Need help understanding your bill?
harryspar's profile

Guru

 • 

552 Messages

Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 9:44 AM

New Admin Fee?

I hear everyone is getting a brand new fee, called the "MOBILITY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE".

 

What is it, how much is it, and what is it for?

Tutor

 • 

2 Messages

11 years ago

I signed up just to call bull on this. If my company started charging an administrative fee to cover the cost of, for example, our machines going down, our clients would switch in a heartbeat.

 

Competition. There is none.

Expert

 • 

12.2K Messages

11 years ago


@Mystiq wrote:

I signed up just to call bull on this. If my company started charging an administrative fee to cover the cost of, for example, our machines going down, our clients would switch in a heartbeat.

 

Competition. There is none.


If you are speaking of competition in the celluar business then you are really off base, counting MVNO's there are about 300 cellular providers through out the US.

If any other business, again I doubt it, if there is one company provideing a service then there are dozen's, little things like the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commision Act of 1914.

 

You don;t expand on the comment of "Competition. There is none." pretty sure you are not referencing your company since the prior statement of "our machines going down, our clients would switch in a heartbeat." indicates there is another company that provides the same machines.  Curious on your exact meaning of the statement

Tutor

 • 

2 Messages

11 years ago


@wingrider01 wrote:

@Mystiq wrote:

I signed up just to call bull on this. If my company started charging an administrative fee to cover the cost of, for example, our machines going down, our clients would switch in a heartbeat.

 

Competition. There is none.


If you are speaking of competition in the celluar business then you are really off base, counting MVNO's there are about 300 cellular providers through out the US.

If any other business, again I doubt it, if there is one company provideing a service then there are dozen's, little things like the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commision Act of 1914.

 

You don;t expand on the comment of "Competition. There is none." pretty sure you are not referencing your company since the prior statement of "our machines going down, our clients would switch in a heartbeat." indicates there is another company that provides the same machines.  Curious on your exact meaning of the statement


I should think I wouldn't need to clarify but I will anyway. Disclaimer: Yes I know this is just anecdotal evidence.

 

There are a large number of cellular providers(*3) but there's also the fact that they all have degrees of coverage with different cell networks. I live about 45 minutes from New York City, which is occasionally notorious for bad coverage. Thankfully with AT&T it's been good. Where I live about 50 miles east, my phone has 4/5 bars. I remember when it used to be only 2 and I was iffy on using my phone for calls because it would occassionally drop or the first connection was difficult for one party. Out in the middle of nowhere farther out east, cell service is even spottier. When I went to California I didn't bother looking but I mostly used text.

 

Point is I find it hard to believe the carriers don't recognize that wireless bandwidth is a commodity and charge accordingly. If I did switch to T-Mobile -- and right now I'm considering it -- I have no idea where I won't be able to use my phone. I also have to unlock my phone, which I'm currently being charged for. Competition among carriers, yes, but the advantage of using the big ones is the larger coverage and with that, faster Internet access because spectrum is finite. That is where the difference lies.

 

T-Mobile can't possibly have the same coverage and speed as AT&T because they can't use the same spectrum, unless they license AT&T's towers. (Unless the providers were made to lease spectrum from a 3rd party, these are essentialy natural monopolies. Of course, that's another thread entirely.) If I want good coverage, I have to go with the company that has the most spectrum. My phone is useless if there is no coverage near my cousin in the boonies. It could be that I live in an area where T-Mobile has excellent coverage, and that would be awesome, but not everyone lives near a large city or in a heavily populated area. They have much less or no choice.

 

When my company buys new equipment, we don't start charging an administration fee for that equipment, or for the renting costs, or when we have to outsource jobs because some of our equipment goes down. We simply jack up the price if necessary to cover costs. And even then, there's a lot of price competition in our market so our costs tend to go up and down like a yo-yo. Or, dare I say, we simply eat the costs because of market pressure and our bottom line drops.

 

I don't think I would quite hate AT&T as much if they weren't trying to nickel and dime people at every turn. It isn't just this fee. It's everything they do that angers me: double charging for texts(*1), these stupid shared plans that cost more unless there are enough people using it, blocking apps based on which data plan you have, weaseling their way out of waiving the ETF by calling it a "fee" instead of a price hike, dropping unlimited data plans(*2), throttling people with unlimited data plans... the list goes on and on. The only good thing I have to say about AT&T is they reversed the charge by some company that was charging me for 3 months before I found out about it.

 

Not to mention the fact that I fully believe AT&T "materially" changed my contract by raising the price, which invalidates it. I also believe they're pretty arrogant for listing the reasons they did, and thinking nothing of it. That would probably be naive: they probably don't think nothing of it but know most people probably won't argue for $0.61. It will go up again. And again. And again. I should mention there are 3 people on my plan so my bill goes up by $1.83.

 

I shudder to think what would've happened if AT&T was allowed to buy T-Mobile; I would have nowhere good to go because I have a GSM phone.

 

There's a reason Verizon and AT&T make the consumers' most hated lists year after year. If people could switch, there would be no reason to hate them near as much. I don't like GameStop but I don't complain because I have plenty of other places to go. I wouldn't complain about AT&T if I could easily switch to T-Mobile and expect comparable or better service. For the reasons mentioned above, mostly due to spectrum, I can't.

 

(*1) Once for sending, once for receiving. I don't understand the ridiculous price for 150 bytes + overhead data, which is probably the reason for this. Are people dropping texting plans in favor of apps? iMessage!

(*2) I still have mine, and refuse to let it go on sheer principle.

(*3) I would argue this is false. 100% of the people I know (more anecdotal evidence!) only have AT&T or Verizon. If there was healthy competition, more people would be on other carriers. Competitors, yes. Serious competitors, no.

Mentor

 • 

32 Messages

11 years ago

I encourage everyone to file at least an FCC complaint.  Bolder customers should consider filing for arbitration.  Unfortunately, though, the arbitrator is paid by AT&T, which may significantly sway her/his judgment.

 

A customer would almost certainly win in small claims court, but some states make such filing quite expensive, difficulty, or time-consuming.

Teacher

 • 

9 Messages

11 years ago

>> "I have no problem with a company choosing to increase its prices, just not in the middle of a contract.
The fact that they are breaching a contract by making up a baloney name for the fee, is the crux of the matter"

 

I agree, this is a legendary level of sophistry. 

Expert

 • 

12.2K Messages

11 years ago


@cmeisenzahl wrote:

>> "I have no problem with a company choosing to increase its prices, just not in the middle of a contract.
The fact that they are breaching a contract by making up a baloney name for the fee, is the crux of the matter"

 

I agree, this is a legendary level of sophistry. 


you need to read your contract, terms of service and the other paperwork that was given to you or who ever pays for the account when it was signed. There is only one section of all your service that will allow a termination without an etf - or as you claim, breach of contract.

 

The only cost that can allow you to get out a the contract with no etf is the cost of the voice plan, if you sign for 700 minute 2 line family plan at 59.95, if that cost goes up to 69.95 3 months later you can cancel without an etf. Regulatory fees, federal, state, local taxes, recover fees, extra features such as texting and data plans going up are not part of the set that allows you to get out of jail free - aka breach of contract.

 

 

the simple fact that very few people read and understand what they sign is the promary cause of the diagreement.

Tutor

 • 

1 Message

11 years ago

I'm on a $15/mo tablet data plan so this $.61 represents a 4% increase on my bill. Like most everyone else here, I know bull hockey when I smell it and calling this an admin fee stinks to high heaven.

 

Instead of filing a complaint with some bureaucracy that will go nowhere, I plan to make it hit them in the pocketbook. I'll call their toll free support number every month this appears on my bill and tie up a customer service rep for way more than 61 cents of their time.

 

I suggest everyone else do the same. Do it while driving in your car or somewhere else where it doesn't take up any more of your day. Maybe when they realize people are upset they'll reconsider.

Guru

 • 

552 Messages

11 years ago

irontoby it still pays to file with BBC, FTC, and FCC. The complaints don't go nowhere, AT&T takes them seriously.

Tutor

 • 

2 Messages

11 years ago

I have filed a complaint on the FCC's website. 

 

AT&T asserts that their customer contract allows them to make up new fees because they feel like taking more money (rather than by government mandate), that customers are required to pay (or pay the ETF to leave). 

 

This practice, if it isn't illegal, is certainly unethical, and anti-consumer.  I don't care who else does it.  If all of their true competitors are engaging in the same practice, then what is required are laws that prevent the abuse of the practice.

 

I think T-Mobile is on the right track with their no-contract BYOD option.  Hopefully this will spread to the rest of the market, and we will be able to purchase our phones, and pay an un-subsidized non-contract price for mobile service.

Guru

 • 

552 Messages

11 years ago

The new fee's been featured in Time Magazine: http://business.time.com/2013/05/29/atts-new-61-cent-fee-highlights-wireless-nickel-and-diming/

 

The monthly fee they quote stays the same, so they can still compete on price, but customers wind up paying more... It defended its action with the “everybody else is doing it” excuse...“below the line” charges aren’t bundled into the base rate of your plan, and since they’re all lumped in with the regular sales tax you pay and given confusing, vague names, carriers hope you won’t really notice them, or will assume that they’re all taxes that go to government coffers, not their bottom line... “We really feel good about our wireless position. Revenues continue to grow with expanding margins,” AT&T CFO John Stephens told investors on the company’s conference call last month. (This, keep in mind, coming from the same company that says it needs customers to contribute to costs like renting and maintaining its cell towers.)

 


Not finding what you're looking for?
New to AT&T Community?
New to the AT&T Community? Start by visiting the Community How-To.
New to the AT&T Community?
Visit the Community How-To.