Abbot and Costello seek Employment at ATT Wireless ! ...or Adventures in Tedious Absurdity with AT&T Wireless Services... Sorry about the _Avengers_-ish tag lines, but my recent bizzare experiences with AT&T Wireless Services and their caricatures of customer service reps could easily substitute for an episode of the series... Anyhow, I've been a generally happy customer of AT&T Wireless's New York City 00025 system for about 9 years now -- my service was them was one of the first accounts I had which I obtained while still in college, and despite a number of moves and many other cellular accounts since then, I have kept that account and added two others for our company in ATT's 00025 NYC market. I've been willing to put up with some of their glaring problems, such as: [] A rather small coverage area as compared to the NY B-side Bell Atlantic 00022 system. Although they offer "home" rates in some systems surrounding their 00025 system, they charge tolls and call delivery charges to/from these surrounding non-AT&T systems while BAMS has one truly large system (and has recently expanded it to include all of NJ, although tolls between systems do apply). [] The utter lack of handoffs or interconnectivity with the Sussex NJ system. This system occupies a significant chunk of Northern NJ, and a good number of miles on I-80 west of I-287. Anyone who travels this area who uses AT&T is going to get cut off since handoffs don't occur, while since BAMS owns (brands?) the comparable B-side system (which USED to have it's own SID of 01488 or something; it is now the same as the rest of BAMS' NY system at 00022), there is no such problem, and it even hands off nicely to the BAMS Philly/NE PA 00008 system. [] The lack of the No-Answer-Transfer feature: Why? They use that wonderful catch-all "Due to Fraud" to justify the lack of the feature. But it does work at times in *some* switches in their 00025 system, and when roaming as well (try *72, which is most normal markets is supposed to be *71; McCaw/ATT tried to force their brand of NACN feature codes on the rest of the country a while back it seems; no one bought it, but many ex-McCaw markets are now stuck with non-standard feature codes like *71 for immediate call forwarding and *710 to turn off all call forwarding. The "correct" codes are *71 - No Answer Transfer, *72 - Immediate Call Forwarding, *74 - busy transfer, *73 - deactivate all forwarding, *710 (*713)- deactivate NAT leaving any other forwarding intact, *720 (*723) - deactivate immediate call forwarding leaving any other forwarding intact, *740 (*743) - deactivate Busy forward leaving other forwarding intact (a rarely used and ever more rare feature to be properly implemented.) [] The quirky Ericsson switch: It may have been a state of the art switch in 1991 or so, but its flaky now. Sometimes generates ring tones when callers call you, sometimes does not. If you recently powered your phone off, and someone calls you, they will hear dead air for maybe 20 seconds rather than ringing -- most of the time they hang up before the call goes to voicemail or the No-Answer-Transfer number. [] The prohibition against forwarding calls to toll-free numbers: Have an 800 voicemail or pager? Want unanswered calls to go there? Want to forward your calls there when you are away? Well, AT&TWS will *not* let you! Again, they claim it is a "fraud" issue and say nothing more. [] Outrageous toll delivery rates: Why do I have to pay 28 cents per minute to have calls delivered to me when AT&T is selling long distance for 9 cents per minute? I dunno, but apparently enough idiots allow AT&T to deliver their calls for them so they end up paying a de-facto airtime charge for call delivery. (Just as an aside, if we can get T-1 US toll rates at about 2.5 cents per minute with Bell/GTE termination, I would *think* that AT&T, the largest LD telco in the US could do a bit better, yet they bill their semi-captive LD customers outrageous rates to deliver their calls to outside markets. To be fair, though, other carriers do this as well, although BAMS offers it for 10 cents during off peak periods) [] The do NOT cover the Midtown Tunnel (I-495, sort of) and the Battery Tunnel (I-478, again, sort of), while BAMS covers all the NYC tunnels. (BAMS also provides CDPD coverage in all of it's tunnels, while AT&TWS, the "premier" CDPD data provider with its Pocketnet service, does not, and you can not use your CDPD or Pocketnet device while sitting in the endless tunnel traffic -- not even in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, which AT&T does offer cellular service in.) Despite these problems, the service level has generally been good enough to make me want to keep our accounts with AT&T over the past years. However, two months ago, I received a bill from AT&T for over $400! My bills per account are generally $50 - $75 per month, so I looked over the bill, and saw something unusual. It seems that for some calls which were forwarded (either via Immediate Call Forwarding or No Answer Transfer) I was billed *roaming* rates and long distance charges, even though the calls occurred during *Off Peak* (read: free airtime) and were forwarded locally (read: no local toll charges). In essence, when someone called my cellphone during off-peak hours _when airtime is FREE_, and when the calls were forwarded to local NY Metro numbers which are also _FREE_, I was billed $.99 per minute airtime AND $.28 per minute long distance charges. Previously with AT&T Wireless, as well as currently with BAMS, GTE, Cell One of VT, and all the other carriers we use, when a call is forward with No Answer Transfer, and it follows you while you roam, if you do not answer it, you pay whatever the local airtime and toll (if any) charges *in your HOME system* are for the transfer -- you are NEVER supposed to pay roaming airtime just because your phone rang a few times in the visited market and then was redirected or "taken back" by your home switch to your voicemail or NAT number. This is a standard practice, one exercised by AT&T (and the others) during the entirety of my service with them. Even odder, this was not consistent throughout the whole bill -- there were many calls which were rated correctly, that is, if a call was forwarded to a local number during the off peak periods, the entire call was free. So I called to see what was going on. I first spoke to a Carolyn Miller at their customer service center (As an aside: They have centers all over the US and in Canada; most of the reps have no idea about any of the particularities of the NY system, which makes it hard to deal with them; I used to be able to talk to a rep in the NY market, while now it seems impossible to talk to anyone who even knows were NY *is*!). Carolyn was clue-less, and said "Well, the calls were forwarded, and forwarded calls incur airtime and toll charges". (Try to correlate this with the "Who's on First Sketch"; she's a Pro...) Me: Hmmm...Ok I said, what time did call #128 occur? Carolyn: At 10:35PM. Me: And when is my airtime free? Carolyn: Ummm..when it is off-peak Me: And when does the off peak period commence? Carolyn: At 9 PM Me: So what is the airtime rate at 10:35PM? Carolyn: I guess it is free... Me: (Now we are getting somewhere I thought!) Ok, good (I could be a Kindegarden teacher having such apparent communicative skills, no?) Now, what is the rate for a call in the NY market in terms of toll charges? Carolyn: There is no charge Me: So you mean it is free? Carolyn: Yes Me: And what is the rate applied to a call-forwarding call, is it my rateplan's specified airtime rate and toll charges? Carolyn: Yes Me: So how come a forwarded call, labeled as such, is being billed at 99 cents per minute airtime and 25 cents per minute toll when you just told me that the call should be free? Carolyn: Because you were using call forwarding... (Third base...) Me: (exasperated) Ummm...Am I missing something? Carolyn: I think you should just switch to another rateplan Me: Why, you'll just get that one wrong too! Giving up on Carolyn, I asked to have a manager call me back. This was in early December, and I figured give them a week or so to research the problem, made sure Carolyn noted the account, and figured I'd get a call back from someone who knew what they were doing and get it resolved then. So January comes around, and no response. I call back, and this time speak to someone in Nova Scotia. She looks into the matter says "Oh, these are roaming calls placed in the state of New Haven". Now maybe some Yalies think that New Haven should be a separated from the rest of Connecticut, but the lady in Nova Scotia didn't impress me too much as being a Yale graduate (she was WAY too articulate :) Sorry, had to...!) After clearing up with her that New Haven was not New Hampshire and that it was a somewhat well known city in the state of CT and along the eastern seaboard, she went on to explain that since I placed the calls in CT, I was billed airtime and toll charges since it was not in my home coverage area. I replied that I wasn't even IN Connecticut some of those times, and that in all cases my phone was off all during that weekend and was using my other BAMS NAM there -- I, or rather my phone had just autonomously registered in CT with the NY ATTWS NAM when I drove up I-95, and after passing Stamford I remembered to switch to my BAMS/CT NAM/account. The lady in Nova Scotia says "Well, my records do show your phone was registered in CT, and it doesn't seem like you placed any calls other than the call-forwarding calls..." (How on earth do I *place* a call forwarding call? Someone calls me, my phone is off, and it goes where the call is forwarded, I don't "place" anything). So I asked to speak to her manager, who I was told was Peter Ross. The rep put me on hold, and then came back and asked "So your phone was never on in CT?" and I replied "No, not when those calls came in no, but that's not even the point. Even if it WERE on, and I just let it sit there, a call which is not answered and not placed in CT should never incur airtime charges or toll charges". So she put me on hold and then came back and said "Peter Ross says that even if you didn't place or receive a call, you used the cell tower, which is why you were billed". "Ok", I said, "if that is the case, then how can I use the cell tower when my phone is off?". She paused a bit, as if stretching for an answer, and said "Well, even when your phone is off it is communicating with the tower at all times" (Really, you mean if I take all the batteries out and don't plug it in it somehow gets energy to communicate? Wow -- AT&T Wireless shouldn't be in this messy cellular business, but should be selling perpetual motion machines and other devices which wonderfully violate the laws of thermodynamics!) Not being satisfied with that inane answer, I asked to have Peter Ross calls me back, and even left him a voicemail. Not a word back from him yet. Then a week later, I call and specifically ask for a Rep in the NY Market. I get a hold of a lady called "Christine", who looks at the account and says "Oh, if they are forwarded they are billed airtime, even if your airtime is free" HUH? I ask for a supervisor... I get a hold of Regina Tisdale, a manager at AT&T in New Jersey, who says she will look into the problem. I tell her enough people have "looked into the problem" and we have gotten nowhere. I want them to put _in writing_ precisely what the policy is regarding call forwarding charges and if roamers will pay extra to have no answer transfer calls received while they are registered (even if their phone is off!) in some other market. She says she will get some material to me, and in a week I get some brochure which explains how to use call forwarding and that "airtime and toll charges (in any) according to your service plan will apply". Sort of supports my position, no? About the same time (a week ago), I get a bill for another $400, and AT&T threatens to cut off my service. I call up their billing office, and say "There is no way you will see one penny of that money, other than the monthly charges and any valid usage charges, and I suggest you have your attorneys contact me if you wish to litigate the matter." (The account in question is still in my name and not in the company name, so I can represent myself pro se if needed.) I added "Also be warned that if the phone is suspended, I will file an informal complaint with the FCC regarding your billing practices and your refusal to explain - in writing - why these charges occurred." The rep sounded a bit intimidated, and transferred me to James Wayland. Initially James tried to be helpful, but after he talked to his supervisor, I was told the same thing, that the charges were valid, but he had no more information than that. I asked him to have the reasons put in writing, and the following conversation ensued: Me: Well, if that is your position I'd like you have that in writing -- a simple statement with your name or whoever is making this representation and their office and contact information, so I can pursue this matter further. James: Well, we can't put it in writing. (In a scolding tone) The notes to your account say you were told previously that the reason you were billed for call forwarding charges in CT is that you were using the New Haven tower (gee, there's only one?), and since you did that, you must pay airtime and toll charges. Me: But my phone was off then James: But you just said it was on Me: It was on my BAMS NAM, not yours James: So you were still using the New Haven tower Me: (Wishing the "New Haven tower" would fall on him and knock some sense into this apparent moron) Yes, I was using it with an account which has nothing to do with you, which you do not bill, and which for the purposes of this conversation is irrelevant. My point is that for some reason, when someone calls my AT&T cell number, and my phone was last registered in CT, I am billed as if I placed the calls from CT, even though I never placed or received a single call while I was there. James: Ok, let me check...It's going to be a bit while I research this... (15 minutes later) James: I asked about this, and since your phone was last in CT, when someone calls you, even if you don't answer or the phone is off, you will pay roaming and toll charges. Me: So why when I was in Washington, DC, and calls came in and were redirected back to NY, why were there no charges in that case? Or Boston? Or Philadelphia? James: Each market can set its own rates. In some markets, they bill you for it, and we only pass the charges on to you. If you roam in some markets, and you don't answer a call and it is forwarded to voicemail or another number, you may pay roaming charges. Me: Really? It doesn't say that anywhere in my contract with you. I consider this to be a modification to my contract and your past performance 8 years. I'd like what you just said in writing. James: We already sent you the materials... Me: (Interrupting) What you sent was a brochure on how to use call forwarding. I want you to put what you JUST told me in writing, with the exact wording you used. James: Let me check on that... Me: You need to CHECK to see if what you just told me is correct? (Why should I have any confidence in ANYTHING he tells me?) ...So he puts me on hold, then comes back, and says: James: I'll have the materials sent out within two weeks. Me: And will that include an explanation of the charges and your statements from this conversation? James: (Evasively) It will contain what you need to know Me: I'll ask you again, will it contain and explanation of the charges and your statement to me that based upon where you roam charges may be incurred for NAT and CF? James: (reluctantly) Yes, it will. Me: Ok, and what is your last name and what center are you out of? (So I will have a detailed record of my conversation with him) James: It is Wayland, and I am out of the NY center. Me: But the recordings on hold are from the Pittsburgh system. James: I can be reached via New York Me: But where are or what is a contact number in case I need to clarify some materials or if the literature is not sent? James: I can be reached via New York, we are not allowed to say where we work (Probably some insane asylum AT&T is farming out work to!) So...having done all this, I have not heard back from James or any of that wonderfully informed gang. I finally resorted to a call to AT&T Wireless's Exec Appeals office at (888) 413-8106, but the guy who I spoke to went on about "how I am using the tower in CT", so I don't expect too much from them. (He did seem concerned that it was inconsistently billed, though, maybe that will convince them that there really is a problem.) Overall, I wasted about 5 hours on the phone with these people, got absolutely nowhere, and am now so fed up with AT&T WS that unless they do something for me other than remove the $780+ of incorrect charges I am just going to move all three accounts (even the two with no problems) over to Bell Atlantic and not deal with AT&T's nonsense any longer. What's worse, if this happened to someone who actually bought the total nonsense which these reps spewed, they may have very well convinced him or her to pay the outrageous charges since they can *sound* deceptively convincing. It is only when you pierce the surface of their self-service doubletalk that you find their entire argument as to why the charges are valid is utterly specious and fabricated for their convenience. One thing is for sure: They will _never_, _ever_ see a dime of that $780 which they misbilled. It's a shame that a company which once was responsive to issues like this and had reasonable people working for it has become such a stodgy and brain dead firm, so entrenched in their own dogma and customer-service platitudes that their responses are non-sequitor and mere mindless babbling rather than any manner of informed and concerned analysis of what appears to be a substantive billing problem. And not that the size of our (relatively small) account should matter, we currently pay them about $170 per month in total for all three accounts, which in about 4 months would total the current amount they claim is owed. Had they just credited the $780, and earnestly looked into the problem and resolved it (and it IS a problem, this is NOT the way it should be billed), they would have had a happy customer who in four months or so would have paid back -- via normal usage -- the total amount credited. Instead, they have alienated a generally loyal customer (there aren't many people who stay with the same carrier for 9 years), and will likely lose all of our company's business due to their stupidity. Or perhaps AT&T's service reps are smarter than I give them credit for, and they realize this is a problem, but figure the cost of fixing it is higher than its worth to let me go as a customer, so they insist the charges are valid knowing that I'll leave them and hopefully no one else will notice it. In any event, unless I get some radical help from them by tomorrow, it's time I think to leave them and move the NY accounts to BAMS. I've had problems with BAMS before, but each time something comes up they manage to address the issue in a fair manner, and I'll take that sort of service to the deceptive, obtuse, and just plain dumb people which I talked to at AT&T over the past few months any day. (This post and updated SID list are also available at www.wirelessnotes.org) Regards, Doug