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

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Says who? The PR flacks that are already spin-doctoring the negative press?

yea, pretty much.

 

[I Saw OJ]

I'm sure At&T has insurance for those things in case people wreck them, which Im sure happens all the time.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Says who? The PR flacks that are already spin-doctoring the negative press?

yea, pretty much.

Right, so they'll throw the manager and phone rep under the bus to protect the corporate name. It pretty clearly was a policy, it seems impossible that the manager of the local office would not have had sympathy for his customers if he had any authority to act on their behalf. They'll screw the guy in the press and then give him a raise to make up for it. He's taking one for the team.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MattCo
Insurance will pay for the hardware

Exactly. Why would AT&T eat the cost when there is another company that exists for that very purpose?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What's the big deal, their home-owner's insurance will cover it.

I think a lot of you who have this view miss the point. Instead of telling them that they simply need to pay it, period, it would have been nice...nay, human of AT&T to say something along the lines of:

"we are terribly sorry for your loss, we hope that you and your family are safe, we will put your name into a database and when time permits we will address this issue. Thank you for your patronage."


Now, is that too much to ask?

I would certainly hope not....otherwise the title still stands....they are the typical cold SOB's that corporations are stigmatized to be.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: MattCo
Insurance will pay for the hardware

Exactly. Why would AT&T eat the cost when there is another company that exists for that very purpose?

I thought we passed this argument. The argument is AT&T graciously postponing the billing until the settlement kicks in.

 

[Descartes]

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.

I was going to say this. I agree.

 

[waggy]

Even if they made them pay now i wouldnt see a problem. They are a business not a charity.

call them cold Sob's whatever. again they are a business.



but it is good to see that they are giving them time until insruance kicks in.

guess what? the family still has to make the payments on anything else in the house also. such as if they are renting furniture/tV etc.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: MattCo
Insurance will pay for the hardware

Exactly. Why would AT&T eat the cost when there is another company that exists for that very purpose?

I thought we passed this argument. The argument is AT&T graciously postponing the billing until the settlement kicks in.

I see that now. I wonder if their billing system is capable of handling this sort of situation?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Topic Title: AT&T are some cold SOB's.....
Topic Summary: tells fire victims they have to pay $300
[/L]

Actually they said they wanted the receiver back.

They should just scoop up ashes in the vicinity where their TV and receiver was and send it back to them.

Case closed.

 

[FoBoT]

no fires around here, guess i am safe

for now

 

[SmoochyTX]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
no fires around here, guess i am safe

for now

same here

for now

 

[SlitheryDee]

I'm kinda torn on this one. People think that when they endure hardships of any sort then they "ought" to receive some sort of special treatment. If this special, out of the ordinary treatment doesn't happen, they feel as though they've been cheated. I feel that if any such treatment is offered then it should be gratefully accepted, but if it is not then there is no problem because it should have never been expected in the first place.

On the flip side, a smart company will go out of its way to keep its customers. Special cases like this should be targeted as a way to set the image of the company as one that is willing and able to bend the rules on behalf of its customers. This is nothing more than a competitive edge when you get down to it. It can be carried out as coldly and dispassionately as any other company policy and doesn't necessarily mean that the company really cares about its customers in any way other than their ability to give it money.

The bottom line is that you are not "owed" some special dispensation in the event of an unexpected catastrophe and should not expect it unless the company explicitly states that it will provide it. A smart company will provide such dispensation, but they may do so at their own discretion, and you may take your dollars elsewhere if they do not.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What's the big deal, their home-owner's insurance will cover it.

I think a lot of you who have this view miss the point. Instead of telling them that they simply need to pay it, period, it would have been nice...nay, human of AT&T to say something along the lines of:

"we are terribly sorry for your loss, we hope that you and your family are safe, we will put your name into a database and when time permits we will address this issue. Thank you for your patronage."


Now, is that too much to ask?

I would certainly hope not....otherwise the title still stands....they are the typical cold SOB's that corporations are stigmatized to be.

You clearly have no friggin' clue how a billing system works. There is absolutely, positively, no way in heaven, hell, or on Earth that the AT&T billing system is set up to handle what you've described. You're looking at something that would take at least 4 months from inception to deployment in most corporate scenarios.

They cannot just whip up an Access database and throw the information in there because that won't communicate with their billing tool. You're as bad as some of the idiots in management I have to deal with who think that everything IT does is just flipping switches.

ZV

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt


You're as bad as some of the idiots in management I have to deal with who think that everything IT does is just flipping switches.

ZV

Ain't that the truth.

 

[nboy22]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt


You're as bad as some of the idiots in management I have to deal with who think that everything IT does is just flipping switches.

ZV

Ain't that the truth.

I would say it's simply a misunderstanding of how things work, not that he's a complete moron/idiot. No one completely understands everything. As for the idea, it would be nice, however corporate people are really not that caring and like as described before, it would take quite a while to completely enforce the new policies/procedures.

Corporate people are in it for the bucks, they will do whatever they can (most of the time) to increase business which means sometimes they have to trick the customers, and even sometimes if there is a minority population of customers that are having a problem, just disregard. I see it all the time coming through the warranty when AT&T/specified manufacturer will not admit the phone has a problem. The simple reason for that is money. Lots of money.

 

[ScottMac]

"From all of us in SanDiego County..." That's a crock.

More like from someone with a bone to pick with AT&T ...

One apparently unsubstantiated/unverified claim from one family on local TV? That's something to get excited about ... :roll:

AT&T has done a lot in that area:

How about the Free WiFI AT&T is providing?

Or the GoPhones with 90 Minutes of free talk time they handed out?

...or the donations to relief agencies .. or in this case the increase (double) to the donation already made?

Plus stuff that you're not likely to see, like the foundation grants of up to $25K to employees that got burned out, employees that volunteered for front-line duty, and the teams working pretty much around the clock to restore service.

Most, if not all, of the COs stayed up (though unmanned), operating on Generator power.

It is not in any company's best business interest to whiz on the heads of their customers when times are rough ... the customers know it ain't rain, and they remember things like that.

I'm sure Verizon, Quest, and whoever else is in that area is doing everything it can as well.

FWIW

Scott

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: 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.

Think the CS rep was located in India?

 

[GTaudiophile]

BTW, I feel a postponement of payment is necessary here, say of like 3 months, but AT&T should still charge for the loss.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
BTW, I feel a postponement of payment is necessary here, say of like 3 months, but AT&T should still charge for the loss.

:thumbsup:

Of course they should charge... let's apply the same situation to a car parked in the driveway during the fire. Should the future lease/loan payments for the car be dropped, too? Of course not. This is what insurance is for.