Yesterday’s mail brought a thick packet—by priority mail, so I know the entire mailing cost a bundle—from National Shareholders Relations, which would like me to proxy-vote my 91 shares of AT&T stock at the corporation’s upcoming annual meeting. Concerning my faith in everyone involved in this matter, I would probably trust more anyone who was booked into the county jail last night.
Four years ago, on the recommendation of Malcolm Berko whose weekly investment column in the newspaper business section has picked many a winner over the years, I sunk $2000 into AT&T, which Berko said was a good long-term bet and undervalued at the time. Within a year or two its share price climbed from $32, when I bought it, to $66. I was quite pleased to double my money (at $64 I wanted my broker to sell half and buy something else to diversify, which he talked me out of—but that’s another story). Then, AT&T famously did something disastrous having to do with cable TV, and I’ve watched my money evaporate as the stock atrophied. Last year’s $44 looked bad enough, but for months now it has languished around $18-20. Rallys to $21 look exciting these days. I wonder, therefore, at the wisdom of AT&T paying double or more the postage to court the confidence of us shareholders. Who is desperate to do what?
But the situation is more galling yet.
In most years I take such packets of gaudy public relations poof and obfuscating legalese directly to the trash. But yesterday I plopped the expensive bundle of text onto my desk, right on top of the little mess of AT&T long-distance bills and the notice from the collection agency (English on one side, Spanish on the other—”El deseo de nuestro cliente es resolver este problema”) to whom AT&T has referred my delinquent balance of $25.97.
This little imbroglio began in December when AT&T sent me a long-distance bill for $25.59 for one 3-minute call, allegedly placed at 5:15 p.m. the day after Thanksgiving, to Vanuatu. Before I called to explain that we’d transferred our long-distance service to Sprint some months earlier and this was obviously a mistake, I looked up Vanuatu in the dictionary. Vanuatu is the tiny series of dots in the ocean just northeast of Australia, formerly known as New Hebrides.
The AT&T rep who answered my call in December (and thus probably earns—what, $6-8 an hour?) surprised me by knowing exactly what and where Vanuatu is. She surprised me further by explaining that having cancelled long-distance service with AT&T would not prevent this bill. “Sir, do you have internet?” she asked. Although I craftily steered away from admitting that, yes, I do “have internet,” she went on to explain that certain “adult content” sites operate out of Vanuatu and they route all their calls through AT&T, regardless of a consumer’s normal long-distance provider. Still, I assured her that no one in my household would patronize such sites and that I would not be paying this bill.
She, in return, assured me that AT&T’s billing apparatus is very reliable and that someone in my household did “physically place that call” on the day in question, and that she had no authorization to remove the charge in any case.
“Fine,” I said, “What is your name, and who is your supervisor?—get that person on the line.” The supervisor helped me no more than a parrot sitting behind the first rep. might have. And after about 15 minutes of explanations and reiterations from both sides, my temperature finally began to rise and my patience to subside. “Look,” I told the supervisor, “I don’t care if you’re authorized to handle this or not” (although, it occurred to me that if she was not, why was AT&T authorizing
her to waste my time?)—”you tell whoever IS authorized, that no one in my house is responsible for this charge, I will not pay this bill, and furthermore, if this incident affects my credit rating I will be very upset.” I could have sworn that in the moment before I slammed down my receiver she said, “I’ll take care of it.” So I assumed the matter had been laid to rest.
And then I began to wonder. I got into my seventeen-year-old son David’s computer and pulled up the history files in his internet browser for Friday, November 24th, and guess what he was momentarily logged onto that afternoon? Slutpost.com.
Had the internet’s porn explosion come about when I was seventeen, I might have considered it evidence of a benevolent god; so I could hardly begrudge David this transgression, apart from the cost. I scanned the files that revealed his other internet activities and found that, apart from that one Vanuatu moment, they had to do with sports, paintball, video games, and Napster.
When David got home I asked him about Slutpost.com. Where I expected him to act sheepish, he was all consternation instead. It turns out that on November 24th he received email from a friend, which he says the friend also received unbidden, suggesting that he “check out this great joke I found.” (Maybe it really suggested he check out some hot babes, but again, I was seventeen once—I understand.) When he clicked on the link, a quick and baffling series of electronic events resulted in an audible dialing of the phone. “Dad,” my son told me, “as soon as that happened I looked for some way to exit out of it, and I couldn’t do it.” I know my son well enough to know that this was the truth. I told him that I wasn’t about to police him on porn, but that he must understand that it conveys lousy and preposterous fantasies about females who crave wanton sex constantly, and that it’s often attended by hidden charges.
I thought the matter was settled, until sometime in January when another bill arrived. I disposed of it. In February another arrived, and one day while I was out my wife took a nasty call from AT&T, and she told me to do something about this affair. But I would sooner set fire to $25.59 than pay AT&T to sanction this scam.
So I got into my trusty online search engine, Google.com, and searched the internet on the two words”AT&T Vanuatu.” What I found was a multitude of instances like mine—most of them far more expensive—and a consistent pattern of response from AT&T: unsympathetic and dissembling replies to complaints about these bills, and insistence on payment.
From newspaper accounts, personal websites, and online bulletin boards (and my own experience), I’ve pieced together how this “business practice” works. Typically a person is enticed to a porn site by an ad or email message that offers “free” porn or claims “NO CREDIT CARD,” which appeals especially to kids (who have none) and equates in their minds with “free.” Somewhere, buried in a blaze of alluring ad copy or images, may be some tiny print informing users that they will make a long-distance call, although it’s clear this disclaimer might as well be invisible. People who click on a link to these sites unknowingly download a mini-program to their computer which, in brief seconds, closes their internet connection and dials long-distance to a 900-number service in Vanuatu or some other far-flung place like Moldavia, Madagascar, or Chad where these scams operate. The rates vary between two to eight dollars a minute.
Who falls victim? Parents, like myself, are often surprised by expensive bills resulting from their kids naivete; bills around $270 are common. In at least one case, a family whose phone line was configured to prohibit long-distance calls of any sort was billed ($40) because the computer bypasses normal modes of transmission. Police in Des Moines, Iowa, who were investigating child pornography, owe $181 to AT&T. And pity the poor guy who was away from home one week and his “somewhat mentally handicapped” brother used his computer, running up a $5,587.30 phone bill.
How does AT&T respond? The company’s position is that people who incur a phone bill are obligated to pay it, pure and simple. Those who call to question a bill or complain are typically led on a lengthy run-around, a process seemingly geared to wear them out. Many people, believing their phone service to be at risk, resign themselves to paying. Some callers are told by a representative that the charge will be dismissed, only to find it reinstated later with a comment like: “Your concern has been given proper consideration, and at this time, no adjustment is warranted on your account.” In some cases, after protracted dispute of a bill, the company offers to cut the amount by half (half of $5,587.30 is only $2,793.65 for a month’s phone bill—that would be helpful!). But they expect payment in every case. When the Des Moines Register sought a comment on the police department’s billing situation, AT&T did not return the call.
It’s appalling that AT&T sanctions, sponsors—call it what you like—aids and abets this deceptive trade. The company’s poor management has cost me a bundle on my investment, and now they want to gouge me as a consumer, as well. The hell with them. As part owner of the company, I hereby authorize anyone stuck with such a bill to let AT&T just suck on it.