Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:55:06 GMT
From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Unhappy With the AT&T Attitude
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 783, Message 1 of 10

In article <telecom12.761.2@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> Some time back, I recounted a situation where calls to the UK were
> appearing on my telephone bill. These calls showed as being made on a
> weekly basis on a line that is not used in any way for outgoing calls.
> As mentioned, AT&T very reluctantly removed the charges, indicating in
> essence that since the calls were "direct dialed" they had to have
> been made from my residence, with or without my knowledge.

[unfortunate story about bad attitude from AT&T deleted]

I had a similar problem a few years ago when my carrier was Sprint.
Crossed lines with Pacific Bell caused someone else to have an
"extension" to my line upon which they decided to place lots of long
distance calls.  Sprint's attitude was the same that John got from
AT&T: "If the computer says you made the calls, then you made the
calls."  I can somewhat understand their stance.  I'm sure the
percentage of times people claim to not have made certain calls versus
the time when they really didn't is incredibly high.  But, as was the
case for both John and I, it would stand to reason that they would
take into account a longstanding customer's history of large bills and
prompt payments as a sign that they may be telling the truth.

I wanted to share a recent experience I had with the business side of
AT&T where they gave truly outstanding service in relation to the
other carriers, and which convinced me that there is (still) only one
carrier that can provide the highest levels of service that some of us
demand.

I was planning a special promotion that would be advertised on short
notice on the radio.  As such, I needed to get 800 service installed
in less than a week.  Because I had previously used Cable & Wireless's
Programmable 800 service, and really liked the fact that I could
change the routing myself instantly at any time, I gave them a call.
After explaining my rush, they promised to set me up with their
"expedite 800" program, where they can get it working in 24 hours.
This was on a Friday.  On Tuesday morning, they called me back to tell
me that HQ had rejected the order because it did not have the nine
digit ZIP code for the billing address.  Apparently, the sales offices
are required to submit the nine digit ZIP code on all orders, and when
they do not, HQ just bounces the order back to them.  I thought this
was a pretty lame excuse for delaying an "expedite 800" order, but
gave them the information (they apparently don't have a ZIP+4
directory nor are able to call the post office themselves), and took
them at their word that it would be working that day.  As of Wednesday
morning, it still was not working.

On Tuesday, after I got the first call back from C&W, I began looking
elsewhere.  I called Sprint, and they faxed me some information and a
form to sign and said it would take about a week.  Also, even though I
had requested only their 800 service, they tried to get me to sign a
letter of agency which authorized them to switch all of my 1+ traffic
to them.  When challenged, they said "Well, why would you NOT want to
switch?  You save at least 20% off of AT&T rates with our Business
Clout.  blah blah blah". Then they told me that the letter of agency
was necessary in order for them to tell my RBOC how to route the 800
calls to my regular lines, which of course is hogwash.

On Wednesday morning, in a panic since the ad was to run the next day,
I called AT&T, and humbly explained that I had tried in vain to get
800 service in a hurry from other carriers.  After taking down some
information, they said they would get it working as soon as possible.
About 50 minutes later, they called to tell me that my 800 number was
installed, working, and tested.  And the cost difference was so small
that it was not worth even worrying about other carriers.

Why could AT&T get something installed in 50 minutes that would take
the other guys a week to do?  And the other guys then wonder why AT&T
maintains such a large percentage of the market, and claim it is
because of "unfair" advantages left over from pre-divestiture.  Maybe
when they are able to provide anywhere near the level of service to
business customers that AT&T can, they will get more business.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com, I do not speak for my employer.