Google
 
Web www.howardforums.com
Pages: 1

Upgrade Fee 2.0 (No Flaming!)

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)


Posted by: Isriam

I didn't get to put my 2 cents into the mix, so here it is:

18 dollars for an upgrade is fine. Just don't be sneaky, and don't lie. It is a handling fee for Cingular/AT&T to keep stock of phones for customer upgrades. It is a fee for swapping the SIM for the customer.

Customers who don't want to pay it, direct them to ebay

I agree though, that AT&T has been sneaky about what the upgrade is for, because they know people wouldn't pay $18 if they knew they could go to ebay and swap the SIM themselves. I doubt you could find phones on ebay at upgrade prices + the $18 dollar fee though.

And yes I am a contract employee.



Posted by: Wonwad

I like the upgrade fee because it's usually the cheap customers that have to pay that upgrade fee. I don't like it because as a salesperson it makes it harder for me to sell a customer a phone when ontop of the price that I'm offering them, they have to pay that $18 upgrade fee, the phone becomes more expensive. One thing that I do, which helps me out a lot, and I'm sure it'll help others, Is to let the customer know that they are signing a two-year contract and paying a $18 upgrade fee before you show them the prices of the phones.



Posted by: ATnt-RSC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
18 dollars for an upgrade is fine. Just don't be sneaky, and don't lie. It is a handling fee for Cingular/AT&T to keep stock of phones for customer upgrades. It is a fee for swapping the SIM for the customer.


Nope. It's pure profit for the company. SIM cards cost roughly 50 cents, they're cheap plastic and a smartchip, a wafer of silicon mass prodced in the billions for a decade (i.e. not cutting edge). It costs around 5 dollars to ship the phones (yeah, it's expensive to ship from Taiwan to Anytown USA, but they ship 5-10 phones in a box, lessening the average cost).

If one is asked what the fee is for, and you don't want to lie or inform the customer they're getting a stealth gouging, just say it's a standard fee. Every other carrier does something like this.



Posted by: southwestm81

Hey all, I work for a regional carrier in Canada, MTS, and they always charge a $35 Hardware Activation fee for both adds and renewals. Right now, if customer renewing take a non $0 phone, they get a $40 bill credit to offset the $35 which is fine. But anyone taking a $0 has to pay it. I think it's retarded, just give everyone a break and don't charge them anything for renewals OR at least charge them half, like AT&T does. That way they can be positioned as two different fees. MTS have devised a clever way to piss people off since the fee is the same for a new client as an existing one. So I just call it an upgrade fee when I explain it to customers.

When it comes to any customer, new, existing who question me about the fee, I briefly explain that what it really is is a hardware recovery fee, since the carrier takes an upfront loss on the hardware because of the large discount which is then made back over the course of the revenue generated from the customers bills. And this $35 is one way in which the carrier speeds up the recovery process. I find this works 99.9% of the time, because anyone with a remote sense of how business works understands this concept. You're welcome to try it if you haven't already figured out an explanation.



Posted by: Isriam

CDMA is a little different than GSM though, and I think bell is CDMA. Correct me if I am wrong. CDMA actually requires the carrier to log in and change your ESN on your account, and then manually move contacts because there are no SIM cards.



Posted by: southwestm81

Yeah, we have to do the ESN changing. But since most phones these days are Bluetooth enabled, it's a simple phone book transfer. On older phones, it is a pain to move them. But Verizon doesn't charge upgrade fees generally from what I understand. Either way, I think the explanation I give regarding the recovery on hardware costs is pretty reasonable, CDMA or GSM.



Posted by: classylady78

Like I said on the first thread, I have heard that the $18 fee is profit for the company. There isn't anything in particular it is charged for.

If pressed you can tell the customers it is going to upgrade our towers, since it is profit for the company and part of our profits go to upgrading the towers.

I personally do not think there is anything wrong with the fee, as long as you tell the customer up front, they usually don't have a problem with it. And if they do, as a retail sales consultant, I am not the person who decides what fees the company charges.

I tell the customer that the fee is charged when ATT gives the customer a big ($150) discount on a phone. If the customer wants to avoid the fee, I tell them they can buy the phone without the discount.

I think customers are more OK with it, when you are up front about it. I tell customers in the beginning, middle and end of the sale. It keeps away the "shock" of the extra $18.



Posted by: The Champ

It's a standard fee for every mobile carrier...why is everyone making it seem like ATT is the only company?

I saw someone else mention it, but why the big debate? EVERY CARRIER HAS A FEE...is it that big of a deal?



Posted by: cingtd

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Champ
It's a standard fee for every mobile carrier...why is everyone making it seem like ATT is the only company?

I saw someone else mention it, but why the big debate? EVERY CARRIER HAS A FEE...is it that big of a deal?

Some people just like to take pot shots without looking at the big picture especially when it is something they can't control.



Posted by: JP Whoregan

And then again, it usually boils down to the fact that Americans today just love to ***** and complain about everything and anything. What are you doing to service (me), how come (I) have to pay this fee, do you know how long (I) have been one of your customers, good customers like (me) don't pay upgrade fees, me me me me me me me me....

If people don't like the way wireless carriers do business, they should start carrying around CB radios or start their own damn wireless company.



Posted by: experiment626

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Whoregan
If people don't like the way wireless carriers do business, they should start carrying around CB radios.

"That's a 10-4 on that Good Buddy!"



Posted by: lili96ilil

All of you guys who don't understand are disillusioned, and/or have this mentality of, "us vs. them".

I stated very clearly in the other thread why people have a problem with the fee. Once again:

1) Cingular leads you to believe the fee goes towards actions or a process carried out on their part that gets your new phone communicating with the network. This is a lie.

2) Cingular implements the fee in such a way to give the illusion you are getting the phone for a much cheaper price. This fee is not always communicated to the customer at the time of purchase, especially for over-the-phone sales.

After not being able to get a straight answer out of Cingular reps on multiple occasions, concerning something which was so obvious it's comical, I searched the net to see what other customers thought about it. That lead me to the following article. If you take time to read the article and it's comments, you can see that several other customers also don't appreciate deception and dishonesty.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/08/sneaky_fee_aler.html

That article links to the previously locked thread in this section concerning this topic, and pulls quotes. That's how I found this place, and the sole reason I created an account was to voice my opinion on the topic, in hopes of getting a better explanation. At least this attempt resulted in someone admitting it has nothing to do with "upgrading" your phone (as if it wasn't already painfully obvious), instead of vague answer after answer to prevent the customer from realizing they can get a phone elsewhere and avoid this fee.

Once again, the "us vs. them" mentality is going to kick in, and people are going to say, "What, you don't like being lied to. Oh, you are just a complainer! Go away!". That's fine, but just wait until this company that you so strongly defend starts to pull the same tactics on their employees. Then, I think you may be singing a different tune.

If this post causes me to get ban, that's fine, as this will most likely be my last post regardless. As a matter of fact, please go ahead and do so. As I said, the sole reason for signing up was to voice my opinion about this, in hopes of getting a real answer from who I assumed would be smarter, more logical, and honest than the multiple reps I've asked on the phone.

Go ahead, flame away. Those who reply with "$18 isn't that much", or "just go get a phone elsewhere" obviously didn't read and/or understand my previous posts. An oh, thanks to the few who pushed aside the "us vs them" mentality and said, "You know, you're right, it is sneaky, and I can understand where you are coming from".



Posted by: Isriam

Quote:
Originally Posted by cingtd
Some people just like to take pot shots without looking at the big picture especially when it is something they can't control.


JP and Cingtd, do you really think people are moaning for no reason, and that 18 dollars is chump change? If you think that there is no reason to balk at the $18, then please, paypal me $18 right now for no reason other than being here.

I don't understand why someone could ask why they are paying $18 and it turns into they are *****ing and moaning for no reason. There really is no reason for the fee, and we all know that. It is straight profit for moving a SIM from one phone to another.

Quote:
I saw someone else mention it, but why the big debate? EVERY CARRIER HAS A FEE...is it that big of a deal?

And it has been stated that other carriers do NOT have this fee. Even CDMA carriers (Verizon) at that.

The reason this debate interests me, is because recently the City of San Diego took it upon themselves to ban drinking on all beaches in the county. Now, this is far from an 18 dollar fee. It is free. But I still am not going to sit back and let the City of San Diego take this away from me without "*****ing and moaning". I went to town meetings and expressed my concern, and what I wanted.

You can say this isn't the same thing, but the idea here is that if there is something you disagree with, you make your points known, and hope the higher up people will actually listen to those who their policies affect. I don't see your points in attacking people who express their concern about an illogical fee. Give me a valid reason this fee exists other than "it is something they can't control.".



Posted by: Isriam

Also JP, wouldn't you think that AT&T requiring $18 from a Customer without being able to explain why is a me me me me me attitude from a carrier?

I don't understand why you are so hostile when anyone brings up changing policies? If I had that attitude, I would never get anything done at my job.



Posted by: cingman66

The answer to this question is very simple: AT&T uses the Upgrade fee (and the Activation fee, Transfer of Service fee, Number Change fee, etc. for that matter) for one reason--to help pay their CS staff and for the software they use to run the business (CARE or Telegence). Computer systems do not pay for themselves, and CS reps do not generate any business to cover their salaries either. The various fees AT&T (and other carriers) charge are simply to keep the business going. What more explanation do you need? Cable companies (and land-line telephone companies) charge a fee to "connect" your service--typically called an "installation fee." This is more BS than any of AT&T's fees. These companies don't even send anyone to your house...they just flip a switch and boom, your connected.



Posted by: holaDude

Quote:
Originally Posted by cingman66
The answer to this question is very simple: AT&T uses the Upgrade fee (and the Activation fee, Transfer of Service fee, Number Change fee, etc. for that matter) for one reason--to help pay their CS staff and for the software they use to run the business (CARE or Telegence).


I advise them of almost the same thing. I also advise them that it does not matter what the sales person told them or has noted on the account, but that CS will not adjust the fee and they will need to go back to the sales person that stated the fee will be waived and have them adjust the account.

I won't do it and CS has been instructed that any adjustment request noted on the accounts from a sales outlet would need to either referred back to that store or department, or must be approved by a manager. The only adjustments for the fee I'll make is if it i auto noted from the system itself and they are still charged.

I think from all the reading here that store managers have access to telegence and they can credit the account from there.



Posted by: anubis9278

really for employees the answer to why the $18.00 upgrade fee is or was in csp a while ago. as a sales rep explain the fee before hand. customer then has choice to upgrade or not. but not explaining charges causes problems for those in the retail locations. but at the same time most people hear what they want to hear.



Posted by: AppleMac

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
And it has been stated that other carriers do NOT have this fee. Even CDMA carriers (Verizon) at that.



Not Quite true. Verizon does indeed have an upgrade fee. It costs $20 which is more than ATT's fee. It does have 1 major difference though. If the line upgrading has a monthly access of $39.99 or higher the fee is waived. So all share lines and phone son plans less than $40 will pay an extra $20 to upgrade. It is also charged for full retail purchases and in store esn changes. Verizon makes no apologies about the fee and encourages reps to say that it's simply to recover costs of subsidized equipment and to help improve the network. Which, being pure profit, it does.



Posted by: Isriam

Alright, anyone can find a loophole around anything My point being, it is a worthless fee, Verizon waves it on plans over 39.99 (do they even have any?) and other carriers don't even have this fee.

Why not add 20 dollars onto the price of every upgrade phone?



Posted by: formercanuck

Whether its called an 'activation fee' or 'upgrade fee'... Its a fee.
I'd prefer it to be called something a little more appropriate than 'upgrade', but not something as crazy as the Canadian equivalent of SAF (System Access Fee), but something more like 'Administrative fee' or 'Transaction fee'.

Typically, AT&T (AT&T Wireless/Cingular at least) has waived this fee for me over the past many years.



Posted by: cingtd

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
JP and Cingtd, do you really think people are moaning for no reason, and that 18 dollars is chump change? If you think that there is no reason to balk at the $18, then please, paypal me $18 right now for no reason other than being here.

I don't understand why someone could ask why they are paying $18 and it turns into they are *****ing and moaning for no reason. There really is no reason for the fee, and we all know that. It is straight profit for moving a SIM from one phone to another.


And it has been stated that other carriers do NOT have this fee. Even CDMA carriers (Verizon) at that.

The reason this debate interests me, is because recently the City of San Diego took it upon themselves to ban drinking on all beaches in the county. Now, this is far from an 18 dollar fee. It is free. But I still am not going to sit back and let the City of San Diego take this away from me without "*****ing and moaning". I went to town meetings and expressed my concern, and what I wanted.

You can say this isn't the same thing, but the idea here is that if there is something you disagree with, you make your points known, and hope the higher up people will actually listen to those who their policies affect. I don't see your points in attacking people who express their concern about an illogical fee. Give me a valid reason this fee exists other than "it is something they can't control.".

No disrespect but a consumer is not required to pay an upgrade fee unless they are upgrading their equipment at a discounted price. It is that simple. In some cases consumers have the upgrade fee automatically waived (depending on several factors including: average monthly cost, payment history, tenure for example). I won't attempt to justify it but as an employee I am obligated to enforce it.



Posted by: Isriam

Quote:
Originally Posted by cingtd
No disrespect but a consumer is not required to pay an upgrade fee unless they are upgrading their equipment at a discounted price. It is that simple. In some cases consumers have the upgrade fee automatically waived (depending on several factors including: average monthly cost, payment history, tenure for example). I won't attempt to justify it but as an employee I am obligated to enforce it.



Excellent reply, thank you. I wonder why AT&T feels the need to use this fee and how many actually get waived, how many customer complaints they receive about it?

If I ran a cell phone company, it would have only email support



Posted by: kholdfuzion

As long as work for a true corporate store/corporate partner store, not a "resale" store, you have the authority to waive the upgrade fee IF the customer complains about it. Doing it too often will raise red flags for your store. Basically if it makes or breaks a sale you are safe to do it.



Posted by: .7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
My point being, it is a worthless fee, Verizon waves it on plans over 39.99?

ATT waives upgrade fees on higher revenue plans as well, in addition to business accounts/FANs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
and other carriers don't even have this fee.

That is not correct http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/08/sneaky_fee_aler.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
1) Cingular leads you to believe the fee goes towards actions or a process carried out on their part that gets your new phone communicating with the network. This is a lie.

While I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs of AT&T process enough to know what that money is used for, how exactly do you know the facts of the situation to come to the conclusion that its a "lie"? Let’s say, for example, that AT&T determines that in conjunction with the upgrade at a subsidized price it cost them $25 in a specific calculation of their choice. Let’s say they take the commission paid to the rep to upgrade (or shipping costs if its shipped from telesales), the cost to ship the phone to retail, the cost of the overhead to house that phone in store or warehouse, so on and so on. Then let’s say they (ATT) calculate that in their accounting to them the subsidy on the phone itself is absorbed in the revenue increase that will occur over the tenure of the new contract.

Now, I will concede that you can probably poke holes in that theory all day long but the point I’m trying to make here is this. ‘If” a like scenario is the way AT&T does “business” than who are you to say that such a fee to recoup a loss for a like business scenario is a “lie”? You have every right to question the fee and its validity, but let’s be honest, you don’t know more if it’s a lie than I know it’s the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
That article links to the previously locked thread in this section concerning this topic, and pulls quotes. That's how I found this place, and the sole reason I created an account was to voice my opinion on the topic, in hopes of getting a better explanation. At least this attempt resulted in someone admitting it has nothing to do with "upgrading" your phone (as if it wasn't already painfully obvious), instead of vague answer after answer to prevent the customer from realizing they can get a phone elsewhere and avoid this fee.

I think the only benefit ATT has in selling a new phone is they get the new contract, so in the long run it must be worth it to them. I will say though that I’m sure that every carrier will go on the record and say if they could keep a customer without subsidizing a phone they would be right as pie. I guess my point with this is it isn’t as much as selling a phone with an upgrade fee as it is a contract.
I personally pray for the day everyone buys their phones from the manufactures themselves at a higher cost and we let the carriers compete for our business w/o contracts…can you imagine the improvements in competition and quality of service impact this would have?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
Once again, the "us vs. them" mentality is going to kick in, and people are going to say, "What, you don't like being lied to. Oh, you are just a complainer! Go away!". That's fine, but just wait until this company that you so strongly defend starts to pull the same tactics on their employees. Then, I think you may be singing a different tune.

If this post causes me to get ban, that's fine, as this will most likely be my last post regardless. As a matter of fact, please go ahead and do so. As I said, the sole reason for signing up was to voice my opinion about this, in hopes of getting a real answer from who I assumed would be smarter, more logical, and honest than the multiple reps I've asked on the phone.

Go ahead, flame away. Those who reply with "$18 isn't that much", or "just go get a phone elsewhere" obviously didn't read and/or understand my previous posts. An oh, thanks to the few who pushed aside the "us vs them" mentality and said, "You know, you're right, it is sneaky, and I can understand where you are coming from".

While I don’t think you are out of line with what you’re saying, I have to ask what you are really looking for here. I mean, in reading your posts you mentioned a couple times that you want a “straight answer” but at the end of the day I’m not too convinced that’s what you really want. I mean, if Ralph De La Vega himself told you that the fee is this and that would you, Isriam, or anyone else that has a bone to pick with this fee really be satisfied? The fee is there and you disagree with it and I don’t think a fluffy explanation from anyone is going to change that. I feel that you simply don’t like it and you want to be heard, not necessarily some grand search for the “truth” as you want to see it. Some of you are content to pound your fist into the sand and say it isn’t right, and if that be your choice than so be it.

I don’t think it’s in ATT direct interest to be “sneaky” or “deceptive” when it comes to this fee as all it does is create calls to care, billing credits, bad reputation and so on. It’s one of the reasons why you don’t see local or regional plans anymore…too much confusion and headache. I think that ATT needs to train their CC reps better in the area of overcoming objections and educating their employees on what this fee is and what it entails. When it comes to being upfront about the fee I think ATT does a pretty good job with the Customer Service Summary (which actually won an award in 2004 for is upfront disclosure of information including all fees, simulated first months bill, ect). A CSS is mandatory to give to the customer on COR and indirect retail transactions but it’s the reps that chose whether to give it to the customer or not which I think is half the problem.

In closing I feel that ATT does a pretty forthright job in putting the tools in place to educate the customer of all charges associated with any given transaction but it’s the salesman’s job to execute which is an area that seems to need improvement.



Posted by: ivwshane

Ahh...so thats how you came to be a mod!

Excellent reply!



Posted by: Reaper0Bot0

Alltel does not charge this fee. While technically it can be charged on obscenely cheap grandfathered plans, I've just about never heard of it actually being charged. And, before the dogpile, 12 million customers is NOT small. It may be RELATIVELY smaller than the other four, but that is still a very large customer base.



Posted by: Really_Annoyed

Quote:
Originally Posted by cingman66
The answer to this question is very simple: AT&T uses the Upgrade fee (and the Activation fee, Transfer of Service fee, Number Change fee, etc. for that matter) for one reason--to help pay their CS staff and for the software they use to run the business (CARE or Telegence). Computer systems do not pay for themselves, and CS reps do not generate any business to cover their salaries either. The various fees AT&T (and other carriers) charge are simply to keep the business going. What more explanation do you need? Cable companies (and land-line telephone companies) charge a fee to "connect" your service--typically called an "installation fee." This is more BS than any of AT&T's fees. These companies don't even send anyone to your house...they just flip a switch and boom, your connected.


If AT&T needs this fee to keep the business running, shouldn't it just increase the price it charges for different plan? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of charging for product/service to cover the expense of doing business and hopefully make a profit on top of it? What's the point of charging too little then have fees for XXX and YYY?



Posted by: ivwshane

Alright here is the deal: The $18 upgrade fee is a finance fee, as in a fee created by the finance department to bring in additional revenue for the company, period!.

Debating this fee is useless and will result in nothing being changed, you either understand this or you don't, either way, get over it already.


If you have a problem with this fee then put your money where your mouth is, when your contract is up go to a different carrier. Taking away all revenue from a company is the only way change will happen and if you aren't prepared to make that sacrifice then $18 really isn't that big of a deal to you.



Posted by: .7

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane
Ahh...so thats how you came to be a mod!

Excellent reply!


na, im retired, I just peek my head in from time to time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Really_Annoyed
If AT&T needs this fee to keep the business running, shouldn't it just increase the price it charges for different plan? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of charging for product/service to cover the expense of doing business and hopefully make a profit on top of it? What's the point of charging too little then have fees for XXX and YYY?


The wording of your statement is a little weird but I think your suggesting is that ATT should increase their rates of service instead of charging that upgrade fee. Again, I don't know for sure but I think the reasoning behind this is a little more simple and straight forward.

Price point is a very important factor in purchasing both visually and monetarily (ever wonder why walmart prices a lot of their items at $XX.97), Pricing their service so much as a penny higher on the main rate plans would be putting themselves at a HUGE disadvantage against their main competitor (Verizon). You also see this with rebates where legally they can advertise a significant low price for the item yet make you do the leg work to get your entire savings (which a lot of people don't end up mailing in rebates). Its all a balancing acts with rebates, advertised price, additional fees for the transaction with the end result being the upgrade to a new phone, balancing an attractive price for the customer with the least amount of concessions on the sellers end.

Without getting into the whole inner workings of retail pricing (to which I am no expert) I hope that makes a little sense.



Posted by: Isriam

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane
Alright here is the deal: The $18 upgrade fee is a finance fee, as in a fee created by the finance department to bring in additional revenue for the company, period!.

Debating this fee is useless and will result in nothing being changed, you either understand this or you don't, either way, get over it already.


If you have a problem with this fee then put your money where your mouth is, when your contract is up go to a different carrier. Taking away all revenue from a company is the only way change will happen and if you aren't prepared to make that sacrifice then $18 really isn't that big of a deal to you.


I have no problem with what the fee is for if it is said exactly why and what it covers. I haven't heard anything except it is "profit" and stop "*****ing and moaning" about it.

My whole point is, honestly, everyone here can agree that either AT&T could roll the cost into the phone, or they could abolish the charge all together and it wouldn't be an issue. So why aren't consumers bringing this to the attention of AT&T? Anyone remember Stan's position on "unlimited" texting? Where did that get him?

I took all my service from AT&T recently, and went to a small carrier that has unlimited minutes, unlimited text, and unlimited internet. I'm not one of these people who complain, but do nothing about it.

My questions have been answered, but I still don't see a reason to lay down and take it so to speak.



Posted by: Isriam

Quote:
Originally Posted by .7
na, im retired, I just peek my head in from time to time



The wording of your statement is a little weird but I think your suggesting is that ATT should increase their rates of service instead of charging that upgrade fee. Again, I don't know for sure but I think the reasoning behind this is a little more simple and straight forward.

Price point is a very important factor in purchasing both visually and monetarily (ever wonder why walmart prices a lot of their items at $XX.97), Pricing their service so much as a penny higher on the main rate plans would be putting themselves at a HUGE disadvantage against their main competitor (Verizon). You also see this with rebates where legally they can advertise a significant low price for the item yet make you do the leg work to get your entire savings (which a lot of people don't end up mailing in rebates). Its all a balancing acts with rebates, advertised price, additional fees for the transaction with the end result being the upgrade to a new phone, balancing an attractive price for the customer with the least amount of concessions on the sellers end.

Without getting into the whole inner workings of retail pricing (to which I am no expert) I hope that makes a little sense in the end.


I agree completely that the fee is probably covering cost of shipping, storefront, and stock. I just think that AT&T could save themselves, consumers, AND employee's a lot of hassle by finding a way to handle it other than tacking it on secretly. A lot of employee's have recognized that and taken most of the secrecy out of the equation.



Posted by: .7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
I agree completely that the fee is probably covering cost of shipping, storefront, and stock. I just think that AT&T could save themselves, consumers, AND employee's a lot of hassle by finding a way to handle it other than tacking it on secretly. A lot of employee's have recognized that and taken most of the secrecy out of the equation.


It’s this type of logic that I don't understand though, the implication that it’s tacked on "secretly". The fee is accepted when you purchase online and it’s in telesales script. It’s on the customer service summaries when purchased in the retail store and included in the paperwork when a phone is shipped from ATT. I just went to try to upgrade a phone from Amazon.com and I was notified of the charge, and the same thing with Best Buy; what other way would you prefer this information be disclosed? If anything is being kept a secret it’s safe to assume that the majority of this is being perpetuated by the rep themselves which is a shame but happens none the less. I know that there have been enough instances where customers have not been told about it to where one could draw that conclusion, but do you really think that ATT supports charging the fee without full disclosure? It’s almost like you imply that the upgrade fee is some secret that you only find out about after working for ATT for awhile, like "they didn’t cover that in training".

I don’t feel the employees are “recognizing” what ATT is up to and it’s because of them that customers now can see the light; I see it as just the opposite. In light of my previous comments, everything that I can see possible has been put in place by ATT for the fee to be fully disclosed at purchase, the only area where I see there is room for error is where salesreps get involved in retail locations in communicating this fee to the customers and presenting them with the appropriate documentation that they are REQUIRED to give them.



Posted by: walkguru

Wirelessly posted (Walkguru's: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.1.8295/1724; en; U; ssr))

this stupid fee still sux.



Posted by: lili96ilil

Quote:
Originally Posted by .7
While I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs of AT&T process enough to know what that money is used for, how exactly do you know the facts of the situation to come to the conclusion that its a "lie"? Let’s say, for example, that AT&T determines that in conjunction with the upgrade at a subsidized price it cost them $25 in a specific calculation of their choice. Let’s say they take the commission paid to the rep to upgrade (or shipping costs if its shipped from telesales), the cost to ship the phone to retail, the cost of the overhead to house that phone in store or warehouse, so on and so on. Then let’s say they (ATT) calculate that in their accounting to them the subsidy on the phone itself is absorbed in the revenue increase that will occur over the tenure of the new contract.

Now, I will concede that you can probably poke holes in that theory all day long but the point I’m trying to make here is this. ‘If” a like scenario is the way AT&T does “business” than who are you to say that such a fee to recoup a loss for a like business scenario is a “lie”? You have every right to question the fee and its validity, but let’s be honest, you don’t know more if it’s a lie than I know it’s the truth.


Hi .7. I really wanted to be done with this, but I cannot resist replying to your level-headed, logical replies that directly address my points. Thank you.

First of all, let me clarify that I do not do any business in the stores, so every experience I speak of deals with talking to a non-local CSRs on the phone.

As stated before, when asked, the CSR will make you believe that the $18 is going towards a specific action or process *needed* in order to get the phone you are about to purchase “talking” to the network. They make it seem as if they have to fill out 2 pages of forms and flip a switch. The name “upgrade fee” also implies this fee covers specific actions that need to take place in order to upgrade your phone.

The mystery behind this charge has been something I’ve poked CSRs with for years, and this is the first line reply I have always received. I’ve also spoken to managers (or at least what the CSR told me were managers) to probe for answers. This has never lead to a more definitive answer.

They try really hard to make you believe this, and most people would just buy that answer, because they don’t know any better. When pressed harder with logic such as, “I don’t understand. If I get a phone from ebay, why don’t you have to do this processing in order for my phone to work?” Then, they will start pulling for answers, “Umm, it also covers copying contacts for you, etc.”, rebutted with, “But I’m buying the phone from you online. I’m doing all this myself.” And it continues on. At this point, they are frustrated and mad, because they really don’t know what else to say. Every single reason they give, I can poke a hole right through.

This is lying because all the reasons they give are not valid; they are not the real reason the fee is charged. If these answers were the truth, I would not be able to poke holes in them. Like others have said, I believe the reason the fee is charged is to simply speed up the process of making their money back. This is something they will never tell you, especially since the name of the charge implies something very different.

You can very loosely apply the term “upgrade fee” to whatever scenario you wish, but unless they explain this to you when you ask, they are lying. I don’t think a valid explanation for a charge is too much to ask.

If you get your oil changed, and the paper work shows an additional charge with a misleading name, would you ask about it? If every explanation they give you, you are able to reply with something that makes their explanation not valid, would you believe they are lying to you about what the charge is really for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by .7
While I don’t think you are out of line with what you’re saying, I have to ask what you are really looking for here. I mean, in reading your posts you mentioned a couple times that you want a “straight answer” but at the end of the day I’m not too convinced that’s what you really want. I mean, if Ralph De La Vega himself told you that the fee is this and that would you, Isriam, or anyone else that has a bone to pick with this fee really be satisfied? The fee is there and you disagree with it and I don’t think a fluffy explanation from anyone is going to change that. I feel that you simply don’t like it and you want to be heard, not necessarily some grand search for the “truth” as you want to see it. Some of you are content to pound your fist into the sand and say it isn’t right, and if that be your choice than so be it.


You are wrong when you question what my intentions are. As stated before, 1) to voice my opinion (with an obvious underlying tone of frustration) surrounding the matter, and 2) search for a better (honest) answer that I cannot poke a hole through. I believe a few have finally coughed it up, and, along with a few assumptions, I’ve been able to piece everything together in my head.

I’ve said before that the charge is not what I have a problem with. When I’m spending $400 for a phone, another $18 is chump change. It is the deception surrounding the charge that I have a problem with. If Ralph De La Vaga explained that the charge was to speed up the process of getting their money back, I’d thank him for the honest answer and move on to my next point. You can doubt this all you like, but with all due respect, I know me a little better than you know me.

The next point would be, “Why not increase the price of the phone rather than have this somewhat hidden charge?” This is interesting, because, what I believe to be the answer to this question further supports my argument that the $18 upgrade charge pays for nothing more than what the amount on the phone’s price tag pays for – it should really be combined.

But due to the competitive market, they must manipulate numbers to give the illusion you got the phone for this amount, and then this amount goes towards “upgrading” you.

One problem with this is it’s not always disclosed when discussing the purchase of the phone. One salesman even admitted in the other thread he makes a point to not bring it up. The internet is littered with complaints of the same thing.

However, this second point is less of an issue. The main issue is the deception surrounding the upgrade fee. I simply refuse to pay this fee if the best answer the sales person can give me can quickly be dismissed.



Posted by: classylady78

Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
Hi .7. I really wanted to be done with this, but I cannot resist replying to your level-headed, logical replies that directly address my points. Thank you.

First of all, let me clarify that I do not do any business in the stores, so every experience I speak of deals with talking to a non-local CSRs on the phone.

As stated before, when asked, the CSR will make you believe that the $18 is going towards a specific action or process *needed* in order to get the phone you are about to purchase “talking” to the network. They make it seem as if they have to fill out 2 pages of forms and flip a switch. The name “upgrade fee” also implies this fee covers specific actions that need to take place in order to upgrade your phone.

The mystery behind this charge has been something I’ve poked CSRs with for years, and this is the first line reply I have always received. I’ve also spoken to managers (or at least what the CSR told me were managers) to probe for answers. This has never lead to a more definitive answer.

They try really hard to make you believe this, and most people would just buy that answer, because they don’t know any better. When pressed harder with logic such as, “I don’t understand. If I get a phone from ebay, why don’t you have to do this processing in order for my phone to work?” Then, they will start pulling for answers, “Umm, it also covers copying contacts for you, etc.”, rebutted with, “But I’m buying the phone from you online. I’m doing all this myself.” And it continues on. At this point, they are frustrated and mad, because they really don’t know what else to say. Every single reason they give, I can poke a hole right through.

This is lying because all the reasons they give are not valid; they are not the real reason the fee is charged. If these answers were the truth, I would not be able to poke holes in them. Like others have said, I believe the reason the fee is charged is to simply speed up the process of making their money back. This is something they will never tell you, especially since the name of the charge implies something very different.

You can very loosely apply the term “upgrade fee” to whatever scenario you wish, but unless they explain this to you when you ask, they are lying. I don’t think a valid explanation for a charge is too much to ask.

If you get your oil changed, and the paper work shows an additional charge with a misleading name, would you ask about it? If every explanation they give you, you are able to reply with something that makes their explanation not valid, would you believe they are lying to you about what the charge is really for?



You are wrong when you question what my intentions are. As stated before, 1) to voice my opinion (with an obvious underlying tone of frustration) surrounding the matter, and 2) search for a better (honest) answer that I cannot poke a hole through. I believe a few have finally coughed it up, and, along with a few assumptions, I’ve been able to piece everything together in my head.

I’ve said before that the charge is not what I have a problem with. When I’m spending $400 for a phone, another $18 is chump change. It is the deception surrounding the charge that I have a problem with. If Ralph De La Vaga explained that the charge was to speed up the process of getting their money back, I’d thank him for the honest answer and move on to my next point. You can doubt this all you like, but with all due respect, I know me a little better than you know me.

The next point would be, “Why not increase the price of the phone rather than have this somewhat hidden charge?” This is interesting, because, what I believe to be the answer to this question further supports my argument that the $18 upgrade charge pays for nothing more than what the amount on the phone’s price tag pays for – it should really be combined.

But due to the competitive market, they must manipulate numbers to give the illusion you got the phone for this amount, and then this amount goes towards “upgrading” you.

One problem with this is it’s not always disclosed when discussing the purchase of the phone. One salesman even admitted in the other thread he makes a point to not bring it up. The internet is littered with complaints of the same thing.

However, this second point is less of an issue. The main issue is the deception surrounding the upgrade fee. I simply refuse to pay this fee if the best answer the sales person can give me can quickly be dismissed.


Do you work at AT&T? If the answer is no, you should not be posting here PERIOD.

This is a good thread and you are going to get it locked again. If you want to post your frustrations with the $18 fee this is not the area to do so.



Posted by: lili96ilil

Quote:
Originally Posted by classylady78
Do you work at AT&T? If the answer is no, you should not be posting here PERIOD.

This is a good thread and you are going to get it locked again. If you want to post your frustrations with the $18 fee this is not the area to do so.


Classylady, go read the rules. Thanks.

I've PM'd with mods, and everything is fine. The mod that wrote the rules quoted me which sparked a reply. He also stated in this post, that I was not out of line, after I asked them to ban me. Thanks again, classy.



Posted by: walkguru

Wirelessly posted (Walkguru's: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.1.8295/1724; en; U; ssr))

Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
Quote:
Originally Posted by classylady78
Do you work at AT&T? If the answer is no, you should not be posting here PERIOD.

This is a good thread and you are going to get it locked again. If you want to post your frustrations with the $18 fee this is not the area to do so.


Classylady, go read the rules. Thanks.

I've PM'd with mods, and everything is fine. The mod that wrote the rules quoted me which sparked a reply. He also stated in this post, that I was not out of line, after I asked them to ban me. Thanks again, classy.


thats just great.



Posted by: classylady78

Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
Classylady, go read the rules. Thanks.

I've PM'd with mods, and everything is fine. The mod that wrote the rules quoted me which sparked a reply. He also stated in this post, that I was not out of line, after I asked them to ban me. Thanks again, classy.


So we get to read pages and pages of you complaining about the upgrade fee. I would rather read posts about what the $18 fee really goes to. But instead I will have to read your complaining for pages. Thanks!



Posted by: Really_Annoyed

Quote:
Originally Posted by .7
Price point is a very important factor in purchasing both visually and monetarily (ever wonder why walmart prices a lot of their items at $XX.97), Pricing their service so much as a penny higher on the main rate plans would be putting themselves at a HUGE disadvantage against their main competitor (Verizon). You also see this with rebates where legally they can advertise a significant low price for the item yet make you do the leg work to get your entire savings (which a lot of people don't end up mailing in rebates). Its all a balancing acts with rebates, advertised price, additional fees for the transaction with the end result being the upgrade to a new phone, balancing an attractive price for the customer with the least amount of concessions on the sellers end.


I understand about the price points and such. But if we assume this is the reason, then it's a very sleazy practice and one can't help but wonder what other sleazy things is this company doing. Because according to the same logic, a company can advertise $9.99/month plan with 450 min, unlimited M2M & N/W, but there will be a $30/month account maintenance fee. Or even go as far as advertising the plan as free, but charge $10 connection fee, $10 network upkeep fee, $9.99 maintenance fee, and another $10 disguised as a government tax.

I realized this is a bit extreme, but I hope I've made my point clear.

To compare the upgrade fee and the activation fee is truly comparing apples to oranges. Activating a new account requires entering credit check info (and port info if necessary), then setting up the account (plans, features, etc.) While I personally feel $36 is a bit much for doing these things, I can understand that there is work done here and I'm charged for this. Fine. But all a rep needs to do for an upgrade is enter the new IMEI # (and SIM # if the rep decides to give you a new SIM), click next a few times, and say "you're total is ...." I know this because I worked there for 3 years. Charging a fee for this is no different than you going into a supermarket, pick up a $2.99 item, and when you go to pay for it, the cashier tells you there will also be a $2 transaction processing fee added on.

Like classylady said, we'd really like to find out what the $18 fee really goes to.



Posted by: ATnt-RSC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
I have no problem with what the fee is for if it is said exactly why and what it covers. I haven't heard anything except it is "profit"


It's not like the $18 is all being collected to be buy Randall Stevenson a new yacht, it is being put back into the network, or pay for other expenses. Just like all fees. It's not like any Fortune 100 company will hit you with a fee and only use that money to cover the cost directly associated with the service. It all goes to one big pot, and is distributed with the rest of the companies income.

In that sense, I was incorrect in stating it's pure profit. It isn't. It's pure income, but it will be spent wisely on services that will help AT&T customers AND shareholders.

I would also like to agree with the other poster who said that the $18 fee is almost entirely given only to the "cheap" customers that have low minute plans, no features who will usually refuse the $5 insurance when they get their new phone. They break it 13 months into their contract, and have to get a new phone, and sign an extension to get it. They're still under contract, and don't pay much, so they get dinged.

Customers who:
A) wait to the end of their contract
B) pay more than $75 a month on their line

Do not get the upgrade fee. In fact, since Upgrade Advantage was implemented 3 months ago, I have had only 25% of my customers charged it. Everyone else was given a break.



Posted by: Isriam

.7 I agree with the others who replied. We all know what the fee is for, but logically it is nothing but going into the pocket of AT&T for doing nothing out of the ordinary. I believe a customer started the whole idea by saying no one at AT&T could tell him what the fee was even for.

Classylady, this forum is not strictly for AT&T employee's, if you read the rules at the top you will see that customers are allowed to discuss things that apply to employee's also.



Posted by: lili96ilil

Quote:
Originally Posted by classylady78
So we get to read pages and pages of you complaining about the upgrade fee. I would rather read posts about what the $18 fee really goes to. But instead I will have to read your complaining for pages. Thanks!


Classy, you’re proving yourself to be not very classy at all.

Funny that you quote my post and see nothing but complaining. I look at that same post and see the formulation of the best explanation of what’s going on.

Mods, please ban me if that is in order.

Thanks,



Posted by: .7

Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
Hi .7. I really wanted to be done with this, but I cannot resist replying to your level-headed, logical replies that directly address my points. Thank you.

First of all, let me clarify that I do not do any business in the stores, so every experience I speak of deals with talking to a non-local CSRs on the phone.

As stated before, when asked, the CSR will make you believe that the $18 is going towards a specific action or process *needed* in order to get the phone you are about to purchase “talking” to the network. They make it seem as if they have to fill out 2 pages of forms and flip a switch. The name “upgrade fee” also implies this fee covers specific actions that need to take place in order to upgrade your phone.
The mystery behind this charge has been something I’ve poked CSRs with for years, and this is the first line reply I have always received. I’ve also spoken to managers (or at least what the CSR told me were managers) to probe for answers. This has never lead to a more definitive answer.

I think the information that the general pop is getting from the reps in the main problem here. The whole implication by some reps that it covers SIM cards and what not is a stretch they probably don’t know any more than you as to what is actually covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
They try really hard to make you believe this, and most people would just buy that answer, because they don’t know any better. When pressed harder with logic such as, “I don’t understand. If I get a phone from ebay, why don’t you have to do this processing in order for my phone to work?” Then, they will start pulling for answers, “Umm, it also covers copying contacts for you, etc.”, rebutted with, “But I’m buying the phone from you online. I’m doing all this myself.” And it continues on. At this point, they are frustrated and mad, because they really don’t know what else to say. Every single reason they give, I can poke a hole right through.

I agree this should never happen (and I don’t believe is accurate with regards to ebay phones getting upgrade fees). When I was a sales rep I never really had a problem telling customers I wasn’t their only option. I mean, granted there was a possibility that I wouldn’t end up getting the contract renew but at the end of the day you cut bait and move on; I never saw the need to get into a huff about it. All I would do is educate them that the phone would not have an ATT provided warranty and would receive very little, if any customer support for troubleshooting…caveat emptor and I hope everything works out for ya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
This is lying because all the reasons they give are not valid; they are not the real reason the fee is charged. If these answers were the truth, I would not be able to poke holes in them. Like others have said, I believe the reason the fee is charged is to simply speed up the process of making their money back. This is something they will never tell you, especially since the name of the charge implies something very different.

You can very loosely apply the term “upgrade fee” to whatever scenario you wish, but unless they explain this to you when you ask, they are lying. I don’t think a valid explanation for a charge is too much to ask.

If you get your oil changed, and the paper work shows an additional charge with a misleading name, would you ask about it? If every explanation they give you, you are able to reply with something that makes their explanation not valid, would you believe they are lying to you about what the charge is really for?

I feel the problem here is that what ATT supports their reps telling customers and what actually is happening are two different things in some cases. In the eyes of the customer the reps ARE ATT and I completely understand that way of thinking, but if we pull the layer off the situation I don’t feel ATT as a company with their policy is really condoning lying or not disclosing the fee A good test would be to call your local store and ask them what the standard upgrade fee is, Id be willing to get youd get $18 quotes almost accross the board.. They should just put out a memo stating the fee is for “fees and costs associated with equipment subsidy and costs” in which the details of could possibly be, by ATT account, what I mentioned in my previous posts. There has to be a line where the answer becomes acceptable based on the information available. I mean, you could continue to ask “why” at every answer until there’s nowhere else to go, which was my reasoning behind the answer is probably not going to ever be to anyone’s satisfaction that disagrees with it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
You are wrong when you question what my intentions are. As stated before, 1) to voice my opinion (with an obvious underlying tone of frustration) surrounding the matter, and 2) search for a better (honest) answer that I cannot poke a hole through. I believe a few have finally coughed it up, and, along with a few assumptions, I’ve been able to piece everything together in my head.

I’ve said before that the charge is not what I have a problem with. When I’m spending $400 for a phone, another $18 is chump change. It is the deception surrounding the charge that I have a problem with. If Ralph De La Vaga explained that the charge was to speed up the process of getting their money back, I’d thank him for the honest answer and move on to my next point. You can doubt this all you like, but with all due respect, I know me a little better than you know me.
The next point would be, “Why not increase the price of the phone rather than have this somewhat hidden charge?” This is interesting, because, what I believe to be the answer to this question further supports my argument that the $18 upgrade charge pays for nothing more than what the amount on the phone’s price tag pays for – it should really be combined.

If I was wrong with your intentions then my apologies, it’s simply the way I interpreted the information I was reading.
I addressed before why I think it’s not included in the price of the phone itself: it’s all about the sticker price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
I simply refuse to pay this fee if the best answer the sales person can give me can quickly be dismissed.

And therein lies the beauty of your situation, you can either chose to pay the fee and get the phone from ATT or you can chose to get your phone elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Really_Annoyed
I understand about the price points and such. But if we assume this is the reason, then it's a very sleazy practice and one can't help but wonder what other sleazy things is this company doing. Because according to the same logic, a company can advertise $9.99/month plan with 450 min, unlimited M2M & N/W, but there will be a $30/month account maintenance fee. Or even go as far as advertising the plan as free, but charge $10 connection fee, $10 network upkeep fee, $9.99 maintenance fee, and another $10 disguised as a government tax.

I realized this is a bit extreme, but I hope I've made my point clear.

To compare the upgrade fee and the activation fee is truly comparing apples to oranges. Activating a new account requires entering credit check info (and port info if necessary), then setting up the account (plans, features, etc.) While I personally feel $36 is a bit much for doing these things, I can understand that there is work done here and I'm charged for this. Fine. But all a rep needs to do for an upgrade is enter the new IMEI # (and SIM # if the rep decides to give you a new SIM), click next a few times, and say "you're total is ...." I know this because I worked there for 3 years. Charging a fee for this is no different than you going into a supermarket, pick up a $2.99 item, and when you go to pay for it, the cashier tells you there will also be a $2 transaction processing fee added on.

Like classylady said, we'd really like to find out what the $18 fee really goes to.


I hear ya.

I remember buying Tool concert tickets awhile back and there were 2 fees right on my ticket:

Internet service fee-$2.00
Transaction fee-$3.00

I mean, so now its costing me extra to purchase something online vs. in person? Also, "transaction fee" what in the world does that mean?...why not add on paper and ink fee while your at it

I totally agree with your line of reasoning, fees are everywhere. I think its a slippery slope on both sides though considering companies that charge fees everywhere vs. consumers dictating how a or b company does business. I mean, stretch it out and I could start questions the validity of copays and taxes but where do we draw the line? Sometime the reasons for these fees are there we just don't like those reasons.



Posted by: .7

Quote:
Originally Posted by classylady78
So we get to read pages and pages of you complaining about the upgrade fee. I would rather read posts about what the $18 fee really goes to. But instead I will have to read your complaining for pages. Thanks!


Quote:
Originally Posted by lili96ilil
Classy, you’re proving yourself to be not very classy at all.

Funny that you quote my post and see nothing but complaining. I look at that same post and see the formulation of the best explanation of what’s going on.

Mods, please ban me if that is in order.

Thanks,


Guys, if you have a disagreement then disagree with the content of the post as it relates to the topic of the thread instead of who is posting it or what the intentions are.

Let the mods do their job; if you feel something is out of line, report it, but keep it off this thread from here on out.



Posted by: Skins_kg

I just made $18 while reading this thread....I shall apply that towards my next phone!! Thanks..



However, I do agree that some reps may leave this fee out of the conversation, leaving the customer with a bad taste in their mouth when the next bill arrives...which in turn gives the rep and ATT a bad name...



Posted by: anubis9278

sucks even more when its says waived then they get charged for it.



Posted by: coomac

Quote:
Originally Posted by .7
And therein lies the beauty of your situation, you can either chose to pay the fee and get the phone from ATT or you can chose to get your phone elsewhere.

Bingo. I've been following this thread and the locked one before it and this has been my exact reaction to lili96ilil's complaints.

Here is a long analogy for you. True story.

Say you want to buy tickets for a concert. Using ticketmaster online and at ticketmaster locations, you get charged a convenience / processing fee of $7.50 for each ticket. For TM online purchases, you pay an extra $2 'processing fee' to download your ticket in pdf format and a rediculous amount of money if you want any kind of predictable shipping.

However, if you bought your tickets direct from the people managing the concert, you don't have to pay any of those fees. Those people unhappy with the convenience charges would get their tickets from the place that doesn't charge them the extra fee. They also don't go about lambasting TM for being so slimy.

Why? TM is a business. They do what they have to do to cover their costs. Anybody with half a brain cell can see that the 'processing' required does not warrant the majority of the fees they charge. I doubt TM reps can give you a good explanation of where the money goes either. However, no matter how you look at it, those fees still go into the company for overhead, maintaining locations and website, paying employees, etc etc etc.

Fortunately, TM is not a monopoly - no customer is forced to buy tickets through them because there are other options. Same with your friendly neighborhood wireless carrier. You can either pay the $18 to show your appreciation or whatever for AT&T. You can also take your money elsewhere, which you already have, and stop pointing out the blatantly obvious.



Posted by: lili96ilil

Quote:
Originally Posted by .7
They should just put out a memo stating the fee is for “fees and costs associated with equipment subsidy and costs” in which the details of could possibly be, by ATT account, what I mentioned in my previous posts.


If that was an answer given, I'd be OK with that. Maybe ask another question or two to get more details, but then continue on with the purchasing/signing process.

But when it's "to swap your SIM", it'll be argued back that, "Well, I'm doing that.", and it'll go back and forth, like has always been my experience. That leaves a bad taste of lying, deception, and shadiness in your month, and is a deal breaker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by .7
And therein lies the beauty of your situation, you can either chose to pay the fee and get the phone from ATT or you can chose to get your phone elsewhere.


Exactly, and I exercise that option.

I came here and got what I expected (although it wasn't easy); a certain level of honesty that reps on the phone didn't/couldn't give me. This honesty lead me down a path of understanding that the upgrade fee and it's implementation is an almost-necessary move to stay competitive in the marketplace. This has definitely lessen my frustration. Thanks to those who contributed useful information, the others are half the reason I don't go into stores.

Thanks guys. My last post!



Posted by: Really_Annoyed

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATnt-RSC
In that sense, I was incorrect in stating it's pure profit. It isn't. It's pure income, but it will be spent wisely on services that will help AT&T customers AND shareholders.


You were correct in stating that it's pure profit. Just because that profit is reinvested into the company doesn't change the fact that it's profit. It shows up on accounting book as income/sales, and subtracting the cost of providing this service (nothing), the remainder is profit.



Posted by: cingman66

Just a couple of observations:

Unless you are getting a new SIM card at the time you upgrade phones, there is nothing more to be done than just placing your existing SIM into your new phone to make it work. For AT&T to say that the upgrade fee is for swapping SIM cards is inane. I doubt AT&T trained any CS rep to say that...they probably made that up when the OP called because they couldn't think of a better reason. So I don't think AT&T was "lying" to the OP...I believe the CS rep was just an idiot. But the reference to eBay and why there is no upgrade fee boils down to the fact that you are not dealing with an authorized AT&T rep and you are not signing any contract renewal when you buy a phone on eBay...you are merely purchasing an AT&T capable GSM phone into which you are going to place your existing SIM and be on your way. Might as well put $18 in your bank account and call it an upgrade fee for yourself...lol.

Point #2 is in regards to fees in general--we all pay them (ATM's, Ticketmaster, Cable, Cell phone, etc.) and we hardly know what they are for or agree with them. We just accept them as part of "the cost of doing business." Whether it is a "convenience" charge (such as getting tickets on-line rather than in-person) or a stupid "remote rental" fee we pay to the cable company, we all (should) realize that companies are in the business of making money, and occasionally they are going to hit customers with extra fees to help their bottom-line. Our choice as consumers, as has been mentioned several times already, is to either accept defeat and pay these ridiculous fees, or take our business elsewhere. Waiting for AT&T, or any company for that matter, to give you a reasonable explanation for these fees is a fool's game. It will never happen.



Posted by: irockash

Arn't they not waiving upgrade fees again? I thought I read something on CSP about them not waiving (from what I've noticed, its back alright, customers out of contract for nearly a year with no waiver). I loved the upgrade advantage program (even though I'm indirect, couldn't do any discounts, but got the waived fee). But here's an idea that'll lead to more complaining: look at the timing.

Right before the holiday season they reinstate the fee, probably because they know people will be upgrading, regardless of a fee being there.

Funny story, the company I work for used to charge its own upgrade fee. That's right, an additional $18 in the store along with the $18 on the bill. They even payed commission on it. They didn't try to hid the reason behind it (from their workers at least), it was to recoup costs associated with the upgrade. We make substantially less on an upgrade then an activation, so it made sense. We could've added the cost to the phone, but like .07 was saying, its price point. We stopped that; not sure if it was the ethical considerations (is this a matter of ethics though? The reasoning was legit: recoup costs, and always informed the customer), or Cingular (at the time) cracking down.



Posted by: Isriam

Quote:
Point #2 is in regards to fees in general--we all pay them (ATM's, Ticketmaster, Cable, Cell phone, etc.) and we hardly know what they are for or agree with them. We just accept them as part of "the cost of doing business." Whether it is a "convenience" charge (such as getting tickets on-line rather than in-person) or a stupid "remote rental" fee we pay to the cable company, we all (should) realize that companies are in the business of making money, and occasionally they are going to hit customers with extra fees to help their bottom-line. Our choice as consumers, as has been mentioned several times already, is to either accept defeat and pay these ridiculous fees, or take our business elsewhere. Waiting for AT&T, or any company for that matter, to give you a reasonable explanation for these fees is a fool's game. It will never happen.


i disagree. remember when checking accounts charged fee's or credit cards had annual fee's? everything can change



Posted by: ivwshane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
i disagree. remember when checking accounts charged fee's or credit cards had annual fee's? everything can change



They still do. The difference is that the higher revenue (ie those with more in their account) customers get their fees waived (I'm referring to larger banks).

At&t already has a similar system setup as well.



Posted by: Isriam

Almost every bank in the US has free checking, savings, and ATM/Visa now. I would never pay my bank to hold my money. I would never pay a carrier to "sell" me a phone.



Posted by: Wrangler3383

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
Almost every bank in the US has free checking, savings, and ATM/Visa now. I would never pay my bank to hold my money. I would never pay a carrier to "sell" me a phone.


I 100% agree. Every time I upgrade or start a new line, I ask politely to have the fee waved. If they say no, I just call in to CS and let them know I would be happy to stay a customer and add another line if they would kindly wave the fee. I've never been turned down.

Yes so maybe the revenue will be used to go towards the network, and eventually I benefit from it. However, the way I see it, they should be offering incentive to stay with the company. I'm spending enough money as it is. That being said, I do think it should depend on the profitability of customer as to whether or not they get charged a fee or not.

And just to clarify what someone said earlier, they DO still wave the upgrade fee for people who have been out of contract for a while. When I go to my upgrade section of OLAM, it says:

"This line is eligible for equipment discount pricing when you sign up for a 2-year service agreement. You can also take advantage of our no-commitment pricing option.

We can offer you an additional discount up to $50.00 off regular 2-year contract pricing with a waived upgrade fee."



Posted by: cingman66

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
Almost every bank in the US has free checking, savings, and ATM/Visa now. I would never pay my bank to hold my money. I would never pay a carrier to "sell" me a phone.


Where are you getting this information? "Almost every bank..."-are you serious? I checked most of the banks in my area recently when I opened up a new account, and "almost all" of them DO charge for checking...unless you deposit enough money with them. So it's the same way with AT&T...they will waive your upgrade fee if you are generating enough revenue, but will charge the fee if you are not. And it does not matter if you are out of contract or not, as a couple posters have said...it is purely based on revenue (with the exception of old Blue AT&T customers and Analog customers). The only time AT&T will waive the fee is if you generate a certain amount of revenue...what that exact number is I don't know, but think it is around $75/month.

So please, keep your generalizations to ones that are actually close to being true.



Posted by: Isriam

Quote:
-are you serious? I checked most of the banks in my area recently when I opened up a new account, and "almost all" of them DO charge for checking...unless you deposit enough money with them...........So please, keep your generalizations to ones that are actually close to being true.

Can we get back on topic? I haven't seen a good reason why this fee should be assessed to customers.

Bank of America
MyAccess Checking®
Special Offer - Free Special Online Only Offer for a limited time
FREE with no direct deposit requirement
No minimum balance required

Wells Fargo
Fee waived with Direct Deposit, or with
$1,000 minimum daily balance
Otherwise, $5

Washington Mutual
WaMu Free Checking™
Free ATM cash withdrawals worldwide details
Free checks—for life! details
Free Gold Debit MasterCard® with rewards details
One free Overdraft or Bounced Check Fee refund each year
Free outgoing wire transfers worldwide details

Wachovia
Discover the Benefits of Free Checking
No minimum balance requirement
No monthly service fee
Free Check Card with free Wachovia Possibilities RewardsSM
Unlimited use of Wachovia ATMs
Free automated telephone service
Unlimited check writing
Account security and protection
Free Online Banking with BillPay, Balance Alerts, and Online Statements



Posted by: ivwshane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isriam
Can we get back on topic? I haven't seen a good reason why this fee should be assessed to customers.

Bank of America
MyAccess Checking®
Special Offer - Free Special Online Only Offer for a limited time
FREE with no direct deposit requirement
No minimum balance required

Wells Fargo
Fee waived with Direct Deposit, or with
$1,000 minimum daily balance
Otherwise, $5

Washington Mutual
WaMu Free Checking™
Free ATM cash withdrawals worldwide details
Free checks—for life! details
Free Gold Debit MasterCard® with rewards details
One free Overdraft or Bounced Check Fee refund each year
Free outgoing wire transfers worldwide details
I wonder what those details are?

Wachovia
Discover the Benefits of Free Checking
No minimum balance requirement
No monthly service fee
Free Check Card with free Wachovia Possibilities RewardsSM
Unlimited use of Wachovia ATMs
Free automated telephone service
Unlimited check writing
Account security and protection
Free Online Banking with BillPay, Balance Alerts, and Online Statements



Other than wachovia, thanks for proving my point.



Posted by: cingman66

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane
Other than wachovia, thanks for proving my point.



Exactly. Banks, just like AT&T, will take care of it's higher revenue customers, while the rest of us zhlubs take it on the chin. (not my original analogy, but one that will not get me banned...lol).

As to how this relates to the topic at hand--The upgrade fee is there to bring extra revenue into AT&T to cover the costs associated with doing business. And higher revenue customers can get it waived because they bring in enough money without it, while lower revenue customers do not. It seems that banks, along with many other types of businesses feel the same way and charge fees accordingly. Thanks for helping us make that point.



Posted by: Isriam

I'm done discussing this. If you can't see my point then you never will. Continue to charge customers 18 dollars to use their coupon. This is exactly why I tell all customers and friends of mine to buy their phones on ebay.



Posted by: KidLatin

Southwest,

I am an ex VZW employee and they charge a $15.00 upgr fee. I know this is a late response but.....



Posted by: cingtony

Maybe they charge the upgrade fee simply because they can. Its a 36.00 reconnect fee because laws prevent large late fees. The customer rules lets customer service waive it or credit it everytime if its an issue.



Posted by: holaDude

Quote:
Originally Posted by cingtony
Maybe they charge the upgrade fee simply because they can. Its a 36.00 reconnect fee because laws prevent large late fees. The customer rules lets customer service waive it or credit it everytime if its an issue.


No it doesn't. The customer rules are there to allow associates to evaluate an issue and on a case by case basis if a manager agrees, then they may make an adjustment to the account. I do not wave the fee and will direct the customer back to store if they claim a store stated that it will be waived. I really hate saying this, but it is a standard fee that is really not to be waived. If there are special promotions, then the system will waive the fee automatically.


edited to add the word, not, when it comes to waiving a charge.



Posted by: cingtd

Quote:
Originally Posted by holaDude
No it doesn't. The customer rules are there to allow associates to evaluate an issue and on a case by case basis if a manager agrees, then they may make an adjustment to the account. I do not wave the fee and will direct the customer back to store if they claim a store stated that it will be waived. I really hate saying this, but it is a standard fee that is really to be waived. If there are special promotions, then the system will waive the fee automatically.

And you would be correct.

Just because there is a "customer rules" policy, it doesn't give CS reps a blank check to issue a credit anytime a customer questions a charge on their bill.



Posted by: cingtony

Exactly why people call in more than once because some call centers and managers and reps have different interpretations of this policy . Virtually everytime it would get escalated to a manager in these call centers the customer ot what they want . Of course some reps still think there is a 50% rule on misinformation from the protocol days . I won't call you wrong like you did me but you don't know how its done everywhere by everybody and obviously neither did I.



Posted by: ivwshane

I just wish everyone would follow policy. There is no reason to waive the fee unless it wasn't disclosed and even then it should be done at the place of purchase. Unless the system makes a mistake and doesn't waive it when it was supposed to, there is no reason to credit the fee.

If everyone followed the same procedures calls to customer care would be reduced because the customer wouldn't be hearing about people that got the fee waived.


This goes for any policy not just the upgrade fee.



Posted by: suicidal2af

Quote:
Originally Posted by KidLatin
Southwest,

I am an ex VZW employee and they charge a $15.00 upgr fee. I know this is a late response but.....


No...

The Midwest area USED to charge a $15 upgrade fee. That's been done away with for quite a while now.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on how upgrades with VZW work.

The only upgrade scenario where an upgrade fee is assessed is for an early upgrade(basically our version of an exception upgrade). In this case, yes, there is a $20 upgrade fee -- however, the customer is also getting the 2yr price on a phone, not the 1yr price.

In the event of a lost/stolen/damaged phone with no insurance, we can offer the 1 year price on a phone with a 1 year contract. No upgrade fee. If customer has more than a year remaining on their contract, nothing renews.

Secondary lines and lines below 34.99, after 20 months, get the 2yr sale price on new phones. No upgrade fees.

Primary FSP lines and single lines from 34.99-79.98 get the 2yr sale price, minus a $50 credit towards it after 20 months. No upgrade fees.

Primary FSP lines and single lines from 79.99+ get the 2yr sale price, minues a $100 credit after 20 months. No upgrade fees.

We do charge $10 for a phonebook transfer via cellebrite. However, we do also have the UME-36's now, so the customer also gets their pictures/videos/sounds transferred. Also, if enrolled in My Account, the customer gets backup assistant at no charge -- backs numbers up on the network, and redownloads onto new phone. Again, no charge or fees applicable.

Oh, and customers on plans 79.99 and above, after a few months on that plan, get enrolled in the merits/vip program. With that, the upgrade fee is waived on early upgrades, and the customer gets a $50 credit towards the 2yr price on an early upgrade. They also get free transfers via cellebrite, waived activation fees, 25/30% off of accessories, etc etc.

So, yeah, the upgrade fee is dumb.



Posted by: irockash

Maybe they just did away with upgrade advantage for indirect; pulled up an account yesterday that had been out of contract since 05 and no waived fee. I guess I could file this under the "AT&T's Genocide on Indirect" category...

Funny though, I haven't had anyone complain about the fee in a while, at least a year. I tell them about it before hand, and they just nod their heads. I think they know in the back of their minds they're getting screwed by the system, but its thought of like an atm fee or a convenience charge.



Posted by: AppleMac

Quote:
Originally Posted by suicidal2af
No...

The Midwest area USED to charge a $15 upgrade fee. That's been done away with for quite a while now.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on how upgrades with VZW work.

The only upgrade scenario where an upgrade fee is assessed is for an early upgrade(basically our version of an exception upgrade). In this case, yes, there is a $20 upgrade fee -- however, the customer is also getting the 2yr price on a phone, not the 1yr price.

In the event of a lost/stolen/damaged phone with no insurance, we can offer the 1 year price on a phone with a 1 year contract. No upgrade fee. If customer has more than a year remaining on their contract, nothing renews.

Secondary lines and lines below 34.99, after 20 months, get the 2yr sale price on new phones. No upgrade fees.

Primary FSP lines and single lines from 34.99-79.98 get the 2yr sale price, minus a $50 credit towards it after 20 months. No upgrade fees.

Primary FSP lines and single lines from 79.99+ get the 2yr sale price, minues a $100 credit after 20 months. No upgrade fees.

We do charge $10 for a phonebook transfer via cellebrite. However, we do also have the UME-36's now, so the customer also gets their pictures/videos/sounds transferred. Also, if enrolled in My Account, the customer gets backup assistant at no charge -- backs numbers up on the network, and redownloads onto new phone. Again, no charge or fees applicable.

Oh, and customers on plans 79.99 and above, after a few months on that plan, get enrolled in the merits/vip program. With that, the upgrade fee is waived on early upgrades, and the customer gets a $50 credit towards the 2yr price on an early upgrade. They also get free transfers via cellebrite, waived activation fees, 25/30% off of accessories, etc etc.

So, yeah, the upgrade fee is dumb.


According to the current m&p share lines and primary lines less than $39.99 do pay the $20 upgrade fee. This was the Midwest area m&p.



Posted by: classylady78

Quote:
Originally Posted by irockash
Maybe they just did away with upgrade advantage for indirect; pulled up an account yesterday that had been out of contract since 05 and no waived fee. I guess I could file this under the "AT&T's Genocide on Indirect" category...

Funny though, I haven't had anyone complain about the fee in a while, at least a year. I tell them about it before hand, and they just nod their heads. I think they know in the back of their minds they're getting screwed by the system, but its thought of like an atm fee or a convenience charge.


There are still some waived fees....the only old contracts I have seen waived upg fees for are TDMA phones..

I work for COR and I have seen customers out of contract since 2005 who had an upg fee. The waived upgrade fees I have seen are usually the main line on a family plan, or someone who has a really high revenue with a huge rate plan.

So it isn't just indirect....I think it just depends on the account.



Posted by: cingman66

Quote:
Originally Posted by classylady78
There are still some waived fees....the only old contracts I have seen waived upg fees for are TDMA phones..

I work for COR and I have seen customers out of contract since 2005 who had an upg fee. The waived upgrade fees I have seen are usually the main line on a family plan, or someone who has a really high revenue with a huge rate plan.

So it isn't just indirect....I think it just depends on the account.


I work for an Agent, and I agree completely...actually I wrote the same thing a few days ago...

"So it's the same way with AT&T...they will waive your upgrade fee if you are generating enough revenue, but will charge the fee if you are not. And it does not matter if you are out of contract or not, as a couple posters have said...it is purely based on revenue (with the exception of old Blue AT&T customers and Analog customers). The only time AT&T will waive the fee is if you generate a certain amount of revenue"

Too bad all AT&T channels are not as informed as the rest of us...it would make communicating policy to our customers a little easier.



Posted by: suicidal2af

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMac
According to the current m&p share lines and primary lines less than $39.99 do pay the $20 upgrade fee. This was the Midwest area m&p.


The area-specific M&P's no longer apply. Refer to the national M&P now -- part of the One VISION crap.



Posted by: OutPhase

http://consumerist.com/consumer/exc...-fee-321777.php

It's infecting!



Posted by: MrAlifEkin

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutPhase



HAHA one of the comments one guy left, mentions him leaving T-Mobile if they try and charge him that fee. Imagine his surprise when he ports over to AT&T and finds the same thing



Posted by: irockash



This isn't confidential or anything, I got a flyer in the mail (brothers line is under my name, its a regular account) with practically the same thing (except with colors).

Even with a lower rate plan, after a certain point the upgrade fee is waived. But recently I haven't been seeing this happen.



Posted by: cingman66

Well, I don't have a fancy chart or anything...but I can tell you from alot of first hand experience what the NE market does:

As of September (roughly)-
Regardless of total MRC, everyone is eligible to a standard 2-year upgrade after 17 months (assuming no other obstacles, like too many suspends, or a past due). AT&T will waive the upgrade fee if the total MRC is over @$75, and for all TDMA and old 'blue' customers.
I have seen some standard 2-year upgrades allowed after only 12 months if the MRC is over $99, with waived fees of course.
We also are allowed to do Exception Upgrades after 6 months of service...but are only paid commission if the MRC is over $59.99, and the fee is never waived.



Posted by: classylady78

Quote:
Originally Posted by cingman66
Well, I don't have a fancy chart or anything...but I can tell you from alot of first hand experience what the NE market does:

As of September (roughly)-
Regardless of total MRC, everyone is eligible to a standard 2-year upgrade after 17 months (assuming no other obstacles, like too many suspends, or a past due). AT&T will waive the upgrade fee if the total MRC is over @$75, and for all TDMA and old 'blue' customers.
I have seen some standard 2-year upgrades allowed after only 12 months if the MRC is over $99, with waived fees of course.
We also are allowed to do Exception Upgrades after 6 months of service...but are only paid commission if the MRC is over $59.99, and the fee is never waived.


That is about the same here in the Southeast.



Posted by: ivwshane

Quote:
Originally Posted by classylady78
That is about the same here in the Southeast.


Same here in the west, its part of at&t's upgrade advantage program.



Posted by: cingman66

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivwshane
Same here in the west, its part of at&t's upgrade advantage program.


Well, I'm glad to see some sort of uniformity at AT&T...too bad they can't bring that approach to all their departments.



Posted by: irockash

Are you guys at COR or indirect? I'm sure they're stuffing us like thanksgiving on the indirect side.





vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser