An AT&T customer service horror story



What came first: the bad customer service or the hard-to-find deal?


I ask this for a reason: After more than three years of paying for AT&T phone service solely for the purpose of getting DSL,

I have come to learn that the phone service is completely unnecessary. My aggravating (and embarrassing) path to that

knowledge should serve as a lesson for companies in how not to do customer service if you want to retain your customers. It's

also a valuable lesson for consumers, who have to stay vigilant in order to get the deal that's right for them.

Here's what happened: A few days ago I called AT&T for the umpteenth time to complain about my bill and, as usual, I

mentioned my resentment over being charged for phone service I don't use because I have a mobile phone. After getting bounced

to four different representatives, one of them said the words I've waited years to hear: "Do you want Internet only?"

I was then transferred to the Internet-only department, where someone took my order to cancel my phone service. Curious how

long they've been offering buy ffxiv gilDSL-only service, I searched

the Web while I was on the phone and uncovered an article from

November 2007 on our very own CNET News site entitled "AT&T quietly rolls out reasonably-priced unbundled DSL." Ouch. I also

saw it on AT&T's Web site, which I didn't expect to offer me information that I couldn't have gotten from numerous calls to

customer service rep.

OK, I should have been a more diligent consumer. Lesson learned. Nonetheless, it's not overly demanding to expect that

someone at AT&T should have told me about the DSL-only service before that day--we're talking about 9 or 10 calls to customer

service since spring 2007. So why didn't they?

I wasn't able to ask that question to the customer service rep who was helping me cancel my phone service because right

around then we got disconnected and she didn't call me back. So I called AT&T again and was shuffled between several

departments before getting to someone who could help me. I looked at the clock and realized that I had spent over an hour on

the phone with AT&T.

When I asked why I was never told about this DSL-only service before, the rep said he didn't know. Annoyed that I had wasted

so much time and energy on the phone with AT&T and frustrated at the notion that I had been charged for service I didn't

need, I told him to cancel both my phone and DSL services.

Later that night an AT&T customer service manager called to discuss my decision to dump AT&T. I asked him why in my numerous

calls to AT&T I was never told about the DSL-only option. Instead I was offered "low-use" phone line service, or they tried

to get me to sign up for a U-verse package that works with the TV, another device I don't use at home. The manager's reply:

"I don't know the specifics of the conversations." When I pressed him I was told, "I hear what you are saying, but there's

not an obligation for us to advertise that service."

He then told me that the DSL-only service wasn't available when I had signed up. Later, an AT&T spokeswoman confirmed that

was not accurate. AT&T began offering the service in my area in 2006.

The manager admitted my phone account showed "very minimal use" and noted that the last time I had used my landline was in

May. (Ironically, that was when I still had an iPhone and couldn't get coverage on AT&T's wireless service while working from

home, so I was forced to use my landline. I got rid of my iPhone shortly after that.)

I suggested to the manager that AT&T should repay me the $600 or so that I had spent on phone service over the years since I

had barely used it. Final Fantasy XIV GilInstead, he offered to refund

the amount I had paid since I last used the phone, which came to about $60.

Infuriated at the notion that I had been effectively forced to pay hundreds of dollars for a service I didn't need, I

contacted an AT&T spokeswoman to get official comment. After spending two days diving into my account, she told me that the

customer reps probably didn't mention DSL-only to me because they actually charge more for the unbundled service than they do

for the bundled service. In other words I would be paying about $5 more for the so-called "naked" DSL, or DSL Direct.

Got that? They were doing me favor, even if they were inexplicably unable to tell me about it.

"We're not sure why it wasn't offered, but we're very sorry," AT&T spokeswoman Jenny Bridges said. "We're very sorry you've

had this frustration."

She asked if I wanted to reconnect my DSL only and pay about $45 a month after taxes and fees. (New customers can pay $14.95

per month for a year, according to a promotion that the company began offering in August, she said.) I declined, explaining

that after what I had gone through I would prefer to try another company.

I told her I was baffled at the customer service I had received. Any number of customer service reps could have halted my

complaints and calls by telling me that there was a DSL-only service but it would cost me more than I was paying. I had

mistaken incompetence for sneakiness.