Always use a credit card. This puts more power in your hands.
Waste little time with the front line people. Politely request a
supervisor. If the supervisor refuses to help tell them that you plan to
dispute the charge. Remind them that it takes a lot more work on their
end than on yours. Tell them that when the company replies you will tell
them you disputed it because ________was unwilling to help.
Never accept "I can not do that". Tell them you believe they will not
do it but you know that they can. If they disagree ask what they would
do if their boss told them to do that.
If all else fails get the companies main number, not the toll free
customer service but corporate headquarters (yahoo finance usually has
that under "profile"). Ask for the executive offices or the legal
department. You will not get a CEO or senior v-p but you usually will
get someone whose job includes keeping problems away from upper management.
George Grapman wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html
>
>
> I have a simple way of disputing bills:
>
> Always use a credit card. This puts more power in your hands.
>
> Waste little time with the front line people. Politely request a
> supervisor. If the supervisor refuses to help tell them that you plan to
> dispute the charge. Remind them that it takes a lot more work on their
> end than on yours. Tell them that when the company replies you will tell
> them you disputed it because ________was unwilling to help.
>
> Never accept "I can not do that". Tell them you believe they will not
> do it but you know that they can. If they disagree ask what they would
> do if their boss told them to do that.
>
> If all else fails get the companies main number, not the toll free
> customer service but corporate headquarters (yahoo finance usually has
> that under "profile"). Ask for the executive offices or the legal
> department. You will not get a CEO or senior v-p but you usually will
> get someone whose job includes keeping problems away from upper management.
Never had any problems with AT&T until Cingular took over. Big difference
when AT&T was just AT&T with billing issues resolved quickly over the phone.
My experience with Cingular is you just go around and around and nothing
would be resolved even after they agree to it verbally. I just don't do
business with Cingular or Sprint. Wish the old AT&T were back though.
" Frank" <noreplay@nothome.net> wrote in message
news:YPqdne9LVusJ1LnVnZ2dnUVZ_v3inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ec44be4c-c79d-4ef8-bce5-0846bc01dfd9@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html
>
> Never had any problems with AT&T until Cingular took over. Big difference
> when AT&T was just AT&T with billing issues resolved quickly over the
> phone. My experience with Cingular is you just go around and around and
> nothing would be resolved even after they agree to it verbally. I just
> don't do business with Cingular or Sprint. Wish the old AT&T were back
> though.
>
Where have you been the past year? There is no Cingular anymore. ATT bought
them out. If you're getting lousy service you're getting it from ATT which
normally doesn't give 'lousy' service. Their service is usually
'abominable'.
Frank wrote:
> "Joe" <useful_infos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ec44be4c-c79d-4ef8-bce5-0846bc01dfd9@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/attwireless.html
>
> Never had any problems with AT&T until Cingular took over. Big difference
> when AT&T was just AT&T with billing issues resolved quickly over the phone.
> My experience with Cingular is you just go around and around and nothing
> would be resolved even after they agree to it verbally. I just don't do
> business with Cingular or Sprint. Wish the old AT&T were back though.
>
>
You haven't been keeping up. Cingular is gone and the remake of the
original AT&T (not the AT&T previous to cingular) is back. Here is a
helpful video:
A brandy new webpage devoted to a "wrong" committed four year before?
No offense, but while I don't put huge billing errors past companies like
this, I do think they have better ways of making money than outright fraud,
particularly when I've never seen anyone ELSE complain about "redated calls"
either on Usenet or HowardForums.
Unless this is a particular fraud they only committed on the web page
author?
Sorry- this story smells way too fishy- billing systems are all automated-
no one is "sneaking" extra calls to any one person's account, and it
concerns a company, frankly, that's no longer in business- the "AT&T
Wireless" complained about in the article (that had no relationship with
"AT&T" other than licensing the name) was bought by Cingular years ago. The
fact that Southwestern Bell (the owner of Cingular,) years later, also
bought AT&T (the long distance phone company) and renamed itself and it's
wireless company "AT&T" is essentially coincidence, and not the same company
our author is whining about.
Ironically, BTW, is there a reason you didn't add the AT&T or Cingular
newsgroups in your scattershot list? It would seem they have better need
for this "warning" than Sprint or Verizon customers. (Of course, there it'd
only generate a bunch of "funny, that's never happed to me" responses...)
At 09 May 2008 09:23:03 -0400 beadsbyirene wrote:
>
> Where have you been the past year? There is no Cingular anymore.
> ATT bought
> them out. If you're getting lousy service you're getting it from ATT
which
> normally doesn't give 'lousy' service. Their service is usually
> 'abominable'.
*Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC
(Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed themselves
and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
recognition.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:utaVj.37861$gB5.8129@fe105.usenetserver.com.. .
> At 09 May 2008 09:23:03 -0400 beadsbyirene wrote:
>>
>> Where have you been the past year? There is no Cingular anymore.
>> ATT bought
>> them out. If you're getting lousy service you're getting it from ATT
> which
>> normally doesn't give 'lousy' service. Their service is usually
>> 'abominable'.
>
>
> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC
> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed themselves
> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
> recognition.
Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
> > *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC
> > (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed
themselves
> > and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
> > recognition.
>
> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
Almost- SBC (now AT&T) bought BellSouth who owned 40% of Cingular (SBC
owned the other 60%.)
I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was always
a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T and BS, SBC
was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.
On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist>
wrote:
>>
>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC
>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed themselves
>> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
>> recognition.
>
>Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of
Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC
and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole
owner of Cingular.
>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular.
>>> Cingular's parent company, SBC (Southwestern Bell)
>>> bought (what was left of) AT&T,
>>> and renamed themselves and their "Cingular" wireless divison,
>>> to "AT&T" for the name-brand recognition.
And things then come full circle.
I started with AT&T Wireless,
which then became Cingular
and is now AT&T Mobility.
It's all to keep the sign-makers in business
to keep making new signs for the (remaining) stores :-)
>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
> Almost- SBC (now AT&T) bought BellSouth who owned 40% of Cingular
> (SBC owned the other 60%.)
> I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was always
> a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T and BS,
> SBC was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.
LDC wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist>
> wrote:
>
>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company, SBC
>>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed themselves
>>> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
>>> recognition.
>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
>
> That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of
> Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC
> and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole
> owner of Cingular.
Cingular was originally AT&T wireless. The name changed when it was
sold to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle except for
the fact that AT&T is AT&T in name only.
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:njjVj.81$hJ5.59@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> LDC wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company,
>>>> SBC
>>>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed
>>>> themselves
>>>> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
>>>> recognition.
>>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
>>
>> That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of
>> Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC
>> and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole
>> owner of Cingular.
>
>
> Cingular was originally AT&T wireless. The name changed when it was sold
> to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle except for the fact
> that AT&T is AT&T in name only.
Yup, in 20 years we've gone from "ATT" through seven baby bells right on
back to "att"....Karma I suppose....
I wonder how much the logo design firm was paid who told them go from all
CAPS to lower case?
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:CIhVj.156$PE5.66@fe087.usenetserver.com:
> I skipped that part for simplicity (and irrelevance.) Cingular was
> always a joint-venture between SBC and BS. After absorbing both AT&T
> and BS, SBC was free to rename Cingular to AT&T.
>
>
A tangled web we weave.....(c;
BTW, the correct reference achronym for BS is actually B$, at least in
South Carolina....
Bell$outh....
At 10 May 2008 08:37:56 -0700 George Grapman wrote:
> > That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of
> > Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC
> > and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole
> > owner of Cingular.
>
>
> Cingular was originally AT&T wireless.
No, it wasn't. "Cingular" was created by the consolidation of regional
wireless carriers SBMS (Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems), BellSouth
Mobility and PacTel. AT&T Wireless was a separate wireless company that
existed contemporaneously with those regional carriers and was once owned by,
then spun off of AT&T (the long distance company leftover from the Ma Bell
breakup) long before Cingular acquired it.
> The name changed when it
> was sold to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle
> except for the fact that AT&T is AT&T in name only.
Kinda sorta- Cingular was created as a seperate company owned by SBC (60%)
and BellSouth (40%.) Cingular bought AT&T Wireless (which was no longer
part of AT&T, but had a license to use the AT&T name, which expired when
Cingular bought them.)
When SBC later bought AT&T (the long distance company) they renamed
themselves AT&T, but didn't rename Cingular, due to BellSouth's objection.
When SBC (now calling themselves AT&T) bought BellSouth a year later, that
eliminated the objection to rename Cingular "AT&T Mobility."
Ironically, the old AT&T Wireless (which Cingular bought) was only months
away from having to rename themselves- their two-year license to use the
name AT&T was about to expire, and AT&T (the LD company) was about to
launch their own new wireless service as a Sprint MVNO (Mobile Virtual
Network Operator.) SBC's purchase of AT&T scuttled that deal.
>Ironically, BTW, is there a reason you didn't add the AT&T or Cingular
>newsgroups in your scattershot list? It would seem they have better need
>for this "warning" than Sprint or Verizon customers. (Of course, there it'd
>only generate a bunch of "funny, that's never happed to me" responses...)
>
For younger readers who might not perhaps be aware of the history, the
name AT&T is an attempt to invoke the feelings of quality,
reliability, and high standards of telephone service that existed
since before 1900 and lasted well into the 1970's before the big
break-up. The AT&T Corporation provided something like 80 to 90% of
the local telephone service in this USA and near 100% of the long
distance service.
Everyone from the operators to the local installers were long-term
experienced employees rigidly drilled in providing good customer
service. It was a bureaucracy to be sure, but the people sure did
know their stuff.
These new AT&T companies exist as AT&T in name only. I've found that
many of the service people at AT&T Wireless don't even know how to
work the features on their own cell phones.
On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:27:54 GMT, Beachcomber wrote:
> For younger readers who might not perhaps be aware of the history, the
> name AT&T is an attempt to invoke the feelings of quality,
> reliability, and high standards of telephone service that existed
> since before 1900 and lasted well into the 1970's before the big
> break-up. The AT&T Corporation provided something like 80 to 90% of
> the local telephone service in this USA and near 100% of the long
> distance service.
>
> Everyone from the operators to the local installers were long-term
> experienced employees rigidly drilled in providing good customer
> service. It was a bureaucracy to be sure, but the people sure did
> know their stuff.
>
> These new AT&T companies exist as AT&T in name only. I've found that
> many of the service people at AT&T Wireless don't even know how to
> work the features on their own cell phones.
I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of
college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and built
was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones
used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built
like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant.
Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began. Cheap
imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing service quality
degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on both the hardware and
customer support side. We all know the state of the landline telephone
service today. No wonder most young people don't even get a landline
phone, what with the costs of owning one. Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes,
and charges for options like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for
free.
FWIW, the only landline phone I have is for my business. The main house
phone is VOIP, and my family uses cell phones for other calls.
CellGuy wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:27:54 GMT, Beachcomber wrote:
>
>> For younger readers who might not perhaps be aware of the history, the
>> name AT&T is an attempt to invoke the feelings of quality,
>> reliability, and high standards of telephone service that existed
>> since before 1900 and lasted well into the 1970's before the big
>> break-up. The AT&T Corporation provided something like 80 to 90% of
>> the local telephone service in this USA and near 100% of the long
>> distance service.
>>
>> Everyone from the operators to the local installers were long-term
>> experienced employees rigidly drilled in providing good customer
>> service. It was a bureaucracy to be sure, but the people sure did
>> know their stuff.
>>
>> These new AT&T companies exist as AT&T in name only. I've found that
>> many of the service people at AT&T Wireless don't even know how to
>> work the features on their own cell phones.
>
> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of
> college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and built
> was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones
> used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built
> like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant.
They were built to last because in most cases the phone company owned
them and had to replace/repair them.
>
> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began. Cheap
> imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing service quality
> degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on both the hardware and
> customer support side. We all know the state of the landline telephone
> service today. No wonder most young people don't even get a landline
> phone, what with the costs of owning one. Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes,
> and charges for options like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for
> free.
What many people do not understand is how that anti-trust case
changed. Originally,under Carter, the plan was to separate the
manufacturing and the dial tones. AT&T controlled most of the local
telcos and overcharged them and the telcos simply passed those costs on
to the customers.
The Reagan Justice Department altered the case to have AT&T spin off
the local carriers.
There have been some advantages. When I first moved west I would look
at my clock before making a long distance call as rates dropped at 5
p.m. and again at 11.I made most of my non-business calls on weekends.
I used to be in the phone card business ands,of course, at one time
the only cards were AT&T.
What has not changed is on the local end business customers subsidize
residential users.
>
> FWIW, the only landline phone I have is for my business. The main house
> phone is VOIP, and my family uses cell phones for other calls.
>
CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote in
news:17cmnlmmahub8.1tb7ygjt7qjql.dlg@40tude.net:
> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out
> of college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed
> and built was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The
> Bell telephones used at home and in phone booths also met this
> standard. They were built like a brick. Service was great, and call
> clarity was excellant.
>
> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began.
> Cheap imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing
> service quality degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on
> both the hardware and customer support side. We all know the state
> of the landline telephone service today. No wonder most young people
> don't even get a landline phone, what with the costs of owning one.
> Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes, and charges for options like
> voicemail that cellular carriers offer for free.
>
How'd you get an engineering degree without learning how to spell?
What university was that, anyways?
George Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in news:eoYVj.3501$3O7.3272
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:
> There have been some advantages. When I first moved west I would
look
> at my clock before making a long distance call as rates dropped at 5
> p.m. and again at 11.I made most of my non-business calls on weekends.
> I used to be in the phone card business ands,of course, at one time
> the only cards were AT&T.
>
The Bells did everything they could to prevent ham radio operators from
connecting their ham radios to the phone system. Then, when that didn't
work, they got with their FCC buddies to make sure most any call was
against FCC regulations. It's still that way, even today.
Back in the days you're talking about, we'd make a collect, person-to-
person, long distance call to Mr Melvin Schultz to the ham's house phone
we wanted to get on our favorite 75 meter frequency, 3903 Khz. Melvin,
of course, didn't exist and was never home to take the call, and the Bell
operator terminated the call, but not before alerting the ham the call
was to that someone wanted him on the air.
Sometimes, this scam backfired. Someone would call you and forget to
make it COLLECT so YOU'd have to pay if you accepted. The usual response
to those not-collect calls was, "This is Melvin Schultz, who's that
calling? Hello? Hello?".....which would cost the caller about $5/second
for the person-to-person long distance scam, operator-assisted (Miss
Tomlin of the Telephone Company) call. Of course, the joke would be all
over 3903 Khz most of the night ribbing the caller for the faux
pas...until something else diverted their attention or they were too
drunk to talk any more...(c;
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote
> CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote
>> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right
>> out of college and can support this statement. All equiment we
>> designed and built was to meet an operating life of 20 years
>> minimum. The Bell telephones used at home and in phone booths also
>> met this standard. They were built like a brick. Service was
>> great, and call clarity was excellant.
>> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began.
>> Cheap imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing
>> service quality degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on
>> both the hardware and customer support side. We all know the state
>> of the landline telephone service today. No wonder most young
>> people don't even get a landline phone, what with the costs of
>> owning one. Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes, and charges for options
>> like voicemail that cellular carriers offer for free.
> How'd you get an engineering degree without learning how to spell?
Plenty of engineers cant spell for nuts. Me included.
> What university was that, anyways?
> Didn't anyone at Bell Labs notice??
Anyone with a clue has always noticed that with engineers.
Larry wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in news:68sib8F2tdhobU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> Anyone with a clue has always noticed that with engineers.
>>
>>
>
> Someone musta proofread Bill Shockley's papers.....(c;
>
It wouldn't surprise me. Using a preefrooder is the smart thing to do;
particularly if you are an engineer!
Of course Word checks both spelling and grammar. Go Engineers!!!!
> CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote in
> news:17cmnlmmahub8.1tb7ygjt7qjql.dlg@40tude.net:
>
>> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out
>> of college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed
>> and built was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The
>> Bell telephones used at home and in phone booths also met this
>> standard. They were built like a brick. Service was great, and call
>> clarity was excellant.
>>
>> Then our government broke up AT&T, and the downhill slide began.
>> Cheap imported phones were allowed on your home lines, introducing
>> service quality degradation. Competition spurned cost cutting on
>> both the hardware and customer support side. We all know the state
>> of the landline telephone service today. No wonder most young people
>> don't even get a landline phone, what with the costs of owning one.
>> Nuiscence charges, stupid taxes, and charges for options like
>> voicemail that cellular carriers offer for free.
>>
>
> How'd you get an engineering degree without learning how to spell?
> What university was that, anyways?
>
"Equiment" was a typo and I have been known to misspell "excellent"
University of South Carolina? <G>.
> Didn't anyone at Bell Labs notice??
No, we were all too busy figuring out ways to screw our customers.
>
> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of
> college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and
> built
> was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones
> used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built
> like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant.
>
And right now, I use a VOIP provider which more or less is accross the
street from Bell Labs and its Vonage. I grew up a 20-30 min bicycle ride
from Bell Labs Holmdel.
Michael N. Paris wrote:
>
>>
>> I worked as an engineer with Bell Labs (the R&D arm of AT&T) right out of
>> college and can support this statement. All equiment we designed and
>> built
>> was to meet an operating life of 20 years minimum. The Bell telephones
>> used at home and in phone booths also met this standard. They were built
>> like a brick. Service was great, and call clarity was excellant.
>>
>
> And right now, I use a VOIP provider which more or less is accross the
> street from Bell Labs and its Vonage. I grew up a 20-30 min bicycle
> ride from Bell Labs Holmdel.
Isn't there a discussion and what to use the Holmdel facility for?
One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem you
called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring or
outside they fixed it.
On May 10, 11:38 am, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist> wrote:
> "George Grapman" <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:njjVj.81$hJ5.59@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > LDC wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:22:45 -0400, "Pangloss" <optimist@pessimist>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> *Sigh* AT&T did NOT "buy out" Cingular. Cingular's parent company,
> >>>> SBC
> >>>> (Southwestern Bell) bought (what was left of) AT&T,and renamed
> >>>> themselves
> >>>> and their "Cingular" wireless divison, to "AT&T" for the name-brand
> >>>> recognition.
> >>> Actually they bought BellSouth which owned Cingular...
>
> >> That is partially correct but misleading. SBC was an owner of
> >> Cingular since its inception. It was a joint venture between SBC
> >> and Bell South. When SBC bought Bell South they became the sole
> >> owner of Cingular.
>
> > Cingular was originally AT&T wireless. The name changed when it was sold
> > to SBC and Bell South and we have now come full circle except for the fact
> > that AT&T is AT&T in name only.
>
> Yup, in 20 years we've gone from "ATT" through seven baby bells right on
> back to "att"....Karma I suppose....
>
> I wonder how much the logo design firm was paid who told them go from all
> CAPS to lower case?
Except now the HQ is in Texas, and we all know how well Texans can
manage large organizations...hint $4 gas...JG
At 14 May 2008 14:32:30 -0700 William Souden wrote:
> One nice thing about those days was when you had a phone problem
> you called 611 and regardless of whether it was the phone,inside wiring
> or outside they fixed it.
True. But then again, with what we used to pay, we should've each had our
own personal repairman on standby.
A bad experience dealing with AT&T Wireless 
Linear Mode
