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 DSL-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. Instead, 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.
"You definitely should have been told there was a standalone (DSL) offer
and that you were eligible for it and what the price was so you could
have made your own decision," Bridges said, sounding truly apologetic.
"Based on your situation, we are going to do some re-education with our
customer service reps."
While I am heartened to hear I didn't
lose money by not knowing about the unbundled DSL service, I am amazed
that AT&T's billing practices are so confusing and its customer
service reps so unhelpful. I have an advantage as a reporter to be able
to pick up a phone and (hopefully) get answers from a spokesperson.
Other people don't have that leverage. And judging from an informal
survey of friends and acquaintances, many people are surprised to learn
that they don't need their AT&T phone service to get DSL.
After doing some digging into the unbundled DSL issue I think I see why
the company wouldn't necessarily want to encourage customers to cancel
their phone service.
Offering an unbundled DSL was a concession
AT&T and Verizon made to the FCC in order to get approval to merge
with SBC and Bell South (AT&T) and MCI (Verizon). They were only
required to "offer" unbundled DSL, but there was no language in the
agreements that they had to actually tell customers about the new
offering.
"These companies continue to bundle services together to protect their
legacy service, which is voice," said Joel Kelsey, a political adviser
at the tech and media policy nonprofit
Free Press, a frequent critic of telecommunications companies.
AT&T's landline service
is in decline
as mobile phone usage increases. So, desperate to stem the tide of
phone service cancellations, AT&T is making phone-plus-DSL cheaper
than DSL alone.
I asked AT&T spokeswoman Bridges if there
was some technical reason the company needed to charge more for
standalone DSL than for bundled service, or if it was merely an economic
strategy. She admitted that it was the latter. "The bundle is what
helps you get the better price," she said. Yes, it's counter-intuitive
and it's terrible customer service to not explain it, but then, to
paraphrase the comedienne Lily Tomlin: They're the phone company. They
don't care. They don't have to.
Still, there are a few lessons
learned in all this: If you are communicating with customer service at
any carrier, be prepared to take good notes that you can refer to later
if necessary. Ask for the customer service rep's name and direct phone
number in case you get cut off. If you want something particular, ask
directly if they have that service type or anything similar to it. Find
out exactly how much more or less you will save or spend if you change
your plan. And if you aren't satisfied with your service and it's not
going to change, threaten to cancel your account. That is more likely to
get results than anything else you could say.
So where does
that leave me for Internet options? I've had people suggest Sonic.net,
which offers DSL-only at prices starting at $18.95. Their customer
service is excellent, according to
Broadband Reports and several friends of mine. Another friend suggested I check out the
Virgin MiFi wireless router, which offers unlimited access for $40 a month without requiring a contract. The hardware costs $150.
This story is just another entry in the poor communication field. Customer service representatives are so used to following a script that they forget they are dealing with real people and that their first responsibility is to service the customer. While I don't think the customer is always right, it's always important to listen to the customer to see how you can help to meet their needs. As a general rule I think the company should always be looking for a way to exceed the customers expectations and go above and beyond to help the customer out. This story just proves that sometimes as a customer we are merely a dollar sign to the company.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20017634-245.html
