On March 7th I bought a cell phone and calling plan from ATT over their Web site. Even though I provided my Zip Code and physical location, they sent me a "GSM" mobile phone and "GSM" calling plan that will not work properly where I live.
I thought I had bought a digital phone, but that was not true. I complained immediately to ATT that the signal was weak, so they sent me a replacement phone, and charged me $9.99 for shipping and handling. This phone also did not work well. Sometimes the phone works; other times it does not work at all; mostly, it just works poorly.
Finally, after 4 and 1/2 months, an ATT rep told me that I have the wrong phone, and that in my area I should have a "digital" phone. I talked to 3 ATT reps over the phone and 2 more ATT technicians at local ATT retail stores, and they all said I should have a digital phone, or a phone that is both digital and GSM. I was also told that the GSM system works very well in Europe, but, sadly, I happen to live in Southern California and don't plan on moving to Europe in the foreseeable future.
One ATT rep advised me to buy 1 of 2 phones that might work better, although she would not guarantee that it would work completely. She said that there should be some improvement. I would have to buy either a Seimens phone or an Ericsson phone, at $99.99 or $149.00, plus shipping and 8.25% sales tax, in order to see if I would experience any improvement.
In the meantime, I talked with many other people who live in my area, and many stores that sell cell phones and calling plans here, and they all said that ATT phones and plans do not work very well here because of the valleys and mountains, and because ATT does not have enough transmission equipment and facilities in this area. I think that ATT should not have sold me this phone and plan, knowing where I live and that the phone and plan will not work well here. ATT is the expert in these matters, and not me.
Now, the ATT reps tell me that I am stuck with this plan for two years, or else that I have to pay a $175 "early termination Fee" to get out of it. I don't think this is fair. This goes against Public Policy and also violates California's law of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, which states that a product should be suited for the purpose for which it is intended.
This phone and calling plan are not useful. The ATT rep said that I have "30-days" to cancel, but that is not fair or adaqate to test the system. They should have known that they were selling me a worthless system and have indicated that, or suggested something else, or a different company.
I am not paying the $175 and I feel that I am justified. This is just tyranny and am abuse of power.
0 comments