Recently, I bought a wide-screen TV and shopped for HD service. I've been with Time/Warner, wasn't thrilled and was intrigued by AT&T's Uverse. I already had AT&T's DSL and like the deals it makes to retain my business. I was also attracted by Uverse's lower price, which, combined with $150 credit, dramatically reduced the cost to less than half Time/Warner's offer for essentially the same service.
I won't bore you with my channel selections, because it's irrelevant to the nightmare that followed. Suffice it to say, after chatting with the amiable Julio of the Uverse Florida office with whom I made it clear I didn't want combined Uverse Internet service, he confirmed the price for TV connection and made an appointment for the set-up.
When the serviceman came Luis said, "So you're getting Internet?" to which I replied, "No, just TV." He then connected my TV and noticed my DSL connection was lost. After going to the garage to check on wiring, DSL was restored and Uverse looked great on my new TV.
The next day, I had problems with the Uverse receiver. It didn't respond to my remote or power up when I pressed the on/off button. Tech Support suggested that I unplug it and plug it in again, and it worked, but what a solution! To my other grievance, that it took several minutes to get a picture, he replied, "Yeah, a lot of people complain about that. But it takes that long to boot up."
A technician was scheduled, and then I was on the Internet until 8 p.m., afterward watching TV until 2 a.m. Before going to bed, I was shocked to see I couldn't get onto the Internet. Tech Support revealed DSL had been disconnected, because AT&T won't allow DSL service when you get Uverse TV, insisting you purchase its more expensive Uverse Internet brand.
However, Julio, the affable Florida Uverse salesman had said nothing about that, and Luis the technician who set Uverse up connected cables in my garage so I could get both. Uverse Tech Support at 2 a.m. explained it was not technologically feasible to get each, even though I insisted they were functioning together successfully for a day and a half. Regardless, AT&T's computer would apparently have none of it and disconnected me.
There was nothing Tech support could do so late, as it required AT&T's sales office involvement So, after a sleepless night, I called sales at 8 a.m. and began another set of nightmares, which, considering the company's specialization, was unfathomable.
A sympathetic Sharon said all she could do was cancel Uverse, and it would take two days to clear the system before the computer allowed her to restore DSL. This seemed crazy. Couldn't she call someone at the appropriate desk? Someone must be able to type in computer code in the same manner it was shut off. She agreed it was AT&T's fault, but could only credit my account to salve the company's guilt.
I spoke to her supervisor Steffi, also sympathetic, who expedited the request to reconnect on Tuesday -- five days away! If it hadn't been "expedited" it would have taken over a week. She, too, didn't have a contact in the company to urgently fulfill the action. So, I asked to speak with her supervisor.
I missed the supervisor's call, but Kari Stokes left a message saying she'd do what she could. I called back and left a message, then called Uverse to make sure the technician scheduled to replace my HD Receiver didn't come. Jeremy said, "I can see the service is canceled." I was shocked. "You already know?" I asked. "They said it would take two days to reach you." Not only did he know, but the instant Sharon canceled Uverse the system also called off the technician.
I told Steffi and asked: If Uverse already knew service was canceled why couldn't she start the process to reinstate DSL? She said the computers didn't communicate, though it was clear her computers communicated with Uverse. Unfortunately, AT&T's Uverse was not able to quickly return the favor to AT&T's sales office computers.
The next day, I got a message from Monica, who apologized again for what happened -- AT&T is very good about apologizing -- but that field work was necessary and my reinstatement would still be on Tuesday. I called supervisor Kari again and left a stern message reiterating the nonsense of the delay and wondering why she'd not returned my call.
I called the sales office again, trying to get Sharon and spoke to Angela, and while she was listening to my tale of woe I suddenly heard a click. "Oh, no," I thought. She disconnected me. But it wasn't Angela who did so. My land line was now dead!
Fortunately, I have a cell phone and called Kari again -- and left another message, angrier still -- and then called sales, getting Donna. Donna was very concerned and sent Sharon a note to call me, and also called AT&T repair, waiting to ensure I wasn't in a long queue. We spoke with Diana, who assured me my account was okay, but agreed there was a problem. She took down the information and within an hour my telephone was reconnected.
Silly me, who thought maybe the disconnection was due to Kari Stokes' efforts and perhaps my line was dead because of the necessity to restore DSL. No such luck. Yet I can't believe it was a coincidence.
Saturday morning, Steffi called to say Kari expedited the matter, even though I still didn't have DSL and everything indicated I wouldn't get it until the originally scheduled Tuesday time. So, what had Kari accomplished on her own?
Steffi was undaunted, calling the "Provisioning" department, but alas it was closed Saturday. She managed to get Tier 2 level of Tech Support, and the guy said they not only had to get Provisioning's assent, but also someone from the Line Department. No one was able to tell me who exactly would turn DSL back on. It was all a series of bureaucratic permission slips to do so, even though everyone I talked to agreed it was AT&T's fault but that there was nothing any of them could do about it.
This all seems nonsensical to someone who in former times worked at banks, hospitals and even a stint at the U.S. Senate, where in each venue when I wanted to get something immediately done I was able to find the proper person who made it happen. No one with whom I dealt at AT&T seemed to know how to do this. It was as if everyone was dependent upon Hal, the famous computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Thank God, Time/Warner, whose TV service I disconnected hadn't done anything even two days after I'd called, and I was able to cancel the disconnection.
On Monday, Kari finally called me back and we began a couple of friendly conversations in which she told me how everyone had been trying to expedite my DSL service. Her last call informed me that, in spite of everything, Tuesday would still be the day and it would be in the early morning. I gave her my building manager's number in case I wasn't home, and then early Tuesday morning Steffi called to say re-installation wouldn't happen until the end of the day.
While I was at the gym, my building manager Tim called to say he'd seen an AT&T truck outside around noon, and when he went to investigate spoke to workmen in my house, who said the phone guy had arrived and they told him I wasn't there, so he left. He didn't leave a card or call Tim, as Kari promised me would be the case.
When I got home there was a recording from AT&T instructing me to set up DSL service on my modem, but when I called Tech Support the recording said I was still on Uverse. I called Steffi to fill her in, and she called back to say my service had not been restored and that the scheduling office confirmed this with another technician who would be out later.
When German Vazquez came by close to 6 p.m. he told me the earlier guy had already connected my DSL to the outside box, but that it wasn't working because the modem had to be reset. This was the best service I ultimately received, as German went above and beyond his job specs to talk to Tech Support, and finally at 7 p.m. my DSL, gone for almost a week, was back in business.
However, what does this say about AT&T, its service and its inability or unwillingness to communicate with its own departments to undo grievous screw-ups? Why doesn't it have a central department where supervisors like Kari or Steffi can go to quickly cut through red tape when a mistake on AT&T's part has been committed? How can AT&T's leadership condone inefficient and ultimately uncaring processes within the same company that cause its customers such tumult? And, from a stockholders' perspective, how does AT&T remain profitable driving away a paying customer to go back to Time/Warner because of its stubborn insistence that you cannot have DSL Internet service with Uverse TV. For heaven's sake, they're both part of the same organization and, as was proven in my case, DSL worked just fine side by side with Uverse.
If a company is so inept and/or arrogant, it shouldn't get our business. A major investigation by the FCC ought to be instigated, as well as reports by newspapers, magazines and the major networks, such as CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS. Anderson Cooper, this is right up your alley.
I'm looking around for other services and thank my lucky stars I had a cell phone when AT&T cut off my land line in the midst of my havoc. Thank God my cell phone isn't with AT&T!
Michael Russnow's website is ramproductionsinternational.com
Follow Michael Russnow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kerrloy
The day after that, I received a printed catalog of all that U-verse was going to offer the next month. HUH? If they are so worried about the environment, then why are they willing to spend so much money and waste so many trees by printing an monthly, high dollar glossy magazine? Gee, which cost more, sending me a monthly bill or sending me a magazine?
My argument against electronic bills is that the only way that you know that your rates are increasing (yep, those nickles do add up to a nice profit to the company) and that your service is changing is to actually read the bill. I doubt that most read the entirety of their electronic bill or that the small print details on the paper bill. I may be the outlier, but I do read the entire bill.
Message to AT&T: I'm still waiting for you response to how much money it is going to save the consumer by switching to electronic billing.
Even the representative of the AT&T president's office felt that the current state of affairs dealing with problems of AT&T's own making doesn't work well (in his phone call to me the morning this piece was published).
Hopefully, these matters will be resolved, but one thing you said was intriguing. If the service tech was able to keep my DSL along with Uverse with a spare pair of wires, why is this impermissible by your company? Is it a fire hazard, such as putting a copper penny in a fuse box to prevent a fuse from shorting? Or is it just that the powers that be at AT&T have to have things their own way without concern to what the customer wants.
In any event, my situation is no doubt multiplied by millions who have had to deal with poor customer service and faulty inter-departmental communication, be it at your company, banks, travel companies and many more.
Thanks for writing, though.
It makes a good case for smaller government.
Neither of these men is an employee of the federal government.
Your comment to another reader, extolling AT&T service in the past and its stock value, doesn't change the current state of affairs I had to deal with. The only difference, as you point out, is that I have a platform to publicly reveal the incompetence that exists.
As an update I'll inform you and others that shortly after publication of my article this morning, a representative of the AT&T president's office called to apologize and discuss how AT&T might work better in the future. In the course of our hour-long chat he let it be known that my article was being passed around at the highest levels of the company.
My comments to him were to correct the mischaracterization of ATTs service prior to the break up and had nothing to do with your issues today. I think that is clear.
I subscribe to Cox for my internet, cable and phone service. While their hardware works very well and there are rarely outages or service interruptions, Cox is notorious, in my experience, for bait and switch tactics in their sales practices, like saying you will save "X" dollars if yoiu bundle, then 6 months later saying that figure was a mistake and the savings will be reduced "Y" dollars.
Or the rate quoted by the sales person 6 months ago was incorrect and SHOULD have been this.
Personally, I would never go with DSL.
I also wish I did not have Cox telephone service. While digital phone service is crystal clear, the modem is troublesome and glitch prone, more so than Qwest's land line service.
The upside is any telephone modem problem I've had I've been able to fix myself with the aid of Cox tech support with minimal issue. Small miracles.
Another issue with Cox is their use of contract labor for installation and repair. I've had so much trouble with contract workers in my house I've told Cox I will only allow corporate employees in my home even if I have to wait longer for service.
The guy rumaging through my wife's underwear draw was the last straw (just kidding.)
There, I got my rant off.
Now we're even.
Have a good day.
As a regulated monopoly, ATT provided America with phone service that was the envy of the world.
Even working class families could afford their own private line. The leased equipment rarely, if ever, failed. If it did, a qualified, unionized, high-tech employee who spoke English showed up at your door and fixed your problem, no charge and usually the first time.
If the problem was outside the home, regardless of weather or location, an ATT employee was out there fixing it. Again, no charge.
Pick up the receiver, dial tone, every time. Blackout in the neighborhood? Pick up the receiver, dial tone. No problem.
The stock was called a widows and orphans stock because its rate of return was so reliable. More Americans owned shares of old ATT than any other corporation in this country.
Bell Laboratories was the premier research facility, inventing the transistor and discovering the Big Bang that created the universe.
ATT was America's first high tech company.
Happy customers
Happy employees
Happy shareholders.
Yeah, can't have THAT in angry America.
All stocks of monopoly utilities should be reliable. Where else are you going to go. You had to rent a Bell phone at $1.50 per month and pay for it forever. Many people are still unknowingly renting phones they no longer use and have been doing so for 30 years.
"A few months ago a Staten Island woman who had lost her job and had plenty of free time decided to carefully examine her monthly bills. She discovered that the quarterly $21.55 AT&T telephone bill she been faithfully paying for years included a rental fee for a “Trimline” telephone she had thrown away years ago. She also noticed that the AT&T logo at the top of the bill had changed to “QLT Consumer Lease Services.” When she called and informed the company that she no longer had the telephone, she was told she would get a refund. A refund check arrived shortly thereafter. The amount? $2.16."
http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2009/03/25/is-grandmom-still-renting-her-old-telephone/
If AT&T still had its monopoly, you would be paying a fortune for both land lines and cell phones.
All the same, the great HAL computer aka ATT computer that does things is actually the great IBM computer for many years since ATT outsourced their datacenters and computers to IBM back when ATT was BS (BellSouth) which then morphed with Cingular and subsequently with ATT.
Anyhow, HAL is indeed morphed into IBM (even the letters following H A L seems to follow that pattern).
As for me, am a cable modem and TV subscriber and hopelessly stuck with ATT cell phones. All seemd well until I decide to upgrade my cell phones. But that is another long saga.