digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

AT&T demands CA wildfire victims return their satellite dish

consumerist.com — AT&T is charging a CA couple $300 for the satellite dish they didn't retrieve as their house burned down.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • PHiZ187, on 10/30/2007, -6/+127Shameless
    No amnesty for telcos!
    http://www.eff.org/cases/att
    • krets, on 10/28/2007, -3/+36I thought that said "no amnesty for tacos!"
    • Fracture98, on 10/28/2007, -7/+45I don't see that it's shameless. If I leased a car that got destroyed in a wildfire, I'd still owe for the lease. I'd get my insurance and pay for it.
      If I rent a satellite dish that's destroyed, I still owe the value. I'd get my insurance and pay for it.
      If I borrowed a friends lawn mower, I'd claim it on insurance and get him a new one.
      • reddikilowatt, on 10/28/2007, -9/+19Yea, but that's against the consumerist manifesto: we should get something for nothing, cause business is evil. There's a reason they have a stylized graphic of a Soviet-era party member as their logo.

        They started out with a good idea: Outing bad businesses. But they've become a whiny, ill informed site with a really rough attitude lately.
        • typicalusername, on 10/28/2007, -6/+7Agreed! I have to say that I'm surprised that so many of us have this logical opinion. I figured that everyone would be crying "Shananigans! Shananigans!". Why do people even post consumerist articles?
        • diggimator, on 10/28/2007, -1/+3Did you watch the video? She asked for the bill to be postponed so that she can get her insurance to pay for it. The postponement was denied, citing that she didn't take the satellite dish with her during the evacuation. What, that makes her a commie?
      • notBrit, on 10/29/2007, -2/+6I think you missed the point. They aren't trying to get out of the bill, they asked for a delay until the insurance pays (which will be a lot longer than a couple weeks). The AT&T reps were being heartless because AT&T policy requires them to be heartless.

        If they had simply been nice and put a hold on the bill, everything would have been fine. Now it will become a media firestorm. I say, good. Corporate policy is inherently heartless and I'm sick of it.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/28/2007, -11/+14Shameless? Really?

      So they are just supposed to eat the cost because its the "feel good" thing to do. Thats why you have homeowners insurance, it should cover that as well. Unless you weren't insured for fires, which in socal would be stupid.

      I don't like the big telcos either, but business is business. You sign a contract making your liable for damages to the dish while its in your possession...

      Saying att should pay for it is like saying the bank should just forget about the mortgage.
      • reddikilowatt, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3Actually, TFA did say that some banks are easing up on overdraft charges. Of course, real, honest to god banks (not ponzi scheme mortgage companies) are still raking in the profits, while most telecoms are seeing margins get squeezed.
        • robbh66, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Easing up on some charges and forgetting about a mortgage is the difference between less than a hundred and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    • MonGuSE1, on 10/28/2007, -0/+14While I think the evil phone company should be reimbursed for their equipment that is destroyed. They also have insurance on all of their equipment for theft, damage and losses related to disasters. In addition that $300 is more than what AT&T actually pays for it plus you have to take into account the deductible. In addition AT&T not waiting for the insurance process to come about is absolution ludicrious. We're talking about a huge multinational company that makes A LOT of money. The can easily cover the float of a hundred thousand dollars for the couple thousand customers who lost their homes but these customers aren't going to get squat from the insurance companies for months if they get anything at all. In my opinion AT&T is in the wrong here and this just serves as another prime example of a company that has so much power that it is arrogant to its societal responsibility. In the amendment that gives corporations person hood it is so dictated that they have a responsibility to serve the communities interest. clearly AT&T isn't seeing it that way right now and until they get chopped apart again they won't.
  • AdamTReineke, on 10/30/2007, -10/+323AT&T can go to hell.
    • orithidon, on 10/28/2007, -13/+4good one man, **&* is tracking those that speak against them...
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/29/2007, -1/+28It's almost Comcastic.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/28/2007, -11/+10So you would be ok if I borrowed something from you and not reimbursing you if it was destroyed?
      • deadlyassmite, on 10/28/2007, -2/+11I would not be a complete ass about it. If someone were to borrow something expensive from me and their house caught on fire in a giant fire that was unpreventable then i would let them pay me back after their insurance paid for the fire, or after they were able to pay me back. Hell, if i was as rich as ***** AT&T i would just let them off the hook, if you have billions of dollars a month coming in i dont think $300 after your customer just escaped a fire should be their biggest concern.
        • TheJokerV, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2Well if AT&T had that attitude they wouldn't be rich for long.
      • remccain, on 10/28/2007, -1/+3If you loaned me something that cost you $150 and I just lost it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE I OWN in a house fire, I would not expect you to charge me $300 to replace the item that I borrowed.
    • raymore, on 10/27/2007, -4/+5Seriously wtf is their deal? I don't ***** understand their constant heartless actions.
    • seeyounorth, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6I'd like to know how many people type "AT&T can go to hell" on their iPhone...
      • doitchinkstyle, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1i am typing go to hell from my "unlocked" iphone. at&t can go to hell.
    • AriaStar, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Well, AT&T has a right to replacement, but at the same time, it's far better PR for them, a multi-million-dollar company, to let slide the costs of these dishes for all customers. For the $300 they want to charge (you know they get each dish for far less wholesale), they'll lose the business of those people in the future, not to mention others who will take a stand against them. For instance, I'm currently without cable because I am so pissed off at the providers in the area, and have been for about eight months (about $640 of my money Comcast didn't get, and I won't use AT&T). There are others who won't support these companies either.

      So, while AT&T has a legal right, they're doing a bad, bad thing, PR-wise.
      • Lythium, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2That's a good point, actually. My guess is that this was something initiated by a low-level employee, not one of the higher-ups in the company. They probably just have a checklist: item issued, item not returned, so a fine ensues. Chances are the people who issued the recall didn't even know that the equipment had burned up in a disaster - for all they probably knew it could have just been filched.
        But, it makes for great news: Evil Empire (AT&T in this case) vs Helpless Consumer - and we're all suckers for the underdog.
      • KayIslandDrunk, on 10/28/2007, -1/+1Except for the fact that if they did let the charges slide you would never hear anything about it and they'd just be out the money. One of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. However, I'm sure the bad PR they will get for this is going to cost them much more than three hundred dollars. They should have just let them hold the balance on their bill without interest (late fees) until the insurance check came in but I'm guessing maybe the manager didn't have the authority or know-how to do that. She should have escalated it one more level.
    • orangekid13, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1I thought they ran it...
    • MusicalGenius, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3If the dishes are considered AT&T property then they technically do have the right to demand this. I would even go as far as to say that they aren't wrong for it based on the principle of Home owners insurance and that EVERYONE should have it. I'm not saying insurance is great. But everyone should be covered(whether from the government or not) It's kind of like health care. EVERYONE should have it. I don't really care about the details, the principal is that everyone should have it. Some people say that they can't afford certain things. I'm sick of this.

      If you afforded a house, afford insurance... if you can't afford Gas, why buy a car? duh right? Well, this is a simple concept. If you buy something, TAKE CARE OF IT. If you are going to buy a home, you need to protect it. California deals with fires ALL the time. If you live there, get homeowners and some sort of fire insurance or something.

      I am getting a warranty with my new car so I don't have surprise payments, some people call me stupid for wasting the money... but when there car breaks down and their having house problems and can't afford it and I don't have to worry about problems because I'm protected, then who is laughing?

      Now I really wouldn't laugh, I'm not that heartless. But more that people should prepare for things if they are in at risk areas. If it was my company I wouldn't really demand to be paid back, but I would certainly encourage insurance heavily to prevent crap like this. People are stupid. There are easy ways around a lot of things yet people never take them... "Hey everyone lets move BACK to hurricane zone... they think they have a family history there... The United States weren't here forever... move to safer ground.... the man who build his house on the sand digs his own grave.... VERY SIMPLE concepts. Yes I feel bad for them and I wouldn't do this myself. But I wouldn't hate AT&T either. The only reason I ramble about all this is because when I see people get outraged over simple things which are easy to prevent and to have fixed to begin with, I look and think...wow and you people keep the U.S. the way it is.
  • Shigglyboo, on 10/30/2007, -9/+153this is what happens when a company is beholden to policy and not to customers. you think bills grocery shop down the street could get away with treating people like this (this is a real shop near my house)? no way in hell. he lives in the same community with his customers, has to see them out and about. we need to get back to a system where companies have an incentive to treat you right. AT&T doesn't give a flying ***** about anything. a curse on them.
    • Lafftermath, on 10/27/2007, -7/+4Does Bill get HD Discovery?
    • cyberprunes, on 10/28/2007, -2/+8"this is what happens when a company is beholden to policy and not to customers" Perfectly stated Shigglyboo.
    • crazyatlantaguy, on 10/28/2007, -6/+12To make your "grocery shop down the street" analogy complete, consider if the grocery shop sold him groceries and he put it on his tab. The hometown grocer would still request he pay off the tab, regardless of if the groceries he purchased were destroyed in the fire. When I lost power due to a hurricane and all of my groceries spoiled, the bank down the street who issued me the credit card I used to pay for these groceries still required I pay off the credit bill, regardless of the state of my groceries.

      Likewise AT&T still needs it's money for the destroyed equipment, regardless how tragic the couple's other losses might be. No doubt these fires are just a horrific tragedy, but when insurance money is involved everyone wants their cut.
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/28/2007, -0/+8After hurricane Wilma, my credit card companies offered to let me delay my payments without any additional interest.
        It's not about not paying. It's about not kicking your customers when they are down.
        Their bills should stop at once (since they are not receiving any service at the moment) and they should be allowed to pay the $300 later.
    • spawnfree, on 10/27/2007, -1/+6people being elevated to heights that enable the widespread distribution of piss while suffering no consequences is what our modern society is built on.
      and who puts them up there? oh yeah, we do. By giving them our trust and money.
      Companies need ever greater profits to please shareholders, so expect this to get worse until something breaks.
    • crazyatlantaguy, on 10/27/2007, -2/+6"you think bills grocery shop down the street could get away with treating people like this"

      Let's run through this couple's recent issues with AT&T, but replace AT&T with a "grocery store down the street" as you suggest -

      When I lost power during a hurricane and all of my groceries spoiled, I still had to pay for them. Damn local family owned grocery stories. Just because they are nice people, live a few houses down on my street, and he serves as president of the community association: how dare they make me pay what I bought but didn't use. They should have paid for my losses themselves, since I was involved in a tragedy and am clearly the victim here. I didn't even get to eat that mozzarella! They don't care about their customers! They are just like AT&T! These local family-owned grocery stores are always trying to screw people!

      ...or are they? Aren't we taking this a little far? Of course AT&T wants their destroyed equipment paid for. Thinking otherwise would be foolish. Luckily everyone with any sense has homeowners insurance, so everything will be ok in the end. What's the big deal here?
      • remccain, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Try: "Damn local grocery store owner allowed me to RENT the groceries."
        • Lythium, on 10/27/2007, -0/+0I, uhm, I don't think the grocery store owner would want them back after you're done with them. Just a hunch.
  • asancho, on 10/29/2007, -8/+142Well how else is AT&T supposed to recoup the cost from changing thier name from AT&T to Cingular back to AT&T? Wont someone please think of the corporations?
    No but seriously, AT&T can go to hell.
    • t1m0j5, on 10/27/2007, -10/+1Idoit, Yes AT&T has many aspects and markets of their former self, but the NEW AT&T was formed when SBC bought Bell South. Bell South owned CIngular, so (i assume) they changed the name for branding and product packaging.
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3...but Cingular bought AT&T wireless a few weeks ago. So in a sense, AT&T became Cingular and Cingular became AT&T.
    • topiKal, on 10/27/2007, -3/+1no YOUR an idoit!

      Seriously, use the spell-check. And nobody cares about your incredible corporate research, jackass.
      • emt1451, on 10/27/2007, -1/+3*you're
        • topiKal, on 10/27/2007, -1/+0Clearly you didn't detect the (intentional) irony.

          It's okay, I forgive you.
          • Lythium, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Once again, let me point out the obvious: emotions don't translate well into text; neither does irony, sarcasm, and so on. You gotta be more explicit. Or, you know: >= | or :) or O.o or =P
        • Hollic, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1Actually, he did correctly use "your' the second time, but he still fails. *sigh*
  • Ddrew360, on 10/27/2007, -7/+20Is that a surprise? They are gonna screw you anyway they can
    • bjornski, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1Hey, it's "what the market will bear"
  • postal21, on 10/29/2007, -33/+107This is what fire insurance is for...

    And frankly, anyone who lives in southern california, and can afford a 500,000 dollar house, and doesnt have fire insurance... I dont feel sorry for.
    • beachian, on 10/27/2007, -3/+37if you watch the video, it says they have insurance. there should also be some level of compassion for the customer from major telcos in situations like this.
      • typicalusername, on 10/28/2007, -7/+14Well, if they got insurance, WHAT THE ***** IS THE BIG DEAL? Just claim it and move on... How is this article even ***** posted? Why are they different than any other company with leased equipment. Just because they're AT&T, doesn't mean that they have to take everyone's *****. Everyone thinks that a if a company provides a service that it's their god given right to absolutely have that service.
        • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/28/2007, -3/+6AT&T wants their money NOW and they won't give them a reprieve until the insurance pays. THAT'S THE BIG DEAL.
        • nonymous666, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5What's AT&T gonna do if they don't get paid immediately? Cancel service to a non-existent house?
          • bjornski, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2They'll ***** your credit rating.

            "Get another mortgage now, cheapskate!"
      • isellmacs, on 10/26/2007, -0/+0That level of compassion costs extra, as it is part of a larger service plan with a longer contract. Ironically, they unknowingly were signed up for the extra compassion plan, which of course, caries a larger monthly fee.

        Unfourtunately for them, the fine print of the compassion clause clearly states that "requests for compassion must be filed either in print or electronically, using form GTFO-n-STFU, along with a $350 clerical fee. Please allow 2-3 days (+/- 5 years) for delivery."
      • IllBeBack, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Compassion for the consumer from a corporation? That only happens if it is cost-effective.
    • spawnfree, on 10/27/2007, -0/+18i wonder which method the insurance company will use to void the claim.
      they are getting very sophisticated these days.
      • yunus, on 10/27/2007, -0/+9as the article said, its not their property its ATT's. The insurance company probably does not cover other people's property in their policy.
        • Lythium, on 10/27/2007, -0/+0Perhaps not, but I bet the $500,000 house _is_ insured.
      • AndreiOttawa, on 10/27/2007, -0/+9They will probaly claim that the damage was caused not as much by the fire, but by the wind and that the homeowners should have bought wind insurance...
    • Thuktun, on 10/27/2007, -0/+8...or at least some patience. Insurance companies usually hold onto their wallets pretty tightly and it takes a while to get payments from some of them.
    • cchristian, on 10/27/2007, -4/+8I guess I'm not up on my left coast real estate but wouldn't 500K in SoCal get you a *****?
      • siszam, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Exactly. Go to realtor.com and see the ghetto shack a half millions buys in Cali.
      • calinazaret, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1if you want an ocean view with that ***** it'll be another $200,000
      • pwnies, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1Yea .5mil will get you the ***** in a hole. But that's only if you don't want sewer connectivity. You're on septic for that. And you don't get electricity. If you want those you have to supersize and pay 769,999.
    • picobot, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1You are a ***** idiot. Not everyone who lives in southern California is rich. Besides that fact, many insurance companies do not offer fire insurance, and if they do it is usually a minimum of $15,000 a year. Learn about what you are going to say you ***** hick.
    • Subterfug, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1You're assuming the insurance companies won't try to weasel out of paying what they owe.
      • goldfishey, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1yes - especially if they watch fox news, and their policy's dont cover acts of terrorism! ;)
  • SirBotchness, on 10/26/2007, -11/+4Awesome!
  • dougbarrett, on 10/27/2007, -3/+18If AT&T wants to nickle and dime people, then maybe they should start internally. I've seen a local AT&T building change it's sign maybe 3 times in the past 5 years.
    • habbofresh, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4likewise. for as long as I've lived in Detroit: Michigan Bell -> Ameritech -> SBC -> AT&T
    • buddyfarr, on 10/27/2007, -3/+0HA!!!! they are doing it inside too! I just had an AT&T tech at my work to fix a new PRI line that was installed. he had a nice cell phone so we got to talking about it. he has TWO cell phones because work won't let him make personal calls on his cell phone. funny because THEY OWN THE CELL PHONE COMPANY TOO! dumbasses.
      • jhshukla, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1it's to keep accounting clear. and also allows the tech to change his personal service when he desires so. and a million other benefits.
    • hmunkey, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1Its*
  • FalcoNoclaF, on 10/27/2007, -8/+24Home/Fire Insurance. If they don't have should have gotten it. If they aren't allowed it, move to an inhabitable region of the world.
    • quickslvr1287, on 10/27/2007, -2/+14Because insurance companies never screw anyone over either
      • habbofresh, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4No, but they help screw someone else that isn't you. In this example: AT&T.

        America, ***** yeah.
    • loselectro, on 10/27/2007, -1/+3why comment on something you don't watch. they asked AT&T to postpone the bill just for a little bit until the insurance pays them out and the company refused.
  • crazyatlantaguy, on 10/28/2007, -18/+95Of course AT&T wants their money for the dish. Likewise, the burned out car in the driveway still has to be paid for, and the mortgage bill for the house is still going to arrive in time. Insurance will be paying for all these things. I don't do business with AT&T, but I don't see why they are being painted as the bad guy in this picture. Of course they want their fire losses covered, just like everyone else.
    • deborah195, on 10/28/2007, -6/+9Ok, thats just too practical isn't it? Makes it kinda not fun poking at AT&T.
    • Fracture98, on 10/28/2007, -5/+17Bingo. Someone with sense. Digg should have a special icon.
    • Bridea, on 10/27/2007, -4/+8I agree, but their approach could have been better. Is customer service still taught in business schools or, even, included in the training curriculum for AT&T call reps?
    • kelvins0, on 10/28/2007, -0/+16Yes all of those bills will still have to be paid, that is not the issue. It is a matter of timing. AT&T wants their money NOW and the insurance check is not likely to show up for weeks or months. Add this to all of the other out of pocket expenses this couple will be facing during this time and you get a large chunk of change. If a disaster such as this happened to you would you have the thousands of dollars in cash that it would take ( aside from the regular bills ) to get by while you wait on the insurance company. And no doubt they will delay as long as possible.
    • RedHairedMan, on 10/28/2007, -0/+6Considering the cheap cost of a satellite dish to manufacture, I think they can sit down and wait for the family to get back on it's feet.
    • Pantheran, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2I entirely agree. You also have to consider that that is probably not the only dish lost in the fires. That's a lot of money lost to them if they just forgive the fees of every single person. This isn't the only family who lost stuff and AT&T isn't the only company who doesn't want to lose money.
  • zomgflamer, on 10/28/2007, -11/+21I will ***** ***** in a package and send it to them along with my request of cancellation for all of their piece of ***** services.
    • habbofresh, on 10/27/2007, -2/+4Letters to AT&T may be sent to the company's headquarters at:
      AT&T Inc.
      175 E. Houston St.
      San Antonio, TX 78205.
    • reddikilowatt, on 10/27/2007, -2/+1Lighten up dude. It's just TV.
    • mnederlanden, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6The poo won't get any farther than a low level employee.
      • zomgflamer, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6then ill put a dollar bill in it.
      • Antixian, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2yea it will when you vaccum seal it in a non-transparent bag. once opened the hot thick smell of doodoo will surely do someone in
    • xkorbin, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2I prefer the overnighting of a package with the local ATT repair man's finger in it. But, you and I just don't think alike...
  • CrazedLeper, on 10/27/2007, -4/+17Boy do I ever hate that company.
  • Otto, on 10/28/2007, -6/+35I fail to see the problem. Okay, so the customer service rep may have been kind of a dick, but their fire insurance will likely cover it, so what's the big deal? And if they're trying to put their lives back together, why the hell are they dealing with their TV bills right now anyway?

    This is simply a weird story all around. Seems fishy and/or staged, to me.
    • pepemt, on 10/29/2007, -4/+7um if my house burned down one of the first things I'd do is put my accounts on hold so I wouldn't be hit for hundreds of dollars worth of monthly recurring service charges while I rebuilt my life...

      stfu
      • randmc323, on 10/29/2007, -2/+2That's not the point idiot. The point is why the ***** they have to make an entire newscast about it, and why it's circulating around the internet.
    • bingobongony, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3It sounds fishy the second you see that it is on Consumerist.
      It automatically becomes suspect.
    • pasher1221, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3The real story is the husband works for Timewarner.
  • orithidon, on 10/27/2007, -8/+3was that in the fine print?

    "And if some arsonist happens to burn down your house and you don't retrieve our dish, we'll charge you whatever we feel like to re-coupe costs....bitch."
    • bingobongony, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3Was in the fine print at all. It surely said that if the dish is lost or destroyed, then the customer is responsible. As they SHOULD be. IT is not the company's fault, nor responsibility that the houe burned down.
  • matthewdestroys, on 10/27/2007, -2/+6I'd take that charred disk and shove it up corporates ass!
  • FoxMcCloud1, on 10/28/2007, -10/+11These guys are idiots. If they don't have fire insurance I would guess they are going to be in a lot more trouble than owing att $300.
    • Soave, on 10/28/2007, -0/+5They DO have fire insurance. Did you even watch the video?
  • Twinked, on 10/27/2007, -6/+7I hope AT&T gets raked over the coals for this! (pun intended)
    • bingobongony, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2They won't. Because htere is nothing bad about what they did.
  • bankhead, on 10/28/2007, -12/+9***** AT&T they seem about as logical as Dick Cheney - heartless bastards
    • fixedcoma, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1i guess the people who dugg you down haven't ever heard of the Darth Bater!
  • h4k0r, on 10/28/2007, -1/+58"Honey wake up, the house is on fire. I'll grab the receivers you grab the kids"
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/27/2007, -1/+4And make sure the kids grab the computer and the Wii
    • TheSabre, on 10/27/2007, -1/+10"We only have enough time to grab one... ***** the kids! Get the receiver! No one will charge us $300 if we lose the kids."
  • wushu18t, on 10/27/2007, -3/+6this is why i'm leaving cingular (at&t) soon. this, and the bending to the government stuff. hello, t-mobile!
    • deborah195, on 10/26/2007, -4/+2I have T-Mobile.. don't wet yourself there.... they suck too; very heartless!!!
    • wushu18t, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2ok, mainly for the government stuff then.
    • fixedcoma, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1***** it !i'm going back to CB radio's! suck that!
  • eaglejm, on 10/27/2007, -3/+6AT&T partially owns Dish Network, who is the provider of the service, the customer rep and manager were likely Dish Network employees not AT&T.
    • diggrim, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1thanks for letting me know that AT&T partially owns Dish...I have AT&T cell service, so I'm definitely going with DirectTV!
    • lefooey, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2I hate to burst your bubble, but Echostar Communications owns Dish Network. AT&T isn't even a major shareholder in Echostar. AT&T and Echostar do have a revenue sharing agreement where AT&T sells Dish as part of its own "triple play" in areas where they have not deployed the "U-Verse" package.
  • havok3114, on 11/01/2007, -3/+15In the video, they asked AT&T to delay the bill until the got their re-reimbursement from the insurance company. AT&T response, No, you will need to pay it when you receive it in the mail.
    AT&T sucks.
    • deborah195, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Hello, our house burned down therefore we will not be receiving your bill, sorry we just won't be able to pay it I guess!
  • iceman0113, on 10/27/2007, -4/+11***** AT&T
  • skyer2000, on 10/27/2007, -7/+15unless AT&T started the fire I don't see any reason why they are at any fault for this.

    The press can go to hell
    • h4k0r, on 10/27/2007, -5/+1So you work for AT&T then.....?
    • bingobongony, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3This isn't "the press." It is Consumerist.
      BIG difference. Consumerist will NEVER be confused with good journalism.
  • cmg2005, on 10/27/2007, -6/+18buried as inaccurate. The title and description makes it seam like they called AT&T to cancel service as the house was catching fire. I believe that AT&T is in the right and if this happened to me, I would have not expected anything less. It's not AT&T fault that my house caught on fire.
  • daleeburg, on 10/28/2007, -1/+61Easy Fix:
    1. Grab a molten chunk of plastic (should be a lot of this lying around) could be whatever, just as long as the color is about right.
    2. Place "receiver" in box
    3. Ship to AT&T.
    problem solved
    • wilf_brim, on 10/27/2007, -2/+1While I agree that AT&T does have a legitimate interest in their equipment, this really wasn't a very smart thing to do. I'd probably do the exact same thing. Better yet, I'd bring in the molten dish as well. "Here you go. Enjoy". Also, BTW, AT&T could easily write off the cost of the equipment and not make the customers pay, and make themselves look good. However, they are too dumb. Getting involved with Apple makes them think that butt jamming your customers is the way to make lots of money.
  • nectom, on 10/27/2007, -5/+7i must be the only person who hasn't had a problem with att. Billing issue they fix it for me without any issue, back ordered product they swap it out without any trouble at all. Maybe you guys should actually try a service/company before bitching about it. Hell half of you probably have never even used att service.
    • h4k0r, on 10/27/2007, -1/+3I had AT&T DSL service for 4 months. The first 2 I did not have any issues, and then the next 2 I was plagued with them. From 5pm to midnight every night I would start to receive 50-75% pack loss. When I called their support to see if service was being done in the area they said no and that 50% packet loss was not above the thresh hold for having a service tech come out. This was obviously inaccurate and I was taken to level 2. Level 2 places a service order for me but told me that their automated system would have to run line tests and that it would happen within the next 24 hours. They would run the line tests at about 6 am and i would get a call around 7 from a tech telling me there was no sign of trouble and that I would have to pay if I wanted someone to come out. This went on for a couple of weeks.

      Not to sound like a pompous ass but I'm a CCNA and I ran a few Diags on the modem and found that it was the unit itself that was having an issue. When I spoke to level 2 about getting the modem replaced they said I would have to purchase a new one, which is BS considering the 1 year they offer on them, the supervisor told me the same things. I eventually got the point where I wanted to cancel the service, I spoke with the people in customer retentions and asked if they would wave the cancellation fee due to the lack of technical support I had received. Only then do they offer to have someone come out and fix it, well it was too little to late. I asked her to see how much time I had spent on the phone with their tech support for the last 2 weeks. It was 26.4 hours. She went ahead and waved the fee and I took down her name and employee number just in case the charge shows up on my bill.

      Couple of weeks after that I receive my final bill, the charge is on there. I called back in to speak to someone about this, armed with the persons name and employee number to back up my claim. They wouldn't talk to me because for some reason the name changed on the account after it was canceled and they couldn't not identify me even though I read them the account number on the bill. This all happened over this last summer. I just finally got the issue resolved and they way I had to do it was have a friend call in about their account, get to customer retention and then I would get on the phone, and finally the name and employee number I wrote down came into play and they reversed the charges.

      ATT is a spineless corp that loves to take advantage of their customer base in any way that they can. If I wasn't a computer/network savvy person I would have ended up getting shafted by ATT gnarled corporate *****.
  • thentro, on 10/27/2007, -1/+16The real issue is not if they owe AT&T for the receiver (they do) but if they should have to pay for it right now. AT&T could have cemented a customer by simply giving them 90 days to pay them back but instead they demand the letter of the law and look like dicks.
    But then again when was the last time you ever felt like a real customer to these big telcos?
    • yunus, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1They called to cancel service. ATT already lost a customer. Had the customer said our house burned down I would like to put service on hold so I dont pay but will start it back up when I get a new home, then I could see your point.
  • SovereignGFC, on 10/27/2007, -1/+9At least allow the couple some time to work through insurance paperwork. It's kind of tactless to demand that someone who just lost everything should have worried about a stupid satellite dish.
  • zyklon, on 10/27/2007, -3/+5It's just another company capitalising on normal peoples' misfortune.
  • UsuI, on 10/26/2007, -4/+2I don't know about you hippies but if I loaned this guy my satellite and it burned down in the fire I would expect a new one. Unless their contract says you can have some extra time in case of emergency AT&T is fine. Nice guys finish last.
    • scottc, on 10/26/2007, -2/+3If you loaned someone your dish and then demanded it back a day after the fire you'd be an ass.
      • cgm1985, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1The victims called ATT to cancel service, when should they have informed them?
        • scottc, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1There are plenty of better ways to handle it already mentioned in this thread so I'm not going to repeat them. It's just basic customer service, at which AT&T fails.
    • h4k0r, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1And a Dick
    • blackrich, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1But at least AT&T hires pricks, so you might not have any problem finding employment.
  • LJRod82, on 10/28/2007, -5/+17Come on you guys, be reasonable. It's not like AT&T is a multi-million dollar telecommunications company. I mean, seriously. How can you expect AT&T to just simply absorb the cost of $300 worth of satellite TV equipment. I think you should all be ashamed for even thinking the notion. AT&T, I'm on your side man. $300 is a lot of money for you and I know you would suffer substantially if that couple doesn't fork over the money. I think a simple fire emergency of federal proportions is a pretty flimsy excuse to skirt your satellite equipment responsibilities. Everybody knows the wiser. Women and satellite equipment first. Then children, if there's room.
    • h4k0r, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Its hard to hold your childs hand and carry all the receivers at once.
  • ubergeek09, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3That's absolutely disgusting, they have no respect.
  • spawnfree, on 10/27/2007, -5/+5America is run like a joke but only the corporations are laughing.
  • bullhead2007, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3I like someone elses suggestion. Give it back to them! WHat I mean is find the molted metal and plastic remains and ship it back. AT&T can't charge for damages, because they met their terms and they cannot be blamed for the fire right? :)
  • catalysis, on 10/27/2007, -0/+7You know you live in an overly affluent society when a $300 charge for a satellite dish is spawns outrage across the internet.
    • spawnfree, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2You're right, Americans are used to swallowing bills for hundreds of dollars in late utility-bill fees, hundreds of dollars because their doctor circumcised their child and lets not forget that closet full of unused sports gear you all have.
      Don't forget; your a nobody if you won't buy into all this crap.
      • diggrim, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1but buying stuff makes me happy, I can be like the people on TV
  • ClassicQ, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4I agree with what seems to be the majority here; that AT&T is owed the money for the receiver, but they should've shown some sort of compassion and delayed the billing under the circumstances.

    That insensitive and ignorant decision bought them a lot more than $300 of bad press.
  • zoomtechtv, on 10/26/2007, -5/+3AT&T you are a crappy company. People do not buy anything from AT&t even the iPhone!!!
  • Jdmin, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4"you have to pay it as soon as you get your bill in the mail"... looks like that's going to take some time neways
  • EmoOnParade, on 10/27/2007, -3/+4AT&T is ***** worthless

    they've become one of the ***** companies I know
  • trer, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2The hell with AT&T! Let's protest by switching to...Comcast....damn. Oh well, guess we'll go back to AT&T.
  • Grimfaire, on 10/28/2007, -1/+4This isn't surprising in the least. Comcast did the same thing to me when some A-hole burned down the apartment complex I was staying in... fork over $400 for that cable box you didn't grab on your way out of that burning building.
  • tucsonwc, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1AT&T offers satellite service? Since when?
    • RevToTheRedline, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Probably a bundled service.... I dunno that's what I was thinking too.
  • skippyatuw, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6If you get robbed, you're still going to owe money on that TV you bought on credit from Best Buy. Why should AT&T be any different? Because they are a big bad huge corporation? I think some people on Digg need an economics lesson.
    • h4k0r, on 10/26/2007, -1/+0See even creditors will give breaks when natural disasters occur. Ill take the econ lesson while you search for a conscience blackheart
      • bingobongony, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Give BREAKS does not mean "forgive the debt entirely" Insurance is what helps people out of natural disasters, not companies takinga loss.
        • h4k0r, on 10/26/2007, -1/+0I wasnt saying forget the debt but payment extensions would show a sign of compassion for the situation. But this is AT&T we are talking about here.
          • bingobongony, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1It is also Consumerist we are talking about. So there is a decent chance that AT&T DID offer just that. And Consumerist just lied about it. Or the guy contacting Consumerist lied abut it.

            Certainly wouldn't be the first time (or even the second, or third, or fouth, or...fifteenth...) time that has happened with a Consumerist story.
      • randmc323, on 10/26/2007, -0/+0lol, did you just say blackheart? What is this, a Disney movie?
    • Jpesci, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1It's probably better business to be more flexible with customers in federal disaster scenarios to at least inspire a good customer service profile and avoid publicity like this. Regardless of what the laws of economics and business are, sometimes exceptions should be made to keep customers happy. Businesses do this all the time, and AT&T should be no exception just because they are larger than most.

      This is part of the reason why big businesses get labeled as "evil" more so than small ones. They are less flexible and attentive to the individual. Profit margins should not replace that relationship, and when they do, a business winds up losing more than it had gained by adhering so strictly to its own rules.
  • rz8472, on 10/26/2007, -1/+0[British Accent] Look! I found the NSA! In a hole... up a tree! Didn't have to do it, really. Did it to prove a point: [/British Accent]

    We're evil bastards who would sell out our own grandmothers just to make a buck.
  • rberger909, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3I'd tell them I'm not allowed to set up the dish, I need to pay to have it set up because AT&T feels I'm not qualified enough to do it...Likewise I must not be qualified enough to take it down, they should have sent someone to take it down, especially if it was bolted down or screwed into the roof. Either don't charge for set-up or AT&T needs to send someone to take it down in the middle of an emergency.
  • GruntboyX, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2It is stuff like this that caused me to disconnect my local telephone and internet with them. There policies are very shady and all about tricking the customer in paying for things they dont really want. The hide behind TOS agreements and EULA's . I am still having to pay for a dsl modem...that was suppose to be free. They insist on charging me 7.50 a month for a modem...and wont just send me a bill. I have asked them repeatedly to close the account and they insist on charging me 7.50 for 10 months.... They have absolutely no customer service... I just as soon as die from a heart attack because i loose reception with Verizon will making a 911 call.

    God dam telco's I want a wireless open internet so i can live my life without the bells. Screw them All! Screw them all to Hell! They should be the ones burning in that San Diego fire. Not all the other innocent people.

    If the telco's wont give us a free internet. We build it ourselves!


    phew... i feel better
  • bingobongony, on 10/26/2007, -3/+6Someone explain to me why this makes them evil? They leased an object, and now it was destroyed. IT is not THEIR fault, but it is not AT&T's fault either.
    It IS their fault if they don't have insurance.
    Do you think that Chevy would tell someone that leased a new Trailbalzer that they don't have to keep paying for it becuase it got burned?
    • Spinfusor, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2I don't think AT&T evil because it expects to be paid for the receiver, I think it's evil because of how it brought up the issue.
    • h4k0r, on 10/26/2007, -1/+0They do have insurance, they said so in the video. AT&T is evil for not giving them some type of grace period to get this all handled. The last thing you want to hear after all your ***** just burned down is "you owe us 300 dollars for the receiver you failed to grab and its due immediately"

      AT&T is also just evil in general, this incident just adds to their evil
    • Jpesci, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I find it funny that people like bingo somehow think that large corporations are somehow exempt from ever having to show courtesy or flexibility to individual customers. Keeping customers happy and obtaining good publicity as a result are just a few benefits to flexible business that would probably help them earn more money than they'd lose by adhering so strictly to their own rules. I don't sympathize for AT&T or agree that its always OK in the name of the almighty dollar to ***** people over instead of establishing leeway in their business to give people a break when they really need it.
      • JointheArmy, on 10/27/2007, -0/+0"It IS their fault if they don't have insurance."

        Did you even watch the video? He specifically says they have insurance - please do your research before you make ill-informed posts.
  • EvilJohn, on 10/27/2007, -4/+1It's the receiver, not the dish. Buried as inaccurate.
  • Spinfusor, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Break them up (again).
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.