|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > AT-T wireless service > January 2007 > Re: NEWS: AT&T Prepares to 'De-Brand' the Cingular Wireless Name
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: NEWS: AT&T Prepares to 'De-Brand' the Cingular Wireless Name
|
|
|
|
"We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
> lightly," Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at
> AT&T in San Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the
> name of Cingular, the nation's largest mobile carrier.
Too bad they didn't do the same rigorous research before changing the name
from AT&T in the first place. It would have saved a boatload of money that,
obviously, was passed on to the consumer. I hated the thought of having that
stupid looking Cingular logo on my phone. The fees, changes in contract
terms, and weeklong technical snafus in getting my new phone to actually
work with the network almost made me give up on them altogether. They're not
getting away with the same BS again. I'd be perfectly happy to switch to
Verizon which is used by every one of my friends...it would save me money.
| |
| Jackzwick 2007-01-13, 7:33 am |
| In article <D%4qh.3$eB3.2@newsfe08.lga>, "Ric" <no@way.com> wrote:
> "We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
>
> Too bad they didn't do the same rigorous research before changing the name
> from AT&T in the first place. It would have saved a boatload of money that,
> obviously, was passed on to the consumer.
At that point in time the purchase agreement for AT&TWS only gave
Cingulkar 6 months of use of the ATT name. That was a year before SBC
bought AT&T and adopted the name.
> I hated the thought of having that
> stupid looking Cingular logo on my phone. The fees, changes in contract
> terms, and weeklong technical snafus in getting my new phone to actually
> work with the network almost made me give up on them altogether. They're not
> getting away with the same BS again. I'd be perfectly happy to switch to
> Verizon which is used by every one of my friends...it would save me money.
| |
|
| Ric wrote:
> "We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
>
> Too bad they didn't do the same rigorous research before changing the name
> from AT&T in the first place.
It was different. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, not AT&T which is a
totally different company. AT&T merged with SBC which owned the other
half of Cingular.
The most important change is "The nearly 15,000 employees in these
stores and kiosks will begin wearing AT&T-branded apparel in coming months."
| |
| Michael Paris 2007-01-13, 10:33 pm |
| In all reality who cares, it's not a big issue, if you don't like Cingular
soon to be called at&t, leave and cut a deal with another carrier if you're
off contract, or leave when it's done. My only XXXXX with Cingular is cost,
I think they are overpriced, but then again, so is VW. Them changing their
name won't make a difference in service.
I also happen to think their customer service has improved in the past few
years. I'm sure there are both valid horror stories as well the opposite.
In my case there are two company stores close to me, one in the local mall,
filled with the moron's, and a full service center including repairs outside
of the mall and down the street. The latter is a pleasure to do business
with and has been there for years, and through several mergers and such.
| |
|
| In article < OcSdnX6LxcaMzDTYnZ2d
nUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
"Michael Paris" <mparis27@comcast.net> wrote:
> In all reality who cares, it's not a big issue, if you don't like Cingular
> soon to be called at&t, leave and cut a deal with another carrier if you're
> off contract, or leave when it's done. My only XXXXX with Cingular is cost,
> I think they are overpriced, but then again, so is VW. Them changing their
> name won't make a difference in service.
>
> I also happen to think their customer service has improved in the past few
> years. I'm sure there are both valid horror stories as well the opposite.
> In my case there are two company stores close to me, one in the local mall,
> filled with the moron's, and a full service center including repairs outside
> of the mall and down the street. The latter is a pleasure to do business
> with and has been there for years, and through several mergers and such.
I don't like Cingular's inflexibility. They recently refused to let me
upgrade a crappy cheap LG phone to at least another cheap one (that
works better) until my contract is up, even though I've got a Treo with
a data plan on the same account.
The irony is that the LG phone is so crappy, my wife won't even use it.
Never has. So they lose all the potential additional minutes and
features billings because they won't give us a phone she likes.
I don't like companies that doesn't empower their support people to
think and make decisions based on how real service should work.
All I got were apologies, and "our hands are tied bu policy".
Aside from the iPhone, I'd dump them in a second when my contract
expires in May. The only way we can fight back is to take our business
elsewhere.
I may move my wife to another carrier if I decide to go iPhone.
In any event I won't be signing any contracts until the iPhone is well
in place and they begin discounting it.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| > Aside from the iPhone, I'd dump them in a second when my contract
> expires in May. The only way we can fight back is to take our business
> elsewhere.
>
> I may move my wife to another carrier if I decide to go iPhone.
> In any event I won't be signing any contracts until the iPhone is well
> in place and they begin discounting it.
I'm starting to think it's worth it to pay the extra money to buy a new
phone outright rather than being locked into a contract just for the
discount on a device. Cingular has screwed me over so many times, I just
don't want to be forced into a commitment if I decide to bolt when they pull
some new scam.
| |
|
|
"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:hcKqh.2$W63.1@newsfe08.lga...
>
> I'm starting to think it's worth it to pay the extra money to buy a new
> phone outright rather than being locked into a contract just for the
> discount on a device. Cingular has screwed me over so many times, I just
> don't want to be forced into a commitment if I decide to bolt when they
> pull some new scam.
Is that true, if you bring your own phone you don't have to sign a contract?
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-01-15, 10:33 am |
| On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:50:47 -0500, ACP wrote
(in article < _92dnWC1lZZbCTbYnZ2d
nUVZ_tCtnZ2d@giganew
s.com> ):
> Is that true, if you bring your own phone you don't have to sign a contract?
>
>
I don't know about Cingular, but other carriers such as Verizon Wireless and
Sprint both require a contract even if you aren't taking a discounted phone.
It makes absolutely no sense to me. I have a perfectly good Sprint Treo 650
here that I'd love to use but I'm not going to sign a contract and be stuck
with an early termination fee just so I can play on their network at minimal
cost to them.
Without the contract I would have signed up months ago. Instead I picked up
a GSM device and dropped my ever-lasting Cingular SIM in it.
NOW: To address the previous poster's message before this (paying full retail
for a phone). In many events the subsidy/discount is so nice that it pays to
take it and sign a contract. The way I look at it is this, even if I have to
pay the ETF I'm usually still cheaper than if I paid the unlocked fee early
on. If I stay within the contract terms then the phone is even cheaper. If
I terminate early I'm still ahead of the game (or at least pretty close to
the unlocked price.)
| |
|
| In article <hcKqh.2$W63.1@newsfe08.lga>, "Ric" <no@way.com> wrote:
>
> I'm starting to think it's worth it to pay the extra money to buy a new
> phone outright rather than being locked into a contract just for the
> discount on a device. Cingular has screwed me over so many times, I just
> don't want to be forced into a commitment if I decide to bolt when they pull
> some new scam.
That's going to be my strategy. You end up paying dearly when you do the
contract.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <0001HW. C1D1094B01BA53B1F020
3648@news.giganews.com>,
SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:50:47 -0500, ACP wrote
> (in article < _92dnWC1lZZbCTbYnZ2d
nUVZ_tCtnZ2d@giganew
s.com> ):
>
>
> I don't know about Cingular, but other carriers such as Verizon Wireless and
> Sprint both require a contract even if you aren't taking a discounted phone.
> It makes absolutely no sense to me. I have a perfectly good Sprint Treo 650
> here that I'd love to use but I'm not going to sign a contract and be stuck
> with an early termination fee just so I can play on their network at minimal
> cost to them.
>
> Without the contract I would have signed up months ago. Instead I picked up
> a GSM device and dropped my ever-lasting Cingular SIM in it.
>
> NOW: To address the previous poster's message before this (paying full retail
> for a phone). In many events the subsidy/discount is so nice that it pays to
> take it and sign a contract. The way I look at it is this, even if I have to
> pay the ETF I'm usually still cheaper than if I paid the unlocked fee early
> on. If I stay within the contract terms then the phone is even cheaper. If
> I terminate early I'm still ahead of the game (or at least pretty close to
> the unlocked price.)
And an unlocked phone is worth a lot more in resale.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-15, 3:33 pm |
|
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-39B5CD.16570313012007@news.giganews.com...
> In article < OcSdnX6LxcaMzDTYnZ2d
nUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> "Michael Paris" <mparis27@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> I don't like Cingular's inflexibility. They recently refused to let me
> upgrade a crappy cheap LG phone to at least another cheap one (that
> works better) until my contract is up, even though I've got a Treo with
> a data plan on the same account.
>
> The irony is that the LG phone is so crappy, my wife won't even use it.
> Never has. So they lose all the potential additional minutes and
> features billings because they won't give us a phone she likes.
>
> I don't like companies that doesn't empower their support people to
> think and make decisions based on how real service should work.
> All I got were apologies, and "our hands are tied bu policy".
>
>
> Aside from the iPhone, I'd dump them in a second when my contract
> expires in May. The only way we can fight back is to take our business
> elsewhere.
>
> I may move my wife to another carrier if I decide to go iPhone.
> In any event I won't be signing any contracts until the iPhone is well
> in place and they begin discounting it.
>
> --
> To reply by email, remove the word "space"
I dumped Cingular a year ago--after having been with ATTWS for 7 years with
never a problem--and I never looked back.
I got a better deal with Sprint, and unlike my TDMA phones, my service
worked fine from the first day.
Cingular lost millions of customers due to their inflexible attitude. It
reminded me back when phone companies disconnected you for having "illegal
extension phones" on your line.
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-01-15, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:07:04 -0500, jeremy wrote
(in article <cpPqh.8875$wq.7757@trndny07> ):
> I dumped Cingular a year ago--after having been with ATTWS for 7 years with
> never a problem--and I never looked back.
>
> I got a better deal with Sprint, and unlike my TDMA phones, my service
> worked fine from the first day.
>
> Cingular lost millions of customers due to their inflexible attitude. It
> reminded me back when phone companies disconnected you for having "illegal
> extension phones" on your line.
See my previous message about Sprint if you want to see inflexible. They
won't give me service without a contract, even if I'm *not* buying a phone
but already own one. Go figure.
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-15, 3:33 pm |
|
"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW. C1D133B501C44492F040
7648@news.giganews.com...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:07:04 -0500, jeremy wrote
> (in article <cpPqh.8875$wq.7757@trndny07> ):
>
>
> See my previous message about Sprint if you want to see inflexible. They
> won't give me service without a contract, even if I'm *not* buying a phone
> but already own one. Go figure.
>
Does anyone give service to new customers without contracts? My gripe with
Cingular was that I was already out-of-contract when they bought ATTWS and
then they tried to twist my arm into re-upping on a minimum two-year
contract--as though I were a new customer.
I guess every carrier has critics, Sprint included, but all I can say was
that Sprint went the extra mile to get my account, including no activation
charges, 7 PM n/w, no roaming charges, free m2m and their reps were quite
accommodating when I called. Just like the old AT&T. Cingular left a
really bad taste in my mouth, but Sprint has been as courteous as could
be--and this is a year after I made the switch.
My daughter has Cingular and she love them. I take one look at her bill and
am glad I switched out . . .
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-01-15, 3:33 pm |
| At 15 Jan 2007 19:52:58 +0000 jeremy wrote:
>
> Does anyone give service to new customers without contracts?
Sort of- Cingular used to if you asked, but if they don't any longer,
there are two options- Cingular's "Go Phone" (a hybrid plan with monthly
billing) or you could use Consumer Cellular (www.savecell.com) a Cingular
MVNO reseller who offers post-paid monthly service with no contracts.
Neither offers a good a "deal" perhaps as Cingular contract service, but
there are options.
> My gripe with
> Cingular was that I was already out-of-contract when they bought ATTWS
and
> then they tried to twist my arm into re-upping on a minimum two-year
> contract--as though I were a new customer.
To them, you were! ;-)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| SinghaLvr 2007-01-16, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:52:58 -0500, jeremy wrote
(in article <uYQqh.1512$dV1.1506@trndny02> ):
>
> Does anyone give service to new customers without contracts? My gripe with
> Cingular was that I was already out-of-contract when they bought ATTWS and
> then they tried to twist my arm into re-upping on a minimum two-year
> contract--as though I were a new customer.
>
> I guess every carrier has critics, Sprint included, but all I can say was
> that Sprint went the extra mile to get my account, including no activation
> charges, 7 PM n/w, no roaming charges, free m2m and their reps were quite
> accommodating when I called. Just like the old AT&T. Cingular left a
> really bad taste in my mouth, but Sprint has been as courteous as could
> be--and this is a year after I made the switch.
>
Sprint's online and telephone service *is* spectacular. Their in-store
service leaves something to be desired though. (Long story ... posted about
a year ago or so ...)
... and yes ... Sprint will open an account without a contract *if* you are
not buying a phone. I think you have to call customer service.
> My daughter has Cingular and she love them. I take one look at her bill and
> am glad I switched out . . .
My company provides me a Cingular phone. They are a terrific company. I
love them too. I have no idea what the bill is, but I'm sure it isn't cheap,
especially with the amazing level of service that I get.
| |
| Sherry 2007-01-16, 10:33 am |
| SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in
news:0001HW. C1D1CE8F00020212F020
3648@news.giganews.com:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:52:58 -0500, jeremy wrote
> (in article <uYQqh.1512$dV1.1506@trndny02> ):
>
>
> Sprint's online and telephone service *is* spectacular. Their
> in-store service leaves something to be desired though.
<snip>
In a recent Consumer Reports, they evaluated cell phone service in
different cities in the US. In the Seattle area, Sprint was the worst.
The order of service was T-Mobile, Verizon, Cingular and Sprint.
Sprint did do better in a very few other cities - Miami, Minneapolis-St
Paul, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco and was most highly rated in
Washington DC (2nd on the list).
Sherry
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-16, 12:33 pm |
|
"Sherry" <sherdh@excite.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98BA4884974C
6TansyRagwortNetscap
e@216.196.97.142...
> SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in
> news:0001HW. C1D1CE8F00020212F020
3648@news.giganews.com:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> In a recent Consumer Reports, they evaluated cell phone service in
> different cities in the US. In the Seattle area, Sprint was the worst.
> The order of service was T-Mobile, Verizon, Cingular and Sprint.
>
> Sprint did do better in a very few other cities - Miami, Minneapolis-St
> Paul, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco and was most highly rated in
> Washington DC (2nd on the list).
>
>
> Sherry
I was careful to note that my particular experiences might not be typical.
But I was so incensed over the arm-twisting from Cingular that I would
gladly put up with inferior service from a carrier that didn't play those
head games. Fortunately for me, Sprint gave me excellent customer service,
a good rate plan and I've had no problem with the service itself, which has
proven to be much more reliable here in Philadelphia than I ever got with
ATT/Cingular TDMA.
Right after Cingular took over the operation of the AT&T TDMA network, I
began experiencing my phone shutting itself off whenever I drove outside my
home rate area. Cingular denied that they were responsible for that, but I
don't believe them. If I'd turn the phone back on, it would shut off again
within a few minutes.
I also began experiencing inability to log on to the tower, even locally.
I'd turn my phone on and wait 5 minutes before I could find a tower. I read
many other stories where customers slowly had the nooses tightened around
them, with slow, methodical and progressively-worse service cutbacks. No
one will ever convince me that this was all just a coincidence.
No matter. Switching out was the best move I could have made. I will NEVER
consider Cingular/AT&T as a wireless provider again. I wouldn't use them if
they offered me the service for free. And, from what I've read, there are
millions of us former ATTWS customers that are as embittered as I am over
the way Cingular treated us.
I understand that Cingular was glad to see us go, as we represented an
overall lower profit versus the rest of their customers. So there is no
love lost.
Cingular seems to have deliberately cut back TDMA access, trying to twist
their customers' arms to re-up as new GSM customers. I don't think their
plan worked. The mere fact that they would subject their customers to
increased risk by denying them the access to the service that THEY PAID FOR
speaks volumes about Cingular.
They may be using the AT&T brand now, but they will never have the
commitment to SERVICE that Ma Bell did!
| |
|
| jeremy wrote:
> Cingular seems to have deliberately cut back TDMA access, trying to twist
> their customers' arms to re-up as new GSM customers. I don't think their
> plan worked.
Part of it is that they need the spectrum for GSM users, which represent
over 95% of their customers, and even more of their total minutes.
The arm-twisting was a calculated move. They knew that they'd lose some
customers, but that others would sign up as GSM customers with new
contracts at higher rates. The only way to force this to happen was to
accept the fact that some customers would leave. It's not as if the
customers that left found any cheaper rates elsewhere, the low AT&T
Wireless rates are gone forever. I guess that Verizon and Sprint could
also kick customers like me off the lower rate plans if they wanted to.
| |
| Todd H. 2007-01-16, 12:33 pm |
| "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
> Right after Cingular took over the operation of the AT&T TDMA network, I
> began experiencing my phone shutting itself off whenever I drove outside my
> home rate area. Cingular denied that they were responsible for that, but I
> don't believe them. If I'd turn the phone back on, it would shut off again
> within a few minutes.
I would've believed them. I don't believe there is anything a TDMA
network or tower can do to tell a subscriber handset to power
off. Your phone was very likely gone flakey and timing was
coincidental.
But I'd hate to trouble you with the facts since you've already made
up your mind. :-)
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
|
"Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84sleag7o8.fsf@ripco.com...
> "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
>
>
> I would've believed them. I don't believe there is anything a TDMA
> network or tower can do to tell a subscriber handset to power
> off. Your phone was very likely gone flakey and timing was
> coincidental.
>
> But I'd hate to trouble you with the facts since you've already made
> up your mind. :-)
>
> --
> Todd H.
> http://www.toddh.net/
Well, we had 3 lines, all Panasonic Versio phones, none of which had any
problem previously.
One day I took all three phones with me on a trip and they ALL shut down
within 10 minutes of leaving the Home Rate Area!
It all began when the display was changed from AT&T to CINGULAR on
everyones' phones.
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45ad158d$0$6904
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>
>
> Part of it is that they need the spectrum for GSM users, which represent
> over 95% of their customers, and even more of their total minutes.
>
> The arm-twisting was a calculated move. They knew that they'd lose some
> customers, but that others would sign up as GSM customers with new
> contracts at higher rates. The only way to force this to happen was to
> accept the fact that some customers would leave. It's not as if the
> customers that left found any cheaper rates elsewhere, the low AT&T
> Wireless rates are gone forever. I guess that Verizon and Sprint could
> also kick customers like me off the lower rate plans if they wanted to.
I'll tell you what really got my goat:
The fact that they played their little game and jeopardized their customers'
safety, and that they were so cold-hearted about it.
Remember, I continued to pay monthly charges for my service, and had they
offered me an upgrade to GSM that would not result in my having to pay new
setup charges, new handset charges, and 25% higher rates than I had been
getting, I'd have switched.
Instead they cheerfully took our money and quietly turned the response
down--to the point that we had to WAIT to log into towers to make calls, or
have our phones shut off for no apparent reason. And when we called for
service, they had a scripted response--"UPGRADE!"
The carrier that boasted of the lowest number of dropped calls was going out
of its way to repeatedly drop calls for a big segment of their
newly-acquired customer base. I have a high sense of principle about such
mean-spirited tactics, and I will never give them a single cent worth of my
future business. And, judging from some of the news articles I've read,
there are millions of other ex-customers who won't favor them with their
future business either.
Only in America can big companies throw away customers, as though they were
just trash! Cingular, literally, threw us away. And their senior
executives pat each others backs over it!
Sprint, on the other hand, was delightful to work with. Despite all the
negative comments I've seen about them, my experience was nothing but
positive. No unexplained dropped calls. No phone shut-downs. No billing
errors. No roaming charges. No charges for m2m. No service outages.
Courteous customer service reps. It's been a year now, and the difference
between the two carriers is striking.
AND, my Sprint phones hop over to Verizon when there is a "hole" in the
Sprint network. No roaming, either. And in areas served by only AMPS my
Sprint phone can make and receive calls, unlike most of Cingular, whose
phones don't work on AMPS.
I have gone from having been very frustrated and angry, to very satisfied,
and happy.
| |
|
| jeremy wrote:
> AND, my Sprint phones hop over to Verizon when there is a "hole" in the
> Sprint network. No roaming, either. And in areas served by only AMPS my
> Sprint phone can make and receive calls, unlike most of Cingular, whose
> phones don't work on AMPS.
Note that you can roam onto Cingular's AMPS network with both Sprint and
Verizon tri-mode phones. Cingular users, other than the few percent that
haven't switched to GSM, can't use the Cingular AMPS network. Cingular
is chomping at the bit waiting for 2008 so they can turn off AMPS.
| |
| jeremy 2007-01-16, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45ad4dcb$0$6896
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>
>
> Note that you can roam onto Cingular's AMPS network with both Sprint and
> Verizon tri-mode phones. Cingular users, other than the few percent that
> haven't switched to GSM, can't use the Cingular AMPS network. Cingular is
> chomping at the bit waiting for 2008 so they can turn off AMPS.
I wasn't aware that Cingular even HAD an AMPS network!
Did Cingular ever sell AMPS service? Bag phones?
| |
|
| jeremy wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45ad4dcb$0$6896
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> I wasn't aware that Cingular even HAD an AMPS network!
Huge AMPS network. Every area where Cingular has 800 MHz TDMA they have
AMPS. These AMPS networks are all still up, and can't be taken down
until 2008. I was just using one of Cingular's AMPS networks in December.
|
|
|
|
|