second, "Actually, that's precisely how it works. Corporations have to obey consumers. If they don't, they go out of business."


As someone who studied semantics - I have to call you out on such words as "OBEY". It's very telling where your mindset is when you use words like that so carelessly.
 
starstudded said:
Kkachurak, your logic is most definitely flawed. If what you are saying is true then why would AT&T even have the policy that you can get the better price if you spent $99 or more per month? If they allowed you to pay the difference and made you eligible for the upgrade, why would they even have this policy? You are telling me that then everyone can just pay the differences and make themselves eligible? I think you should look up the definition of "policy" and "contract" and rethink yourself over.
Click to expand...

When did I say that what I said was true? I don't know why AT&T made this policy (though I think the person that said it was because they wanted to sell a million phones over the weekend was on to something).

But I do know that the difference between me and meeting the qualifications of the memo was $10/month over 12 months. $120.

So some customers spent $120 more over the course of a year and got the device for $200.

Some customers spent $120 less over the course of a year, and had to pay $200 more.

I just think it's shady and bad practice. I read this somewhere on MacRumors already: making some customers feel less important than others is Bad Marketing 101.

And I couldn't agree more.

And to those that say I'm obviously wrong because so many disagree with me: Well, I don't follow the herd. It's like that one social experiment where shills claim that one line is the longest when it's really not, and the subject starts to agree because they don't want to stand out. I stick by my argument and if you don't, then its no sweat off my back.
 
samcraig said:
As someone who studied semantics - I have to call you out on such words as "OBEY". It's very telling where your mindset is when you use words like that so carelessly.
Click to expand...

I didn't use "Obey". Badandy did. I was merely quoting him or her. Page 4, post number 98.
 
For all those bitching about not being able to upgrade, just wait another year and you'll be able to buy the 4G or whatever they call it...LOL! (I'm sure we'll have this same discussion then from the 3GS users.)
 
kkachurak said:
I didn't use "Obey". Badandy did. I was merely quoting him or her. Page 4, post number 98.
Click to expand...

I said you're acting as if they have to obey you. You then proved me right, explicitly stating they need to obey.


Here's what you're doing:

"I knew GM made awful cars when I was looking for a new vehicle, but I bought one anyway. Then, GM started making better cars, that's not fair."
 
samcraig said:
"exclude other users that offer to compensate to meet the requirements of the rule. "

The offer was made to those that MET the requirements - not people that, once knowing about the requirements, offered to meet them.

Since you studied hospitality - let me put it in terms I HOPE you can understant.

You run a hotel. You have people that can sign up for an email newsletter or updates from your website. You send an eblast to stating that those that stayed at your hotel 3 times get a discount for their next visit

A customer comes to you and says "Well I signed up - but I've only stayed at your hotel once before. I know your criteria for the promotion that I heard about from my friend states a minimum of 3 times - so how about I give you some cash now (less than what you would have gotten from me if I had actually stayed here) and you give me the discount.
Click to expand...

The problem is, why would they get LESS than what they would have gotten? If you offered to pay the fair market value for the three nights, what would be the problem? I offered to pay the amount to get me up to $99 per month average. I didn't offer to pay just a little as a tip or bonus. Is anyone actually reading what I'm writing?!
 
"I didn't use "Obey". Badandy did. I was merely quoting him or her. Page 4, post number 98. "

Badandy was mocking you in that post and using it for humor

You didn't use quotes when you posted. You didn't even reference an earlier comment. You posted how you felt. Like I said - it's very telling.

Backpeddling is useless as well when we can all read the thread
 
kkachurak said:
The problem is, why would they get LESS than what they would have gotten? If you offered to pay the fair market value for the three nights, what would be the problem? I offered to pay the amount to get me up to $99 per month average. I didn't offer to pay just a little as a tip or bonus. Is anyone actually reading what I'm writing?!
Click to expand...

Yes. We have already gone over the logic of your situation. We don't think ATT has the protocols in place to accept a lump sum payment in lieu of normal monthly bills. It complicates things for training CS reps, accounting practies, and all that jazz. We then talked about how you had your math wrong and that the real lump sum payment you'd have to make is somewhere between $120 and $240 because you're ignoring the fact that ATT doesn't expect everyone who is eligible for this new promotion to take advantage of it.

When we got that out of the way we then started examining your sense of entitlement for being a consumer. Any other questions?
 
Badandy said:
I said you're acting as if they have to obey you. You then proved me right, explicitly stating they need to obey.


Here's what you're doing:

"I knew GM made awful cars when I was looking for a new vehicle, but I bought one anyway. Then, GM started making better cars, that's not fair."
Click to expand...

You don't have to write it twice.

And yes, to an extent, corporations obey consumers. What the consumer wants, the consumer buys. If a company makes something a consumer DOESN'T want, they won't sell any. So they have to do what the customer wants. How is this not "obeying"??

Just looked it up in spotlight. Obey: comply with the command, direction, or request.

Customers dictate the market. With their wallets. The only reason AT&T is getting away with this now is because they know customers want the iPhone, and therefore are locked into their services.
 
"The problem is, why would they get LESS than what they would have gotten? If you offered to pay the fair market value for the three nights, what would be the problem? I offered to pay the amount to get me up to $99 per month average. I didn't offer to pay just a little as a tip or bonus. Is anyone actually reading what I'm writing?! "

You've missed the boat completely. It's cool. You claim we're not reading what you're writing. Your problem is that you aren't UNDERSTANDING what we have written.

No worries though. You bought the phone at the price you could and that's that. That's really the end of the story at the moment, isn't it?
 
brownieguy19 said:
I would just like to add this tid bit to those defending AT&T....

These "contracts" are not legally binding contracts. AND if you did a little research, very rarely will a judge hold these contracts up in court as noted by a very large settlement in the state of California.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/29/sprint-loses-early-termination-lawsuit-ordered-to-pay-73m-b/

I will have to agree with the OP's math; and because the math does not always make sense; consumer protection lawyers eat this stuff up for unlawful business practices. Furthermore, if you do a little homework, arbitration will usually favor on the consumer's behalf.

Just because AT&T has a "policy" and you sign a "contract" does not make it a)legally binding or b)appropriate or c)ethical.

However, I will add, just because there are these loop holes does not make it ethical for consumers to take advantage of unless they honestly feel they have been taken advantage of. (i.e. the elderly and disabled) I don't think it would be ethical to attack AT&T over the emotion of being upset over a $200 price difference.
Click to expand...

Please don't post. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
kkachurak said:
Actually, that's precisely how it works. Corporations have to obey consumers. If they don't, they go out of business.

GM made awful cars at high prices that couldn't compete. Consumers said, screw this, and they went out of business.

Circuit City had a horrible retail experience with prices that couldn't compete. Consumers said, screw this, and they went out of business.

The only reason that AT&T is able to stick it to us is because they know that the Jesus Phone is still exclusive to them. When that changes, it will be a whole different ball game.
Click to expand...

And AT&T is obeying you. You pay so much a month for cell phone service, and AT&T is providing that to you. As per the terms of the contract, that is all they're contractually obligated to do. You can't just demand things and expect them to give it to you.
 
Zengrok said:
Your logic is flawed. Anyone in contract for $99 would be in that contract for 2 years. Yes, they're 12 months in, but 12 months more to go. So for your logic to work, you'd have to give them $240 to cover the $10 difference per month (10x 24 months).

Seems to me paying $200 is a deal then.
Click to expand...

$200 and they gave him a $40 credit. So he actually got a better deal than anyone who was allowed to upgrade early. Yet he is still carrying on about it.

If the OP is over 25 years old he needs to be imprisoned on a deserted island for at least 15 years.
 
Badandy said:
Yes. We have already gone over the logic of your situation. We don't think ATT has the protocols in place to accept a lump sum payment in lieu of normal monthly bills. It complicates things for training CS reps, accounting practies, and all that jazz. We then talked about how you had your math wrong and that the real lump sum payment you'd have to make is somewhere between $120 and $240 because you're ignoring the fact that ATT doesn't expect everyone who is eligible for this new promotion to take advantage of it.

When we got that out of the way we then started examining your sense of entitlement for being a consumer. Any other questions?
Click to expand...

Not for you, no. I sure hope you and Samcraig don't run companies. You might miss out on the fact that a satisfied customer for life is way more valuable than an unsatisfied customer locked into a contract for only two years.

And I never claimed AT&T had the "protocols" in place. I am thoroughly capable of understanding what you write.

All I'm suggesting is, there is a discrepancy between what AT&T said what "qualified" and what a customer could theoretically do to be qualified. That if you think about it, you'd realize there is a magical $80 they are getting out of the unqualified customers, one way or another. And I just don't think it's right.

The actual end of the story is, I'm unhappy. And while AT&T might not give a care about that right now, they will when I move to the competing iPhone carrier in 2010 (conjecture of course, but apply the message to any date and it holds the same).

marksman said:
Please don't post. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

How come he or she has no idea what they're talking about? Because you don't agree with them? Did you even read the links?!

marksman said:
$200 and they gave him a $40 credit. So he actually got a better deal than anyone who was allowed to upgrade early. Yet he is still carrying on about it.

If the OP is over 25 years old he needs to be imprisoned on a deserted island for at least 15 years.
Click to expand...

I paid $400, genius. Read.

Good to know my opinion enrages you so much that you think I need to be outcast. And I'm the immature one. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back