AT&T + AOL = $24,000 Phone Bill For 83 Year Old

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You know as well as I do that, if the LA Times wouldn't have gotten involved, this guy would still be in the hook for over $24,000.

I don't care if Dorff was making daily calls to the International Space Station. The simple fact is that AT&T allowed a customer's bill to become so over the top as to be laughable. And when he tried to deal with the problem, he said the phone company's response was to dig in its heels: A bill's a bill, so pony up, bub.
Click to expand...
 
The fact that long distance even exists anymore is the most mind blowing thing.
 
I like how AT&T claimed they were in the process of dropping the bill and it was only a coincidence the reporter called when he did :rolleyes:
 
I'm torn on this one.

It was clearly a mistake, and it was a mistake on the part of the customer somehow changing his dialup settings.

The customer should be responsible for their own hardware and how it dials numbers.

That being said, it was an old guy, and this was clearly out of the norm, so they should have been more flexible to find a solution.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041574877 said:
I'm torn on this one.

It was clearly a mistake, and it was a mistake on the part of the customer somehow changing his dialup settings.

The customer should be responsible for their own hardware and how it dials numbers.

That being said, it was an old guy, and this was clearly out of the norm, so they should have been more flexible to find a solution.
Click to expand...

Nah this wasn't this guys fault. AOL is a pretty automated system these days. What most likely happened was something failed when it attempted to dial the regular number and somehow the next number on the list was a long distance number. So when it switched to that it just never switched back. I guarantee this guy has never even seen the configuration and all he does is click the icon. Whoever setup the modem which looks like ATT is responsible for that never unchecked the allow long distance option.
 
After reading the OA - the 24k was for about 2 months of services...

24k / 60 days = 400$ a day

400 / 24 hours = $16.60 per hour

or 27 cents a min.

THAT'S if he left his AOL connection on 24/7!!!

Wait.. I can call the PHILIPPINES for 19 cents a min (regular rate) did his aol software reroute his calls to CUBA or something??!?!?!


Axe
 
Could you imagine telling an 83 year old guy that he has to pay $24K for two months of phone service or else? What a fucking disgrace.
 
Per minute charges... *sigh* why does long distance even cost anything anymore? It's fricking essentially free with any cell phone, oh wait yeah... archaic business model. Maybe AT&T needs DirecTV to get into the 21st century!
 
sfsuphysics said:
Per minute charges... *sigh* why does long distance even cost anything anymore? It's fricking essentially free with any cell phone, oh wait yeah... archaic business model. Maybe AT&T needs DirecTV to get into the 21st century!
Click to expand...

Simply because they can and they're happy screwing people over. Just like SMS cost .25 until few years ago when it should have been free long time ago ever since data plans became commonly available. Same goes for phone tethering with data caps as carries feel they are obligated to more money just because with tethering you can more easily reach your cap. As much as I'm against too much big brother involvement, this stuff should be regulated more so consumers don't get screwed like this.
 
McFry said:
My boss, a senior network administrator still has a land line.
Click to expand...

One of my friends has a land line because his two kids can't be trusted to keep their cell phones charged so they can place a phone call if needed :eek:
 
Axehandler said:
After reading the OA - the 24k was for about 2 months of services...

24k / 60 days = 400$ a day

400 / 24 hours = $16.60 per hour

or 27 cents a min.

THAT'S if he left his AOL connection on 24/7!!!

Wait.. I can call the PHILIPPINES for 19 cents a min (regular rate) did his aol software reroute his calls to CUBA or something??!?!?!


Axe
Click to expand...

And to add another layer to it...

Assume he used dialup for 8 hours a day.

$0.50 a minute.

It would have been cheaper by a factor of five for me to burn up my minutes on a cell phone and pay the overage fees by the minute.
 
I think it's practically criminal how telecom companies allow bills to grow to such outrageous proportions without providing a notice/alert.
 
McFry said:
My boss, a senior network administrator still has a land line.
Click to expand...

He wasn't talking about having a land line but long distance calls.

I haven't had a land line of my own ever but I remember long distance calls from when I was a kid. I find it amazing that they still charge for them other than out of the country calls.
 
That's nutz. I work for a Isp/phone provider and we have a hard 1500 dollar cap. You hit that it won't let you make any more long distance, usally international calls until it's paid down. That's with perfect credit. Usally it's a 400 dollar cap.
 
Spidey329 said:
I think it's practically criminal how telecom companies allow bills to grow to such outrageous proportions without providing a notice/alert.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how criminal it is since they never collect these outrageous bills ... they always have to forgive them (due to the publicity they draw) ... incompetent to let these bills get large with no warning certainly ... and almost every single instance of these results from a user who did something stupid (forget to turn off data roaming on an international trip, automated dialing like this AOL issue, etc)
 
Yeah, it's shocking that long distance or toll rates still exist, even on an ancient home line. It's a fake scarcity.

For fun I looked up AT&T's long distance rates, and it's up to almost $1 a minute domestically + another $1+ surcharge for the connection. One plan gives a "discount" of a maximum long distance charge of $0.35/minute. lol

The guy in the article could have had unlimited long distance for an additional $32.99 a month, which makes resistance to fixing his $24k bill even more ridiculous. His $51/month bill shows he was already being taken advantage of in other ways. The base service is under $20 a month.
 
I still have a landline, and I get free long distance, even to certain other countries too, and I didn't have to pay any extra for it.
 
pxc said:
Yeah, it's shocking that long distance or toll rates still exist, even on an ancient home line. It's a fake scarcity.

For fun I looked up AT&T's long distance rates, and it's up to almost $1 a minute domestically + another $1+ surcharge for the connection. One plan gives a "discount" of a maximum long distance charge of $0.35/minute. lol

The guy in the article could have had unlimited long distance for an additional $32.99 a month, which makes resistance to fixing his $24k bill even more ridiculous. His $51/month bill shows he was already being taken advantage of in other ways. The base service is under $20 a month.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately almost all companies fail to adjust your plan to new ones that come up ... they just continue to collect on the old plan from you ... as long as they continue to provide the service I am pretty sure that is 100% legal ... I have had this with gym memberships and Telecos, there are probably more that I just didn't detect ... I always caught it when I went to change something on my membership or plan and discovered that the new plan was cheaper or different than the old plan
 
I totally forgot about how you had to choose the phone numbers for dial-up...it's been such a long time lol
 
Gweenz said:
I like how AT&T claimed they were in the process of dropping the bill and it was only a coincidence the reporter called when he did :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Gosh...Lets give poor old corporate American greed a big hug.
 
Axehandler said:
After reading the OA - the 24k was for about 2 months of services...

24k / 60 days = 400$ a day

400 / 24 hours = $16.60 per hour

or 27 cents a min.

THAT'S if he left his AOL connection on 24/7!!!

Wait.. I can call the PHILIPPINES for 19 cents a min (regular rate) did his aol software reroute his calls to CUBA or something??!?!?!


Axe
Click to expand...

Yeah that is pretty crazy. But it's possible he did leave it dialed up for a while and didn't know. One of my bosses from a hundred years ago accidentally left his AOL modem call connected for a week+ without realizing it. We (his employees) basically had to ask him what the hell was going on, we couldn't ever reach him after hours any more (busy signal, he hated call waiting, and this predated voicemail).
 
With regards to packages, it is a good thing to refresh yourself with your providers... especially for telecom and insurance.

Heck my 'land line' as a business line is 3 cents/min. I just reviewed my telecom situation and converted my residential service to business services from Eastlink because the way they do their business packages. It turns I can get 10x the internet speed (200Mbps from 20Mbps), keep unlimited data usage, keep the LL (lose the unlimited LD), and shave $40 off my monthly bill - without switching providers (overall is cheaper/faster/more reliable per $ than Bell FiberOP). The land line is now effectively free as to have my internet without the land line bundled in would cost double (>$200/month).


AT&T sure has its roots from MaBell with respect to this guy's land line (wouldn't surprise me if this guy is on an old MaBell billing rate).
 
Sorry, this old guy is to blame. It was HIS computer. HIS AOL account was set to dial a long distance number.

It's not AT&Ts fault that this guy is an idiot. Why didn't he follow up after the first tech didn't show up? I am AMAZED the tech even touched his PC, they usually check the line to the outside and that is it. The tech must have felt bad for him and he should feel DAMN lucky that a guy showed up who even knew how to find out what number his PC was dialing and felt bad enough for him to do it.

If I were AT&T I would have charges $150 for the tech visit and left his bill in place.
 
MrTroy03 said:
Sorry, this old guy is to blame. It was HIS computer. HIS AOL account was set to dial a long distance number.

It's not AT&Ts fault that this guy is an idiot. Why didn't he follow up after the first tech didn't show up? I am AMAZED the tech even touched his PC, they usually check the line to the outside and that is it. The tech must have felt bad for him and he should feel DAMN lucky that a guy showed up who even knew how to find out what number his PC was dialing and felt bad enough for him to do it.

If I were AT&T I would have charges $150 for the tech visit and left his bill in place.
Click to expand...

AT&T management chiming in. Nothing like throwing an 83 year old under the bus charging for services with a 10,000% margin.
 
TwistedAegis said:
AT&T management chiming in. Nothing like throwing an 83 year old under the bus charging for services with a 10,000% margin.
Click to expand...

Long distance rates comply with the Title II provisions that everyone wanted for the internet to ensure Net Neutrality ... 10% profit or 10,000% profit is irrelevant (people do have choices for land lines and can choose any carrier and rates they prefer)... the company is going to forgive his debt but I also agree that at some point people should have responsibility for their own services
 
MrTroy03 said:
I'm a douche and don't understand how AOL works or the fact that most 83 year olds are doing good just to get the PC on. I'm also an unsympathetic ass that is able to justify what is clearly extremely odd behavior on an account that has an established history not being flagged and dealt with long before it hit this point.
Click to expand...

There, i fixed that for you. :rolleyes:
 
kbrickley said:
10% profit or 10,000% profit is irrelevant
Click to expand...
Interesting opinion. So under this logic, would you say that as long as it's in the contract somewhere, it's impossible for a company to extort someone?

(people do have choices for land lines and can choose any carrier and rates they prefer)...
Click to expand...
An awful lot of people don't want to have to deal with all the nuances of each company and read through a 10 page contract loaded with legalese, especially since most of them are designed to screw the customer in the event of a problem anyway. I imagine this attitude increases as you get into your 80s.
 
kbrickley said:
Long distance rates comply with the Title II provisions that everyone wanted for the internet to ensure Net Neutrality ... 10% profit or 10,000% profit is irrelevant (people do have choices for land lines and can choose any carrier and rates they prefer)... the company is going to forgive his debt but I also agree that at some point people should have responsibility for their own services
Click to expand...

Only because someone called on it; I disagree they were just about to take care of it.

And the fact that corporate greed/psychosis is such that being 83 freaking years old doesn't get you any leeway on an artificially scarce item (it isn't like he bought a car and then tried to claim it was too much) is BS. Capitalism only works when there is some kind of humanity brought to play. Unfettered greed used to take advantage of the young, the elderly, sick, etc, is detrimental to society.
 
tetris42 said:
Interesting opinion. So under this logic, would you say that as long as it's in the contract somewhere, it's impossible for a company to extort someone?

An awful lot of people don't want to have to deal with all the nuances of each company and read through a 10 page contract loaded with legalese, especially since most of them are designed to screw the customer in the event of a problem anyway. I imagine this attitude increases as you get into your 80s.
Click to expand...

Unless you can prove that the terms are not binding (like some of the suits around EULAs have been) then isn't that the whole point of a contract ... it controls the relationship between two parties (sometimes it works for you and sometimes against, which is why you actually should read your contracts ... especially around fees)

I can understand people's reluctance to delve into contracts but if they sign one without fully understanding it I think some of that responsibility falls to the user ... it defeats the whole point of a contract if you only use it when it protects you and ignore it when it protects the other party

It would be nice if companies always told you when something funky is happening to your account but they are under no legal obligation to do so usually ... there are always going to be stupid consumers who roam on the mobile data plans or dial long distance when they don't have unlimited free dialing and other weird occurrences ... I am hesitant to say that corporations should be responsible for every single problem that people can induce with a service
 
TwistedAegis said:
Only because someone called on it; I disagree they were just about to take care of it.

And the fact that corporate greed/psychosis is such that being 83 freaking years old doesn't get you any leeway on an artificially scarce item (it isn't like he bought a car and then tried to claim it was too much) is BS. Capitalism only works when there is some kind of humanity brought to play. Unfettered greed used to take advantage of the young, the elderly, sick, etc, is detrimental to society.
Click to expand...

But where do you draw the line if you are saying old people get the get out of jail free card?

If an 40 year old cuts the water line running to his house you can charge him the thousands in repairs, but if an 80 year old does it he is just being careless and shouldn't be held responsible?

If a 40 year old sets his phone to data roaming while outside the USA and wracks up a $5000 bill then he is responsible but if an 80 year old does it then he shouldn't be?

At what age do you cease to be responsible for your bad or uninformed or careless choices?
 
kbrickley said:
But where do you draw the line if you are saying old people get the get out of jail free card?

If an 40 year old cuts the water line running to his house you can charge him the thousands in repairs, but if an 80 year old does it he is just being careless and shouldn't be held responsible?

If a 40 year old sets his phone to data roaming while outside the USA and wracks up a $5000 bill then he is responsible but if an 80 year old does it then he shouldn't be?

At what age do you cease to be responsible for your bad or uninformed or careless choices?
Click to expand...

Old people often get a free pass because they are old. You can be damn certain that old people get a free pass for many things that would land others in court.

Though in this case I think AT&T should just automatically block numbers and contact customers when people exceed a reasonable fee like 100x their normal phone bill.
 
Oooh! I know this game! It's called "Spot the Corporate Cock sucking Libhurrrtarians!"
 
techrat said:
Oooh! I know this game! It's called "Spot the Corporate Cock sucking Libhurrrtarians!"
Click to expand...

Well to put this in a less corporate context for those saying that the contract should not be binding:

What if you rented a house to an elderly couple? You have a clause in your contract with them that says they cannot have pets. The didn't really pay attention when you explained that clause and get several pets while they are renting. After they complete their lease you discover the violation and are forced to pay an additional $500 in cleaning fees to prepare the house for the next tenant. You should:

(a) Eat the cost because they are old and they didn't know any better
(b) Charge them the fee because they violated the signed contract on "no pets"
(c) Forgive the debt since your are just a greedy capitalist and they are old

Which is the right answer? :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
But where do you draw the line if you are saying old people get the get out of jail free card?
Click to expand...
Had he actually done something that costs a significant amount of money to provide, this could be an interesting question. The problems here are that AT&T let him run up $24k in long distance charges, without a warning, and that AT&T values the services he used (likely still insanely profitable) as $66 for two months of unlimited long distance had he signed up.

Forget for a second that he's old. Why is this acceptable to do this to any person? If you look on Consumerist, it's not just old people who get unconscionable charges fixed or dismissed.
 
kbrickley said:
Unless you can prove that the terms are not binding (like some of the suits around EULAs have been) then isn't that the whole point of a contract ... it controls the relationship between two parties (sometimes it works for you and sometimes against, which is why you actually should read your contracts ... especially around fees)

I can understand people's reluctance to delve into contracts but if they sign one without fully understanding it I think some of that responsibility falls to the user ... it defeats the whole point of a contract if you only use it when it protects you and ignore it when it protects the other party

It would be nice if companies always told you when something funky is happening to your account but they are under no legal obligation to do so usually ... there are always going to be stupid consumers who roam on the mobile data plans or dial long distance when they don't have unlimited free dialing and other weird occurrences ... I am hesitant to say that corporations should be responsible for every single problem that people can induce with a service
Click to expand...
In concept, sure. In practice, for some businesses, it's already very one-sided. Phone and banking contracts love to have hidden fees or service charges or exemptions designed to extract more money that essentially depend on tricking people who aren't paying attention. For the people that ARE paying attention, once they "shop around", they realize ALL the companies do this, again, with long contracts full of legalese. So basically you have to play this game where you need to remain vigilant of phantom charges, or simply not have phone service. Plus, there's no negotiation at all to be had. Either you sign their contract on their terms, or you don't get phone service. Consider how phone use is essentially required for functioning in modern society, playing games with the rates like this seems like a big waste of everyone's time and energy. Essentially the companies have all the power. The only thing the consumer can do is go to a different company which will do the exact same thing.
 
kbrickley said:
Well to put this in a less corporate context for those saying that the contract should not be binding:

What if you rented a house to an elderly couple? You have a clause in your contract with them that says they cannot have pets. The didn't really pay attention when you explained that clause and get several pets while they are renting. After they complete their lease you discover the violation and are forced to pay an additional $500 in cleaning fees to prepare the house for the next tenant. You should:

(a) Eat the cost because they are old and they didn't know any better
(b) Charge them the fee because they violated the signed contract on "no pets"
(c) Forgive the debt since your are just a greedy capitalist and they are old

Which is the right answer? :cool:
Click to expand...
This is such a false comparison. The correct answer:

(d) You keep their $500 deposit, as is standard practice for almost any renter specifically for situations like this, and use that to clean the apartment.

What AT&T is doing would be more like:

(e) Charge them $24,000 for cleaning services since there was a provision in the renting contract where there is no upper limit to charges incurred against the renter in the event of violation of the terms.
 
kbrickley said:
Well to put this in a less corporate context for those saying that the contract should not be binding:

What if you rented a house to an elderly couple? You have a clause in your contract with them that says they cannot have pets. The didn't really pay attention when you explained that clause and get several pets while they are renting. After they complete their lease you discover the violation and are forced to pay an additional $500 in cleaning fees to prepare the house for the next tenant. You should:

(a) Eat the cost because they are old and they didn't know any better
(b) Charge them the fee because they violated the signed contract on "no pets"
(c) Forgive the debt since your are just a greedy capitalist and they are old

Which is the right answer? :cool:
Click to expand...

d) Your quiz is bullshit.

Considering they offer UNLIMITED LONG DISTANCE for a monthly flat rate of $33... the cost to them is about $1 a day.

Let's say, at worst, their actual cost was $0.50 a day, meaning they have a 100% profit... Since they're certainly not doing the $33/mo unlimited long distance as charity...

Yes, I would expect them to east the cost of $30 for two months.

Assume 0% profit. Their out of pocket costs are still only $66.

A 100% loss on that $33/mo unlimited long distance service. Their costs? $122.

Yet you somehow think they're going to be 'eating' $24,000.

I'm going to ignore your hypothetical example because it has absolutely ZERO bearing on this situation that spawned the thread. It's disingenuous and irrelevant.

Just because you can say "Contract" doesn't make it justifiable or enforceable. Case in point, non-compete clauses and EULAs. That guy was on an ancient rate that hasn't been normal for over 20 years. The costs then are not the costs now of proving that service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top