My summary along with their formal responses to me can be forwarded to anybody who would like a copy by emailing me at email@example.com.
Mr Charmaine Ansley contacted me from AT&T office of the president. Mr Ansley provided me with three options: Option 1 was for me to pay for two phones in full; approx.
$2,000. (I declined this due to receiving a BOGO offer and the second phone was free). Option 2 was to pay over $130.00 a month for phone service in the US while I am currently stationed overseas on active duty, and they would allow me to continue paying the phone installments (I declined this for very obvious reasons). Option 3 was that I would recieve packing slips and return the devices ( I chose this because I have no intention of continuing as a customer with ATT.).
You are probably asking yourself how I'm in this situation to begin with.
The process was very simple; it went like this: I returned home from Korea after 14 months and had my service turned back on as I was driving home from the airport. During which time I stopped into AT&T and was hastily reviewing available choices for upgrades, foolishly expecting a non-predatory environment in which I could quickly upgrade my 5 year old phone and be on my way without any problems. I stated that I was very limited on time and that I had to leave the country for another tour of duty, prompting employees to be immediately confused but still green-lighting the whole transaction. Not once did any employee, including later at the corporate store, raise any red flags regarding the transaction.
In the store they told me that I had to go online to request the phones be unlocked so they could be used overseas. After taking possession of the devices I went online and this begins the severe inconvenience.
The website stated that the devices cannot be unlocked. Within one day (after 3 days of ownership) I found the corporate store and I attempted to quickly return the devices. I did not care about anything besides trying desperately to spend time at home where I was supposed to be relaxing for once.
I foresaw that their poorly designed system would exceed my allowance of time visiting my family between overseas commands, and I did not want to waste it dealing with a cell phone store. I felt that their corporate store was so confused at how the program's design could so easily exclude a true servicemember in a tough spot, so they worked to help me. They asked me to hold onto the devices and be patient, and they would help me. They got my main phone unlocked within one business day, even though the "military support team," and customer service informed me it was not possible.
At that point I was sure they were just going to honor their documented corporate advertisements regarding the unique demands of military service, and even their employee-backed advice. I was mistaken.
There was no policy or program offered to me at ANY TIME that included the continuation of the advertised agreement. I did not ask for anything besides to pay for my devices in installments as agreed upon. I was never briefed on the fact they waive certain military personnel's phone costs entirely.
So, I was not looking for anything but to pay for my devices and place my service on hold while I completed my agreed upon obligation to my country.
No matter what they state in addition to my post here, do not believe it. AT&T is targeting Active Duty U.S. Military. Mr Ansley was informed that I had only approximately 2.5 weeks in the US between different overseas commands and he stated that his employees just simply do not get adequate training that would facilitate a simple interpretation and implementation of their "military support" program.
ATT relies upon Heidi from the "military support team," after you have already gotten devices and completed all contracts, to retroactively modify the agreement and demand a different agreement be adhered to simply based upon affiliation with the demand of active duty military service. Her comments I can forward you show that she is clearly targeting overseas servicemembers and demanding full payment for devices, then threatening us with financial hardship, and all justified by the misinterpretation of the SCRA. They believe that the SCRA entitles them to assert rights to cancel contracts and demand money, but actually servicemembers have the rights to choose that under certain circumstances.
I have served for 18 years. After searching online I am very ashamed to see that AT&T has been harming many of my fellow servicemembers for years.
I could not find anything negative about Verizon's treatment of us.
I told AT&T that when they provide me with 100% compensation for my cases and screen protectors, and activation and hidden costs, totaling approximately $700.00 they would recieve their brand new devices.
This situation actually now falls under SCRA for me because it is now considered steps towards mediation or arbitration taken after I have deployed. They cannot take any legal action because it will simply be voided once the judge see that I am currently serving overseas on active duty and unable to attend litigation.
Which means they will exhaust their effort to properly address my financial damages, and facilitate the exchange of the devices for my compensation, or the devices will sit in a box and slowly become worthless until the completion of my deployment, at which time the litigation can begin and I will likely get compensated for being a victim of their predatory business practice and failed employee training program.
Reason of review: Not as described/ advertised.
Monetary Loss: $700.
Preferred solution: Full refund.
ATT Pros: Were my current service provider.
ATT Cons: Targeted me because i am military.