It's not about the money but about the principle (the money was donated away).
AT&T Cable had an offer where they performed a free installation and where the first month of service was free, or so it said. (A copy of the ad is available as a PDF file.) On the ad, it says in big bold letters: "AT&T Cable Free Installation +_ 1st Month of Service FREE. **"
The "**" fine print reads "** After 1st month of free service, then current monthly rate for your selected Digital Package applies". So the conclusion of the representative who dealt with my complaint was that it was only for the digital service.
This conclusion doesn't make sense. If it were only for the digital service (which had a separate section above the section for the standard cable), why have the statement "1st Month of Service FREE" under the separate standard cable section? Using the logic offered by the representative, there's no way to get a first month of service free, but yet it reads in big bold letters (you need to see the ad to understand what I'm referring to). In my view, this is deceptive advertising. It wasn't like the big print just left out stuff the fine print mentioned (which I'm fine with). The big print was deliberately misleading and wrong, which the fine print half-rectified.
Besides, one could've just ordered the first month of Digital Service, and then switched over to regular cable, costing AT&T more than if they had just offered the basic cable free!
Fortunately, my work order also said that the first month was free and once I was able to dig it up (this was after a representative couldn't "see" it on there), they gave me the credit for the first month.