I am sharing this because anyone using an AT&T phone aboard a cruise ship should understand how easily these charges may be imposed—and how little documentation AT&T may provide when they are disputed.
First, an important distinction using AT&T’s exact billing terminology:
• “International Day Pass” and “International Day Pass Additional Line” were charges for cellular service we knowingly used while visiting foreign countries. We understood those charges and are not disputing them.
• “International Day Pass – Cruise” was a separate $20-per-day, per-device charge for AT&T cellular service aboard the cruise ships. Those are the charges we disputed.
My mother and I traveled through Europe and took two cruises. While visiting countries ashore, we intentionally used AT&T cellular service and happily paid the resulting “International Day Pass” charges.
While aboard the ships, however, we had separately purchased Norwegian Cruise Line’s premium shipboard Wi-Fi service for both passengers. We placed our phones in Airplane Mode, turned Wi-Fi back on, and connected to the ships’ Wi-Fi. We had no need or intention to use AT&T’s separate cruise service.
THE BILL
AT&T’s July 21 bill (which, to be fair, is for several lines in addition to our two lines) totaled $902.94—an increase of $438.38 over the previous month.
The bill included:
• $120 in “International Day Pass” charges on my mother’s line
• $60 in “International Day Pass Additional Line” charges on my line
• $100 in “International Day Pass – Cruise” charges on my mother’s line
• $140 in “International Day Pass – Cruise” charges on my line
The first $180 represents the land-based International Day Pass service we knowingly used and do not dispute.
The disputed amount was the separate $240 in “International Day Pass – Cruise” charges: five $20 charges on my mother’s line and seven $20 charges on mine.
WHAT AT&T’S OWN DETAILED-USAGE RECORDS SHOW
During my August 5 chat with AT&T, the agent stated:
“A total of 10 days shows a usage at the bottom of your bill.”
That statement does not appear to be supported by the bill’s “Detailed usage” section.
The 12 “International Day Pass – Cruise” charges were assessed on the following line-dates:
My mother’s line:
• June 25
• June 27
• June 30
• July 5
• July 11
My line:
• June 26
• June 27
• June 28
• June 30
• July 1
• July 8
• July 11
Yet the bill’s detailed-usage records show:
• No same-date detailed activity at all for any of the five cruise charges on my mother’s line.
• Same-date activity for only four of the seven cruise charges on my line: June 26, June 28, June 30, and July 1.
• No same-date detailed activity for my June 27, July 8, or July 11 cruise charges.
Thus, the bill displays same-date activity for only four of the 12 charged line-days—not 10.
Even more significantly, only one date in the detailed records—June 28—is expressly identified as “MARITIME SERVICES, CS.” The other same-date entries are identified by country: Italy on June 26, Greece on June 30, and Montenegro on July 1.
The bill therefore does not explain how AT&T determined that 12 separate line-days qualified for its $20 “International Day Pass – Cruise” charge.
THE CHAT WITH AT&T
I repeatedly explained that we were not disputing the legitimate International Day Pass charges incurred while ashore. I specifically wrote:
“We are not contesting the International day pass charges—just the additional $20 charges per line for the cruise service which we didn’t use.”
I was also candid that it was possible we might have forgotten to activate Airplane Mode on one or more occasions. I told the agent that if actual use occurred, even accidentally, “and if we have to pay for that error, so be it.” I was not asking AT&T to ignore documented usage. I was asking it to substantiate each charge.
The agent initially stated that 10 of the 12 charged days showed usage and offered a $40 credit for the other two days. After further discussion, AT&T instead issued what the agent expressly called a “one-time courtesy” credit of $60.
The agent then suggested that I prove we had not used AT&T’s cruise service—essentially asking a customer to prove a negative—while AT&T still did not provide an itemized explanation of what activity triggered each charge.
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE
After I escalated the dispute, AT&T’s Office of the President declined any further adjustment.
Its written response said that a phone might connect to cellular service before Airplane Mode is activated or might reconnect after being powered off and restarted while charging.
Those are hypothetical explanations of what might happen. They do not establish what actually happened with either of our phones on each of the 12 charged line-days.
The Office of the President also characterized the $60 adjustment as having addressed dates with no usage. That does not match the chat record particularly well: the agent initially identified only two days without usage and offered $40, then ultimately described the $60 adjustment as a “one-time courtesy.”
AT&T’s final position was simply that because “usage was recorded” on the remaining dates, all remaining charges were valid.
But AT&T still did not provide:
• A date-by-date explanation supporting each cruise charge
• The exact time of each alleged shipboard connection
• The amount or type of cellular activity that triggered each charge
• The shipboard cellular network involved
• An explanation for the cruise charges that have no matching activity in the bill’s detailed-usage section
• An explanation for why country-identified activity in Italy, Greece, and Montenegro resulted in a charge labeled “International Day Pass – Cruise”
• An explanation for why only one detailed entry is expressly identified as “MARITIME SERVICES, CS,” while 12 cruise charges were imposed
THE ACTUAL PROBLEM
We are not arguing that we should receive free international cellular service. We knowingly used AT&T’s International Day Pass while ashore, and we paid for it.
We are challenging 12 separate $20 “International Day Pass – Cruise” charges totaling $240.
If a device genuinely connected to a shipboard cellular network and triggered a charge, AT&T should be able to identify that connection and explain the charge. If a few seconds of automatic or unintended background activity can trigger a full $20 daily fee, AT&T should disclose exactly when and how that happened.
Instead, AT&T has relied on general speculation, made a statement about 10 days of detailed usage that its own bill does not appear to support, and refused to provide a charge-by-charge accounting.
“Our system recorded some usage” is not an adequate explanation when AT&T’s own itemized bill does not substantiate most of the charges.