The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website
Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In

AT&T / my bill

1 non disclosedDetroit, MI, United States Review updated:
Contact information:
Phone: non-disclosed

Wow! I am so glad I left AT&T. My bill was reduced by about 30% with a company called Bullseye Telecom. This cute rep came in my office talking how she could make an improvement with our telecommunications. She did and we no longer throw our money out the window with AT&T whom I hate calling. I would wait on hold forever to talk to a live person then being transfered around from department to .

Bullseye actually has a live person answering their phone-HOW REFRESHING! She said what she said she would and followed thru. I would recommend Bullseye to any company fed up with AT&T. I had a company called McleodUSA now some stupid name called Paetec give me some song and dance. I told them to take their pony ride and go on their merry way. Their billing was always wrong every month. I never got credits, customer support was the worse and some girl name Julie give me references to contact and 2 of them didn't have anything good to say except forwarned me that this Julie is full of lies!!

Bullseye is the best and I wouldn't have any desire to switch -Ever now!

CEO,
Todd Walters

To
Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • Va
      17th of Oct, 2008
    0 Votes
    AT&T - NO Install and then Address not served
    AT&T
    P.O. Box 2933
    San Antonio
    Texas
    United States
    Phone: 210-821-4105
    att.com

    On 24 September 2008, service order was placed on the ATT website for package for residential service and DSL Elite. Installation was scheduled for 29 September 2008 before 8P and a confirming order number was provided and telephone number assigned. No installation was performed under the installation service contract and, upon notifying ATT, the first call center handler was incompetent and refused to refer to supervision, dropping the call to a national call center with someone who had no idea of why the call was referred, with the national call center dropping the call back to Michigan (when the original call was routed from California). The Michigan call center proceeded to give an incorrect number for the CA/NV customer complaint center, where another incompetent entry level call handler refused to refer to a supervisor. The order was re-placed in another name with consent on 30 September 2008 with a totally different set of web pages accessed for the same package. The order, placed, was accepted, and generated a confirmation number and no specific installation date (only a response within 3-5 business days). The web site failed to honor the waiver of activation charge (installation fee) which is and was clearly stated on the website and on other websites. An email response indicated that ATT does not service the service address (when it is the California regulated phone monopoly for dial tone access) when ATT was contracted to the same address 2 weeks earlier for the same or similar services under a different number. In addition, the cell phone under contract to ATT began messaging that 'this is not a working number' when the account is and was current, causing significant damages to the consumer. $10 was also assessed in fees on the cell phone to call the business office when these calls were and are supposed to be free. This is now subject to CA PUC complaint and legal action against ATT in the local jurisdiction for breach of contract and unfair trade practices/fraud.

Post your comment