My husband and I changed to AT&T's bundled package after merger with Bell South. We were unable to stay connected through thier DSL. Their repairman stated that there must be a problem with the computer; however, we found this hard to believe since we have 2 computers and both were having the same problems. We did not have the problem prior to changing to AT&T and when we were with Time Warner. Just to confirm, though, we took both computers (two times) to an expert to have them checked. Both worked properly in his business but started same problem when gotten back home and hooked back up to AT&T. AT&T not only billed us for DSL that would not stay connected but also billed us for the last service call that still did not correct the problem (they still said it was our computers). Like another of your complaintants, AT&T turned our bill over to a lawyer (Gregory Barro of Louisiana) who wrote us demanding payment. I called his office and voiced my complaint.in addition, I followed up with a letter about the conversation and reitterating the problem. I noted that we were not going to pay for a service that AT&T was unable to provide or fix. I got a letter back from Barro stating that contact with AT&T verified the amount owed and that we are responsible for paying it.in addition, AT&T led us to believe that we had bought a bundled package that would be billed through AT&T. Well, we got a separate bill from Direct TV and extra charges. When we changed back to Time Warner, Direct TV charged us for disconnection. We requested a detailed billing showing that amount was for disconnection because Time Warner agreed to pay any disconnection fee incurred through AT&T as part of their promotion. To date, we have not gotten such a verification from Direct or from AT&T. I would like to file a class action suit, especially since I see others on your site who have the same type of billing problems and connectivity problems. If anyone could help me do this, I would be most greatful. This corporate giant and its high-powered attorney cannot continue to take advantage of the "little people", particularly when they could not provide the service. As far as we are concerned, AT&T voided the contract when they could not provide the service advertised and when they falsely advertised bundled services implying that they would be billed through AT&T.
0 comments