Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

l008com · Nov 18, 2011, 01:05 AM

So I cancelled my cell service with AT&T on November 8th. They informed me that I would be paying for service until December 4th. Apparently this is very common with all cell providers. So here's my question: why right do they have to demand payment from me?
My contract expired a year ago.
I notified them on the 8th that I'm canceling my service.
My number was ported on the 8th, so my old phone has had NO service.
How am I obligated to keep paying for this service that I'm not getting, after canceling that service? I'll be getting a one last bill after my current bill that will be from nov 4th through dec 4th.

BLAZE_MkIV · Nov 18, 2011, 08:23 AM

Why do doctors get to charge you for an hour if they only read your xray? t least with att there's a contract that states it's by the month.

Spheric Harlot · Nov 18, 2011, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by l008com

So I cancelled my cell service with AT&T on November 8th. They informed me that I would be paying for service until December 4th. Apparently this is very common with all cell providers. So here's my question: why right do they have to demand payment from me?
My contract expired a year ago.
I notified them on the 8th that I'm canceling my service.
My number was ported on the 8th, so my old phone has had NO service.
How am I obligated to keep paying for this service that I'm not getting, after canceling that service? I'll be getting a one last bill after my current bill that will be from nov 4th through dec 4th.

You're not familiar with the concept of contracts coming with a minimum time of notice for cancellation?

One month is actually extremely short. It allows virtually no financial planning on the side of the party receiving the money.

Telekoms over here have three to six months' termination notice. The shorter the time, the more expensive the contract.

Waragainstsleep · Nov 18, 2011, 09:37 AM

In the UK, carriers aren't even required to actually provide you any service in the first place. Learned after complaining to Orange after months of getting voicemails and missed calls despite good signal strength and learning that their local tower was faulty, they knew it was faulty and had no plans to fix it quickly.

Spheric Harlot · Nov 18, 2011, 09:59 AM

^ That's grounds for immediate contract termination, though. They are unable to fulfill their end of the contract.

Nov 18, 2011, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by l008com

So I cancelled my cell service with AT&T on November 8th. They informed me that I would be paying for service until December 4th. Apparently this is very common with all cell providers. So here's my question: why right do they have to demand payment from me?
My contract expired a year ago.
I notified them on the 8th that I'm canceling my service.
My number was ported on the 8th, so my old phone has had NO service.
How am I obligated to keep paying for this service that I'm not getting, after canceling that service? I'll be getting a one last bill after my current bill that will be from nov 4th through dec 4th.

Why can't I buy a handful of popcorn at the movie theatre instead of a whole bag?
Why can't I buy 4 eggs at the grocery store?

Because your provider sells service in month units.

l008com · Dec 4, 2011, 01:26 PM

Your analogies don't hold water in my book, because a month is a VERY long time. If it was a week, that would be one thing. The idea that a company with millions of customers can't cancel service ON THE SPOT is somewhat reasonable. But the idea that they keep billing you for a month. That's just them scamming you for money, any way you slice it.

But, I filed an FCC complaint because billing for service your not providing is such a scam, and it looks like it actually worked. I've been getting voice mails from someone who claims to be high up at AT&T, and it appears that they have prorated my final bill. Although I haven't gotten the final bill yet. I also can't even log into my account online to see my full bill and account activity. But I may have won after all!

Spheric Harlot · Dec 4, 2011, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by l008com

Your analogies don't hold water in my book, because a month is a VERY long time.

You don't run a multi-million dollar business, apparently.

A month is NOTHING in financial planning.

boy8cookie · Dec 4, 2011, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

You don't run a multi-million dollar business, apparently.

A month is NOTHING in financial planning.

A month's worth of cell phone bill is similarly "NOTHING" to a multi-million dollar business.

Spheric Harlot · 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by boy8cookie

A month's worth of cell phone bill is similarly "NOTHING" to a multi-million dollar business.

No, I realized that when I wrote it.

Millions of customers' one-month's worth of cell phone bills are definitely not "NOTHING", but rather, a safety net.

However, having ZERO notice to adjust to sudden changes in income (say, some unexpected occurrence leads to a customer exodus or whatever) makes for rather difficult dealings with banks, which, I gather, is fairly crucial to running a business, especially a large one.

What I don't understand is how contract termination deadlines are a new or complicated subject? I mean, there's at least one month's notice (three or six in some cases) on ANY contract here in Germany—phone, gas, electricity, water, rent, etc.

Is this concept just not widespread in the U.S.? (I realize that job protection laws are very different in the U.S. from here, but for everything else, as well?)

The Godfather · Dec 4, 2011, 04:19 PM

Why are you people signing contracts if the no-contract cellphone price is a less pain than your horror stories?

Wiskedjak · Dec 4, 2011, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Why are you people signing contracts if the no-contract cellphone price is a less pain than your horror stories?

This. I haven't been under a cellular contract for over 4 years, and I'll never again sign a cellular contract.

exca1ibur · Dec 4, 2011, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Why are you people signing contracts if the no-contract cellphone price is a less pain than your horror stories?

Because carriers give most a bullshit story of the phone costing $800 upfront if there is no contract, and the general public believe it. Most people don't have that much upfront to dump on a phone, add in fees and activation you are looking at probably close to $1000.

Another rip off is if you buy the phone on contract for this "discount"... they still charge you the taxes of the "full price" of the phone costing ~$800.

iPhone 4S for example:

$199 + taxes of $650

(In California that is a difference of $20 vs $65 in taxes)

This should be illegal, and I still have gotten no valid reason from them other than they do it too.

Spheric Harlot · Dec 4, 2011, 04:55 PM

You're talking about sales tax?

The way subsidized phone work here is that you're technically paying for the phone, but anything beyond the initial flat charge is financed over the two year contract.

How does financing a car or a fridge work in the US? Don't you pay sales tax over the entire amount there, as well, regardless of down payment?

Wiskedjak · Dec 4, 2011, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

You're talking about sales tax?

The way subsidized phone work here is that you're technically paying for the phone, but anything beyond the initial flat charge is financed over the two year contract.

How does financing a car or a fridge work in the US? Don't you pay sales tax over the entire amount there, as well, regardless of down payment?

I think this is the result of a massive misconception with respect to the actual price of cell phone; most people seem to think that the actual price of an iPhone is $200, not realizing that the $200 is really just a downpayment, with the rest of the cost being spread out and buried in a 2 year contract.

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 4, 2011, 08:12 PM

OP, I'm with you 100%. ATT isn't living hand to mouth and neither are any other cell phone providers, so there's no grounds for them to claim they can't react because their bills wouldn't get paid. I don't have a cell contract, but I've definitely been pro-rated on similar services every single time it's come up, and the issue wasn't even mentioned, they just did it. For land line, electricity, cable internet, cable tv, several kinds of insurance, the billing changes are all day-accurate. I actually asked my auto insurance company if there was a termination fee or delay period, and she said "that would be illegal" in a shocked tone.

I'm not casting doubt that this "fair warning fee" is done in other countries, but it's certainly not the norm in my US-based experience (given that you said you're off your contract already).

imitchellg5 · Dec 4, 2011, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Why are you people signing contracts if the no-contract cellphone price is a less pain than your horror stories?

Why aren't you people reading the OP? He said he's out of contract...

l008com · Dec 4, 2011, 08:45 PM

Correct. I'm out of contract. Otherwise, the spare month of service I was originally going to be paying for, would have been overshadowed by the huge cancellation fee anyway.

Eriamjh · Dec 4, 2011, 10:18 PM

Most companies pro-rate any monthly service once cancelled. If you aren't getting the service (they aren't providing it) they can't really bill you for it, can they? Isn't that the foundation of paying for services?

It may or may not be worth the trouble of refusing to pay (especially if they send it to collection then you get hassled for the $100 or so).

Spheric Harlot · Dec 5, 2011, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Why aren't you people reading the OP? He said he's out of contract...

No, he's not. If he didn't have a contract, he wouldn't have service, as nobody would be obligated to provide it.

He's paying money, and somebody is providing cellular network access, so there is some sort of contract happening.

What expired is the minimum contract length. All contracts here have clauses that automatically extend service beyond that time, unless cancelled (at a set advance notice). Or else, services would simply cease on the day of "expiration".

ghporter · Dec 5, 2011, 07:56 AM

Month-to-month is a kind of contract, but not the kind most of us in the States think of as a contract. Here, most of us figure "contract" means "discounts for a fixed period of service. So the OP's "discount/service period" contract expired a year ago, but as part of any such contract there's a clause that says if you don't renew, you go month-to-month once that period ends. And part of that clause in an AT&T contract is that when you go past the day of the month that starts your billing cycle, you are in a new month and have to pay for that month.

In my experience, the folks at AT&T stores are very happy to help even former customers, and I'd expect them to pro-rate the service charge in light of the fact that the phone number is now served by another carrier. But you have to go to see them to find out, and I don't think that's occurred to the OP.

Doofy · Dec 5, 2011, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

Telekoms over here have three to six months' termination notice.

I don't have much use for a cell phone, so am on pre-paid. However, I seem to remember that contract termination here requires 12 months' notice (or at least used to).

Dec 5, 2011, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by l008com

Your analogies don't hold water in my book, because a month is a VERY long time. If it was a week, that would be one thing.

Why a week? Why not a day, a minute, a second? What you consider a VERY long time is completely arbitrary. What do the terms of service say? When you signed up, did they say they'd charge to the week or day after your contract ran out? If not, then you're out of luck.

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 5, 2011, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by hayesk

Why a week? Why not a day, a minute, a second? What you consider a VERY long time is completely arbitrary. What do the terms of service say? When you signed up, did they say they'd charge to the week or day after your contract ran out? If not, then you're out of luck.

Why not a year? Why not a century?

If we were talking about service instead of billing, you would never argue that expectation of reaction time was arbitrary. If you called about a service outage and they took a month to fix it when they could easily have done it in a day, there would be hell to pay. Billing should be easier than that, not harder.

Dork. · Dec 5, 2011, 03:19 PM

Even though you may cancel a month-to-month arrangement in the middle of a billing cycle, it's not uncommon at all for the company providing service to say that "Month to Month" means that you pay for a full month / billing cycle at a time. You may have just terminated your service four days into the billing cycle, meaning most of that cycle was useless to you. Still, the will say you still owe them for the complete billing cycle, and will not pro-rate it for the amount you actually used.

When did you start the porting process? If it took a few days due to unforeseen problems, and that just happened to push you over your billing cycle, then you may have a valid FCC complaint.

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 5, 2011, 03:42 PM

Similar story:

Red Tape - FCC: Sprint can be judge and jury

OldManMac · Dec 5, 2011, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

Because carriers give most a bullshit story of the phone costing $800 upfront if there is no contract, and the general public believe it. Most people don't have that much upfront to dump on a phone, add in fees and activation you are looking at probably close to $1000.

Another rip off is if you buy the phone on contract for this "discount"... they still charge you the taxes of the "full price" of the phone costing ~$800.

iPhone 4S for example:

$199 + taxes of $650

(In California that is a difference of $20 vs $65 in taxes)

This should be illegal, and I still have gotten no valid reason from them other than they do it too.

That may be the was it is in CA, but it's not in MI. You get charged sales tax of the phone at the discounted price. $199 + 6% = $210.94

Doofy · Dec 5, 2011, 05:27 PM

^^ iPhone here, without a contract (only way to buy them IIRC), is about $800.

Eriamjh · Dec 5, 2011, 06:56 PM

Pro-rating is not done on a daily basis at the end, but is monthly like the billing. Seems reasonable.

Take heed when switching to get the most for your money.

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 5, 2011, 07:27 PM

That's not reasonable.

exca1ibur · Dec 5, 2011, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

That may be the was it is in CA, but it's not in MI. You get charged sales tax of the phone at the discounted price. $199 + 6% = $210.94

That is the way they do it for the major carriers here. What you state is EXACTY what I'd expect, like every other product I buy at discount.

l008com · Dec 5, 2011, 08:21 PM

I got a check in the mail today from AT&T. Looks like filing an FCC complaint isn't useless after all. I'm still not sure where I stand here. If my next AT&T bill only has 4 days on it, then by my math, AT&T has actually overpaid me with this check. Again, I can't log into their website any more to see so I'll have to wait for that bill to arrive and maybe then I'll know more.