gangara wrote:It's one thing to have it as policy but is it the right way to conduct business? Just because others are doing it, does it make it right for you to do it? Is it because you are not afraid to lose me as a customer because the competition is doing it too?
What is the logic behind this? Why would a phone I use to make phone calls only and have no intention of accessing emails or the internet be charged $25 more? Why is it in the policy in the first place? What extra resources am I using from AT$T? I am not secretly using your data capacity with my phone calls. How can you justify me paying $25 extra for this? I didn't get the phone at a discount in order to use just the regular phone. I just have this phone and I don't want to buy a new phone. Why do you have to make me pay $25 extra?
You can throw at me all the policy all you want. AT$T can say their policy is to rip people off. Does it make it right? And if the competition is doing the same, does it make it right?
Maybe the government need to take a look at this. Something is fishy. There's not logic except to say "they are ripping people off". Please explain the logic of this policy to me.
I do tend to agree - at&t made the decision to move in this direction after the other larger carriers began doing it as a means of generating additional revenue at the expense of their customers.
You can look at T-Mobile - as far as I know their policy still remains that if you bring your own device they do not require a data plan for smartphones used on their network. (They do for their own smartphones purchased on a subsidized basis.)
Additionally, if you are using an original Blackjack model, I suspect when you call to terminate your service with at&t, the retentions department may agree to put a data block on your line of service (so long as you are using the Blackjack) in order to keep your business. Quite a few users out here who have been in a similar situation have had that experience when using a much older outdated at&t branded device purchased years before the mandatory data plan requirement for smartphones was put into place or for devices purchased on a non-at&t subsidized basis where the user is not under contract with at&t. If you'd prefer to remain with at&t it's worth a shot at least, as it would seem that at&t is not always willing to lose your business over an unjustly imposed money grabbing tactic.
And btw, I'm no attorney, but I would also tend to agree that if push came to shove and the regulatory/legal authorities were asked to look at the practice, I would think they would find that it provides unjust enrichment for the carriers when imposed outside of a carrier subsidized equipment purchase after the mandatory data plan requirement went into effect and where the customer is requesting a cellular data block/no imposition of a mandatory data plan charge. (Also hence the reason I believe the retentions department is apparently able to selectively waive the requirement. 
)
- last edited on by
pamelaz
sitnsidewayz wrote:
gangara wrote:
By the way. I'm going to T-Mobile, which has a cheaper phone plan since I don't use that much phone either. I'll get a regular "dumb" phone for free to to {word filter evasion} you off!
So all this whining because AT&T added the mandatory data plan to your smartphone, yet when going to T-Mobile you decide you are going to get a dumbphone. Why don't you just get a dumbphone with AT&T and be done with it? If you are not using all the features of the smartphone, why are you so insistent on having it? Just get you a basic phone and your issue is solved.
lol. I don't blame the OP. 
We always tell people if they don't like the policy to speak with their "dollars", and that's exactly what this user is doing (if I understand the situation correctly).
He was given an old Blackjack (which would have been purchased years before the mandatory data plans became a requirement) by a friend to use as a replacement device when his old non-smartphone LG ceased to function (with a Blackberry stop along the way - also prior to the implementation of mandatory data plans and with no BB data use by the user). He doesn't use the smartphone features and doesn't want to be charged for a data plan - wants a data block instead - so he can use an older device that is already available to him.
What better way to let at&t know how he feels about an unjust policy than to terminate service and head to a competitor - even if it is just for a "dumb phone" - that's all he needs. So why in the world should he spend *additional* dollars with at&t to purchase (or sign a contract for) a new device in capitulation to a policy that is clearly only in at&t's own best interests?
- last edited on by
pamelaz
hme83 wrote:
sitnsidewayz wrote:
gangara wrote:
By the way. I'm going to T-Mobile, which has a cheaper phone plan since I don't use that much phone either. I'll get a regular "dumb" phone for free to to {word filter evasion} you off!
So all this whining because AT&T added the mandatory data plan to your smartphone, yet when going to T-Mobile you decide you are going to get a dumbphone. Why don't you just get a dumbphone with AT&T and be done with it? If you are not using all the features of the smartphone, why are you so insistent on having it? Just get you a basic phone and your issue is solved.
lol. I don't blame the OP.
He was given an old Blackjack (which would have been purchased years before the mandatory data plans became a requirement) by a friend to use as a replacement device when his old non-smartphone LG ceased to function (with a Blackberry stop along the way - also prior to the implementation of mandatory data plans and with no BB data use by the user). He doesn't use the smartphone features and doesn't want to be charged for a data plan - wants a data block instead - so he can use an older device that is already available to him.
What better way to let at&t know how he feels about an unjust policy than to terminate service and head to a competitor - even if it is just for a "dumb phone" - that's all he needs. So why in the world should he spend *additional* dollars with at&t to purchase (or sign a contract for) a new device in capitulation to a policy that is clearly only in at&t's own best interests?
Dumbphones are easy to come by. If someone gave him an old Blackjack, surely he must know someone that has an old dumbphone. Shoot, I have a couple I could send him. I do agree that the data block in a situation like this should be an option, but unfortunately AT&T doesn't. Switching carriers is just going to put him in a two year contract and he still won't be able to use that Blackjack. If he is willing to do that, he could just upgrade with AT&T and get a new dumbphone. Based on AT&T's policy, I doubt they care if he jumps ship. Going to another carrier because you don't agree with all the policies is not always the best option, especially when they have the same policies.
- last edited on by
pamelaz
sitnsidewayz wrote:
hme83 wrote:
sitnsidewayz wrote:
gangara wrote:
By the way. I'm going to T-Mobile, which has a cheaper phone plan since I don't use that much phone either. I'll get a regular "dumb" phone for free to to {word filter evasion} you off!
So all this whining because AT&T added the mandatory data plan to your smartphone, yet when going to T-Mobile you decide you are going to get a dumbphone. Why don't you just get a dumbphone with AT&T and be done with it? If you are not using all the features of the smartphone, why are you so insistent on having it? Just get you a basic phone and your issue is solved.
lol. I don't blame the OP.
He was given an old Blackjack (which would have been purchased years before the mandatory data plans became a requirement) by a friend to use as a replacement device when his old non-smartphone LG ceased to function (with a Blackberry stop along the way - also prior to the implementation of mandatory data plans and with no BB data use by the user). He doesn't use the smartphone features and doesn't want to be charged for a data plan - wants a data block instead - so he can use an older device that is already available to him.
What better way to let at&t know how he feels about an unjust policy than to terminate service and head to a competitor - even if it is just for a "dumb phone" - that's all he needs. So why in the world should he spend *additional* dollars with at&t to purchase (or sign a contract for) a new device in capitulation to a policy that is clearly only in at&t's own best interests?
Dumbphones are easy to come by. If someone gave him an old Blackjack, surely he must know someone that has an old dumbphone. Shoot, I have a couple I could send him. I do agree that the data block in a situation like this should be an option, but unfortunately AT&T doesn't. Switching carriers is just going to put him in a two year contract and he still won't be able to use that Blackjack. If he is willing to do that, he could just upgrade with AT&T and get a new dumbphone. Based on AT&T's policy, I doubt they care if he jumps ship. Going to another carrier because you don't agree with all the policies is not always the best option, especially when they have the same policies.
AFAIK, he should be able to use the Blackjack on T-Mobile - I've not seen any indication to date that they aren't still allowing users to bring their own device with no data plan requirement. (They may no longer be allowing their own branded devices to be purchased on a non-subsidized basis with no data plan requirement, but even that isn't really clear at this point.)
And I do agree - at&t may not care one bit whether a longer term customer is jumping ship over it or not, but I certainly don't believe a user who chooses to speak out against an unfair policy by making a move with their consumer dollars should be berated for their gumption to do so. Additionally, the user indicates that T-Mo has better pricing on the voice plan which he does use - so it seems to be the best option all the way around (esp. if at&t doesn't offer the data block as a retention tool).
- last edited on by
pamelaz
gangara wrote:
By the way. I'm going to T-Mobile, which has a cheaper phone plan since I don't use that much phone either. I'll get a regular "dumb" phone for free to to {word filter evasion} you off!
That's the problem, here. If you were to go with a regular "dumb" phone here at AT&T, then you wouldn't have had to pay for the $25 data plan. The data plan is for smartphones, NOT "dumb" phones. The last time I checked, the BlackJack was a smartphone. You could have avoided the charge if you were to use a "dumb" phone instead. Tsk tsk...
Remember that Wild Banchi... 1993-2010 
sitnsidewayz wrote:Not berating the OP, just pointing out that there really isn't much meat in his complaint. I don't like it myself, but there is a simple solution for him if doesn't really want to switch carriers.
I believe there is substance to his complaint.
Would it be "fine" for at&t to now require that the Pantech Matrix Pro that you already own requires the $10/month AT&T Navigator add on just because it is capable of using it? The way I see things is it would be "fine" (but not customer friendly) for at&t to make that a requirement of newly subsidized AT&T Navigator capable device purchases, but not retroactive to a device that you already own prior to the mandate. And if it would not be "fine" for them to mandate the requirement for your own use - is it really "fine" for them to mandate the requirement because you choose to give the device to someone else for their use instead? I don't think so - as I see it as a way for the carriers to potentially try to drive sales of unnecessary replacement devices, which the customer either pays for or they come with a new two year contract, and maybe both. Either way the carrier "wins" by telling the customer they cannot use a functioning device which they already own for it's most basic intended purpose without incurring additional "add-on" feature costs for unwanted services. That's a completely unethical practice in my opinion.
I do agree that there may be a simple solution if he really doesn't want to change carriers. As already stated, if we are talking about an original Blackjack model (circa 2005/2006 probably ?), I suspect the retentions department may waive the data plan requirement if the OP explains the situation when he calls to terminate his at&t service.
hme83 wrote:
sitnsidewayz wrote:Not berating the OP, just pointing out that there really isn't much meat in his complaint. I don't like it myself, but there is a simple solution for him if doesn't really want to switch carriers.
I believe there is substance to his complaint.
Would it be "fine" for at&t to now require that the Pantech Matrix Pro that you already own requires the $10/month AT&T Navigator add on just because it is capable of using it? The way I see things is it would be "fine" (but not customer friendly) for at&t to make that a requirement of newly subsidized AT&T Navigator capable device purchases, but not retroactive to a device that you already own prior to the mandate. And if it would not be "fine" for them to mandate the requirement for your own use - is it really "fine" for them to mandate the requirement because you choose to give the device to someone else for their use instead? I don't think so - as I see it as a way for the carriers to potentially try to drive sales of unnecessary replacement devices, which the customer either pays for or they come with a new two year contract, and maybe both. Either way the carrier "wins" by telling the customer they cannot use a functioning device which they already own for it's most basic intended purpose without incurring additional "add-on" feature costs for unwanted services. That's a completely unethical practice in my opinion.
I do agree that there may be a simple solution if he really doesn't want to change carriers. As already stated, if we are talking about an original Blackjack model (circa 2005/2006 probably ?), I suspect the retentions department may waive the data plan requirement if the OP explains the situation when he calls to terminate his at&t service.
If you look closely at my post, you will see where I said "I don't like it myself", so no I don't think it would be fine, but I don't make the rules. If we choose to look at the situation in the context of what we want, then there is substance. However, when you look at the situation based on the TOS, there is no meat. The bottom line is he has added a smartphone to his line and he now requires a data plan. He has several options that he can take, none of which will allow him to keep the Blackjack without the data plan on AT&T, unless he goes prepaid as you mentioned. Otherwise, he just needs to choose the one that works best for him. If that means leaving AT&T, I wish him luck. I do believe he can still switch to T-Mobile and "bring" the Blackjack without being forced a contract and data plan.
sitnsidewayz wrote:If you look closely at my post, you will see where I said "I don't like it myself", so no I don't think it would be fine, but I don't make the rules. If we choose to look at the situation in the context of what we want, then there is substance. However, when you look at the situation based on the TOS, there is no meat. The bottom line is he has added a smartphone to his line and he now requires a data plan. He has several options that he can take, none of which will allow him to keep the Blackjack without the data plan on AT&T, unless he goes prepaid as you mentioned. Otherwise, he just needs to choose the one that works best for him. If that means leaving AT&T, I wish him luck. I do believe he can still switch to T-Mobile and "bring" the Blackjack without being forced a contract and data plan.
Sorry - no, I didn't "miss" that you said that you don't like the policy either. Actually, that was what surprised me re: one of your earlier responses to the OP.
In response to his questions and what he wanted to discuss from one of his original posts:
gangara wrote:It's one thing to have it as policy but is it the right way to conduct business? Just because others are doing it, does it make it right for you to do it? Is it because you are not afraid to lose me as a customer because the competition is doing it too?
What is the logic behind this? Why would a phone I use to make phone calls only and have no intention of accessing emails or the internet be charged $25 more? Why is it in the policy in the first place? What extra resources am I using from AT$T? I am not secretly using your data capacity with my phone calls. How can you justify me paying $25 extra for this? I didn't get the phone at a discount in order to use just the regular phone. I just have this phone and I don't want to buy a new phone. Why do you have to make me pay $25 extra?
You can throw at me all the policy all you want. AT$T can say their policy is to rip people off. Does it make it right? And if the competition is doing the same, does it make it right?
Maybe the government need to take a look at this. Something is fishy. There's not logic except to say "they are ripping people off". Please explain the logic of this policy to me.
I was trying to respond to the issues he raised here - provide some input and potential options; in the end two of which would allow him to remain with at&t, and one would be a move to a competitor with a less Draconian policy - which I fully support if it meets his needs and is what he prefers to do. Sorry - I'm just not a "suck it up and just go spend more money with a provider who you feel is treating you unfairly" kind of person.
I agree with his position on the issue, and I feel that consumer advocates and legal/regulatory authorities would as well. Not to mention the environmental aspect of forcing users to buy replacement phones that are not needed or desired by the consumer. Outside of recapturing the subsidy on new smartphone purchases (a justifiable need on the carrier's part), the only financial risk to the carriers concerning smartphones and data usage is whether a user who *wants* to use cellular data is on an appropriate data plan; refusing to place a data block/no charge on a smartphone user's line of service who DOESN'T use celluar data doesn't address the financial risk that the carriers actually have; and so it can only be seen as an unjust money grabbing opportunity where the carrier has the user between a rock and a hard place.
