AT&T - Yahoo DSL Billing And Technical Issues / doing nothing but collecting revenue from its customers
I would like to file a formal complaint about billing practices against American Telephone and Telegraph. The particular account is for Internet provider service bundled to my phone service, my account number is [protected]. Service contact numbers are [protected] for Internet and [protected] for phone or general information.
To explain the situation, in June of 2006 I contacted AT&T, my new provider after purchasing SBC Global. about upgrading my internet service to DSL EXPRESS. I requested the service change, agreed to a new contract, and the upgrade was completed in late May. At first the service worked fine then after 3 or 4 days began to have problems with syncing the line. After receiving no service for a number of days I contacted the provider and they agreed to bring out technicians to help resolve the problem. They found many issues with the lines both outside the premises and also stated that the internal wiring could also be an issue. After doing numerous outside repairs they still could not synchronize the line even to stated minimum contract standards of 384 kbs. At that time I authorized work to the internal lines for $130.00 in equipment and technician time. There was no resolution to the problem and my download speeds were still considerable below stated contract minimums. I gave AT&T a little more time to resolve the problem but I kept getting conflicting messages from the three different departments involved in trying to resolve the problem. The final response was that they could not do any better than what I was currently getting based on my distance from the Central Office at 14,000 feet. After two more weeks of wrangling I decided to cancel my contract with AT&T based upon their lack of ability to fulfill their portion of the contract, not meeting stated download minimums. At that time they agreed to do so at no cost tome and I would keep my phone service with AT&T.
On my August bill AT&T has reversed itself and charged me for the internal work even though it was a complete failure. Since the original billing period they have combined the charges into the overall phone bill and cannot seem to differentiate between my phone bill and the Internet charges I refuse to pay after their original waiver of the fee. Since that time I have filed for a labor dispute to which they have no intention of granting. I continue to receive my monthly phone bill with the additional combined charge and receive threats and warning about not paying my bill. I have continually paid the portion of the bill covering basic phone services that I owe on time and without hesitation. On 9/17/06 I received a disconnect warning from AT&T claiming that I owe $126.73 for
phone service, demonstrating their fundamental lack of ability to segregate phone from Internet. The next morning I called AT&T billing as listed on the disconnect notice and then spent 45 minutes and spoke to 7 different service assistants who had no idea of how to help me. When I finally reached a person who had a clue she stated that AT&T was reneging on the internal services portion of the agreement basing their logic on the concept that the overall problem was based outside of the domicile. I was never notified of this decision after the verbal agreement reached in July of 2006 to terminate my service at no expense to me. In fact I was not billed for any work in July of 2006. On the August statement the internal work was posted in the statement with no explanation of the returned charges other than ADDITIONAL DSL EQUIPMENT and DSL WIRING REPAIR.
It has become apparently obvious that this corporation has no idea of what is doing other than trying to collect revenue from its customers. Their left hand and the right hand are oblivious to each other that they cannot even provide customer service. I refuse to pay for something when technicians come into your house and essentially break things. Would you pay a plumber or electrician who came into your home and made things worse and then demanded payment for there failed service? I don’t think anyone in their right mind would do so and neither should I.
AT&T knew from the beginning that upgrading the service at my domicile wouldn’t work yet they sold me the package anyway. The technicians who came to try to make things work admitted that the sales people do not take technical factors into consideration when selling services. It was the service technicians who explained to me that after numerous tries this would never work all the while the sales department was claiming they would and when all was said and done the overall situation was worse then when it began. What I want from AT&T is to admit that the original agreement for breech of contract is valid and to drop the $126.73 from my bill. If they so desire they can come back to my domicile and collect the installed phone jack.
519 #4 Sierra Vista Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94043
California Public Utilities Commission
Consumer Affairs Branch
505 Van Ness Ave.
San Francisco, CA [protected]