AT&T are some cold SOB's.....

[Wheezer]

+1 for sympathy and concern......

 

[nboy22]

AT&T is hurting financially. Everything I've seen from working in the AT&T warranty center for wireless phone has confirmed this. When I started there they were really lenient with credits and things of that sort and now we deny just about any credit you could even imagine, even if it is truly legit.

AT&T is just another business ran by inconsiderate assholes that care more about making money than their customers, I'm honestly not surprised they aren't helping the fire victims. In fact, they roll out 3G phones that have no support for service in most areas, which creates problems. They're just now rolling out 3G service in more areas for phones such as the Samsung sync, which has been out more than a year or so... I couldn't even begin to explain to you all the reception problems that has caused.

All in all they're in it for the buck. Nothing too surprising there.

 

[Queasy]

I want my two dollars!

 

[nboy22]

Originally posted by: Queasy
I want my two dollars!

It may seem like chump change, but once you have a ton of customers calling in about the same credits you can easily be giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars per month I'm sure.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: nboy22

Originally posted by: Queasy
I want my two dollars!

It may seem like chump change, but once you have a ton of customers calling in about the same credits you can easily be giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars per month I'm sure.

It wasn't about the money so much as it reminded me of the newspaper boy from Better Off Dead.

 

[MattCo]

Insurance will pay for the hardware, the bad part is the lack of consideration from AT&T about the situation, saying that the people had to pay on the next bill or else.

Interesting to see how/if they will let people out of their contracts now that they cannot use the product since the AT&T COs and wiring to the houses is kaput.

-MC

 

[Corporate Thug]

I dont understand why a company would do this...the negative press is much more damaging than than a $300 loss.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
I dont understand why a company would do this...the negative press is much more damaging than than a $300 loss.

No kidding. Nboy should be a spokesman for AT&T.

 

[akshatp]

Thought you said ATOT were some cold SOB's...

Was about to say you are right... just ask irishScott

 

[buck]

Not surprising, but messed up.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

honestly, i can't blame them. The homeowner's insurance will cover the reimbursement.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
honestly, i can't blame them. The homeowner's insurance will cover the reimbursement.

Did you actually watch the video? This is worse than not reading an article. You don't even need an ability to read.
The victim asked if she could have the bill delayed until re-reimbursement came through. She didn't want to get out of the $300.
I love it. Typical "I'm super responsible and make no mistakes" attitude backfires.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
honestly, i can't blame them. The homeowner's insurance will cover the reimbursement.

I don't blame AT/T either because most of the fire victims have insurance that should cover the cost of the receiver. If 100,000 people lost their homes, at $300 a pop, thats like $30million.

Sorry, but they need to pay it. AT@T should offer some extended time though considering the circumstances, and i think thats what the argument is.

 

[TwiceOver]

Ummm, homeowner's insurance should cover this. Not to be insensitive, but eat the cost and submit it to your insurance.

I've written up two claims for customers who's houses were hit by lightning. Our equipment was destoryed and it caused the owner to call us for replacement. We replaced, billed the customer, customer bills insurance. Granted since we are small we don't expect payment until the customer gets paid by their insurance.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
Ummm, homeowner's insurance should cover this. Not to be insensitive, but eat the cost and submit it to your insurance.

I've written up two claims for customers who's houses were hit by lightning. Our equipment was destoryed and it caused the owner to call us for replacement. We replaced, billed the customer, customer bills insurance. Granted since we are small we don't expect payment until the customer gets paid by their insurance.

its not the cost they are pissed about its the fact that AT&T wont let them wait till they get reimbursed, thet want it now OR ELSE

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
honestly, i can't blame them. The homeowner's insurance will cover the reimbursement.

I don't blame AT/T either because most of the fire victims have insurance that should cover the cost of the receiver. If 100,000 people lost their homes, at $300 a pop, thats like $30million.

Sorry, but they need to pay it. AT@T should offer some extended time though considering the circumstances, and i think thats what the argument is.

Yeah but what, 1500 homes lost? that's 450,000 ASSUMING each one had sat. which is of course doubtful

 

[ElFenix]

at&t is already in damage control about this:

I sent an email to AT&T regarding this:
To my amazment, somebody actually called me back to tell me that the representative that she talked to was misinformed and that AT&T is more than willing to allow the homeowners time to reimburse the money from their homeowners insurance. Which I think is totally fair. Everyone can simma down now.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
honestly, i can't blame them. The homeowner's insurance will cover the reimbursement.

I don't blame AT/T either because most of the fire victims have insurance that should cover the cost of the receiver. If 100,000 people lost their homes, at $300 a pop, thats like $30million.

Sorry, but they need to pay it. AT@T should offer some extended time though considering the circumstances, and i think thats what the argument is.

confirmed. they entered into a contract, which i'm sure has a clause that defines their responsibility to keeping the equipment in good condition under any circumstance. they are completely liable and i hope their insurance covers it.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
Ummm, homeowner's insurance should cover this. Not to be insensitive, but eat the cost and submit it to your insurance.

I've written up two claims for customers who's houses were hit by lightning. Our equipment was destoryed and it caused the owner to call us for replacement. We replaced, billed the customer, customer bills insurance. Granted since we are small we don't expect payment until the customer gets paid by their insurance.

its not the cost they are pissed about its the fact that AT&T wont let them wait till they get reimbursed, thet want it now OR ELSE

that's business.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
honestly, i can't blame them. The homeowner's insurance will cover the reimbursement.

I don't blame AT/T either because most of the fire victims have insurance that should cover the cost of the receiver. If 100,000 people lost their homes, at $300 a pop, thats like $30million.

Sorry, but they need to pay it. AT@T should offer some extended time though considering the circumstances, and i think thats what the argument is.

Yeah but what, 1500 homes lost? that's 450,000 ASSUMING each one had sat. which is of course doubtful

what is your point?

 

[jpeyton]

What's the big deal, their home-owner's insurance will cover it.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
honestly, i can't blame them. The homeowner's insurance will cover the reimbursement.

I don't blame AT/T either because most of the fire victims have insurance that should cover the cost of the receiver. If 100,000 people lost their homes, at $300 a pop, thats like $30million.

Sorry, but they need to pay it. AT@T should offer some extended time though considering the circumstances, and i think thats what the argument is.

Yeah but what, 1500 homes lost? that's 450,000 ASSUMING each one had sat. which is of course doubtful

what is your point?

Oh I don't know, a 450k charitable contribution and some positive pr might've been nice.

Seriously. I would put good money on 80% of those people cancelling AT&T after this. Would've been much wiser to drop the 300, give them new ones, and keep them as customers IMHO

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
I dont understand why a company would do this...the negative press is much more damaging than than a $300 loss.

That's what happens when policy is set from on high and the lower levels are not given the power to adapt to a given situation. The employees at that office didn't have the authority to override the policy and the policy was not written to encompass sympathy for natural disasters. The story will work its way to the PR people at AT&T and they'll have the authority to let this couple off.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
I dont understand why a company would do this...the negative press is much more damaging than than a $300 loss.

That's what happens when policy is set from on high and the lower levels are not given the power to adapt to a given situation. The employees at that office didn't have the authority to override the policy and the policy was not written to encompass sympathy for natural disasters. The story will work its way to the PR people at AT&T and they'll have the authority to let this couple off.

The problem was, that wasn't the policy. The rep and the supervisor were both mistaken.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
I dont understand why a company would do this...the negative press is much more damaging than than a $300 loss.

That's what happens when policy is set from on high and the lower levels are not given the power to adapt to a given situation. The employees at that office didn't have the authority to override the policy and the policy was not written to encompass sympathy for natural disasters. The story will work its way to the PR people at AT&T and they'll have the authority to let this couple off.

The problem was, that wasn't the policy. The rep and the supervisor were both mistaken.

Says who? The PR flacks that are already spin-doctoring the negative press?