Cingular cell phone service - Cingular Pink-Slips Customers Who Travel Too Much

Author

Cingular Pink-Slips Customers Who Travel Too Much

Iopsy

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article
seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's
your take?

http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_inves...> 56035,00.html

Jer

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Iopsy wrote:
> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article
> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's
> your take?
>
> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_inves...> 56035,00.html
>
>

It has been my understanding that the "50% roaming" rule is a standard
component of any nationwide service contract with all wireless carriers.
Failure to read and/or understand the conditions of one's contract is
folly. A friend with T-Mo got dumped for "roaming too much" last year,
so Cingular isn't the only carrier to enforce their side of the contract
on this point. The individual mentioned in the article doesn't
necessarily have to switch carriers, just choose another plan - but if
they do switch carriers, they can port their phone numbers.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Iopsy wrote:
> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article
> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's
> your take?

Sometime long ago, long before Al Gore "invented" the internet...I
recall a situation that was ruled in favor of the consumer because
critical clauses in the contract were exceptionally small or might have
been the whole contract used different sizes of print. I'm just going
from memory here.

Disclaimer: Al Gore never said he invented the internet. But in all
fairness, he did push for funding for the infrastructure. I'll give him
credit for that.

SMS

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Iopsy wrote:
> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article
> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's
> your take?
>
> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_inves...> 56035,00.html

He knew when he signed up that the roaming was limited to 50%. Sprint
used to have a similar clause, not sure if they still do. His best bet
is to sign up with Verizon, since the roaming onto their extended
network is not limited. He'll have more coverage than he did before, and
if he gets a tri-mode phone he'll have _far_ more coverage than he did
with Cingular.

Companies have the right to not sell to unprofitable customers. Look at
what Cingular is doing to the AT&T Wireless customers that had
sweetheart calling plans at low rates.

(PeteCresswell)

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Per Jer:
> A friend with T-Mo got dumped for "roaming too much" last year,
>so Cingular isn't the only carrier to enforce their side of the contract
>on this point. The individual mentioned in the article doesn't
>necessarily have to switch carriers, just choose another plan

Seems like it might get interesting if/when it turns out that carriers share
lists of people who roam too much and/or "blacklist" people who have been
rejected. Otherwise, with number portability, wouldn't people who roam a
lot just ping-pong back-and-forth between a couple of carriers.
--
PeteCresswell

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:1220380lmuu461@
corp.supernews.com...

[color=darkred]
> It has been my understanding that the "50% roaming" rule is a standard
> component of any nationwide service contract with all wireless carriers.

Reading the wxyztv.com report, it sounds like the catch is that this
customer didn't *know* he was roaming onto another carrier's network. He
paid for nationwide service and his phone worked, and that's all he knew.
Roaming is not something he did voluntarily.

It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand
him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him.

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

"DecaturTxCowboy" <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote in message
news:IRUTf.2474$4L1.1909@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

> Sometime long ago, long before Al Gore "invented" the internet...I recall
> a situation that was ruled in favor of the consumer because critical
> clauses in the contract were exceptionally small or might have been the
> whole contract used different sizes of print. I'm just going from memory
> here.

Courts do indeed work that way, to the dismay of con artists everywhere :)

This is also why we have an FCC. If someone could convince the FCC that
these clauses degrade service for the nation as a whole, they might have to
go away.

Harry

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:22:45 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Iopsy wrote:
>
>He knew when he signed up that the roaming was limited to 50%. Sprint
>used to have a similar clause, not sure if they still do. His best bet
>is to sign up with Verizon, since the roaming onto their extended
>network is not limited. He'll have more coverage than he did before, and
>if he gets a tri-mode phone he'll have _far_ more coverage than he did
>with Cingular.
>
>Companies have the right to not sell to unprofitable customers. Look at
>what Cingular is doing to the AT&T Wireless customers that had
>sweetheart calling plans at low rates.

Cingular advertises the "all-over" network.

Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which
areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no
such thing.

I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every
call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says
Cingular on it. Even though some calls on my bill are marked follow me
roaming.

So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or
not.

I have had Cingular service for a year now. I have never had a call
dropped on my end. I have never had a bad experience with customer
service. The call quality on my phone is excellent.

Never the less I may well change carriers at the end of my contract.

WHY? In following discussion about Cingular I note that in every
single case they choose the method best for them even if it hurts the
customer. And make no pretense about doing otherwise.

Although I don't think I am affected by this change of theirs why
should I trust them in the future. Maybe I am roaming and just don't
know it.

I can not trust Cingular.

Iopsy

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

> It has been my understanding that the "50% roaming" rule is a standard
> component of any nationwide service contract with all wireless carriers.
> Failure to read and/or understand the conditions of one's contract is
> folly.

I don't question the presence of the 50% clause in the contract, I am just
wondering about the wisdom of Cingular enforcing it lest it instigate
articles like the one in the link. Such publlicity could scare off some
potentially profitable customers. As for me, I have never paid much
attention to the percentage of my calls or minuites that are on or off the
Cingular system. I have taken comfort in my nationwide plan and Cingular's
reassurance that I will never have roaming charges in the US. While I live
and work in an area served by Cingular towers, I do not have to go far
(about a half hours drive) to leave the Cingular system and commence
roaming. So even though I often don't travel for my work, I am sure I am
roaming a fair amount of the time as I move about my local region . As I
frequenty cross Cingular's boundary I wonder if I'll be the next to get a
termination letter. I wonder if my ego could stand the rejection of being
fired by Cingular when I don't even work there. Could I take their letter
to the unemployment office and collect benefits, or will I have to undergo
retraining? Oh, the possibilities!
--Iopsy

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

In article <mZ-dnShYEbrTmb3ZRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
"Iopsy" <cml@wayne.edu> wrote:

> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article
> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's
> your take?
>
> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_inves..._45
56035
> ,00.html

so what will Navas say? "Rubbish" or "Nonsense"?

Stay tuned...

John Navas

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < kv9022di5fl45tiebskl
3iqr3fpohm8dv1@4ax.com> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:22:39
-0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:

>Per Jer:
>
>Seems like it might get interesting if/when it turns out that carriers share
>lists of people who roam too much and/or "blacklist" people who have been
>rejected. ...

Silly Internet Conspiracy Theory #13240983245.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < 4420284e$0$95988$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:22:45
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Companies have the right to not sell to unprofitable customers. Look at
>what Cingular is doing to the AT&T Wireless customers that had
>sweetheart calling plans at low rates.

It's still honoring those contracts.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < v9b022p3tfruo7ift0ft
0hcib0b0cd502a@4ax.com> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:52:43
GMT, Harry <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>I can not trust Cingular.

What makes you think you can "trust" any company?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Harry wrote:
> Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which
> areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no
> such thing.

That could present a reasonable and obvious expectation of "in network
coverage" to the point it could dilute Cingular's effort to drop anyone
for excessive roaming. A possible similarity to a "bait and switch" scheme

Harry

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:36:29 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In < v9b022p3tfruo7ift0ft
0hcib0b0cd502a@4ax.com> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:52:43
>GMT, Harry <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>What makes you think you can "trust" any company?

Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not.

John Navas

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < 1ai022h0romr9mil3u9n
qpucnnj33kkbut@4ax.com> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:45:08
GMT, Harry <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:36:29 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not.

Trusting any company is dangerously naive.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

(PeteCresswell)

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Per John Navas:
>Trusting any company is dangerously naive.

I'll always remember the letter we got from AT&T about their long distance
service. It actually contained the word "trust". The spiel was that we, as
longtime customers, should just keep our long distance service with them and
trust them to "take care of their customers".

We fell for it for several years - then one day it dawned on me that we were
paying something like seventy-eight cents per minute for calls to Germany while
MCI was charging six or seven....

I've come to view corporations as machines. If you can get them to do
something you want, then use them. If not...
--
PeteCresswell

John Navas

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < hck0225dgaga5vvr7gtt
c75379qjnfclia@4ax.com> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:21:12
GMT, Harry <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:45:24 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>How sad it must be to be you.

Not sad at all. I trust me to look after myself. I trust corporations to
look after themselves. That's simply a reflection of reality, how the world
works.

>Most people are honest. Since people run
>companies most companies are honest.

Companies act in their own self-interest, as they should, which doesn't mean
they are being dishonest.

>Just as one has to be carefull in
>choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies
>they deal with.

Do you have any real evidence of dishonesty on the part of Cingular?

The relevant language is in your service agreement. You did read it carefully
before committing -- right?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

(PeteCresswell)

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Per Harry:
>Most people are honest. Since people run
>companies most companies are honest.

Not a logical conclusion. The corporation gets to select which people run it.

To the extent that a corporation's immediate goals require something besides
honesty, the corporation will replace those who do not perform as the
corporation desires until the jobs in question are filled by people who will toe
the line.

Been there. Rode out the deregulation of a major urban utility and it's
subsequent acquisition by a larger entity and experienced it from within - all
the way from an environment where things were 98% factual/honest and 2%
political/BS to something approaching the exact opposite.

In that case, I should point out that it wasn't the larger entity behind the
change. Instead it was the CEO who took over after regulation to groom the
company for eventual sale.

Astonishing. If somebody had told me that such drastic changes could happen in
such a big corporation in such a short timeframe I would not have believed them.
--
PeteCresswell

SMS

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Harry wrote:

> How sad it must be to be you. Most people are honest. Since people run
> companies most companies are honest. Just as one has to be carefull in
> choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies
> they deal with.

There are several companies that have a reputation for honesty and
trust, that I have dealt with and never been disappointed. You just need
to choose carefully.

SMS

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

Harry wrote:

> I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every
> call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says
> Cingular on it. Even though some calls on my bill are marked follow me
> roaming.
>
> So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or
> not.

Very good point.

I have Cingular GSM phone on a MVNO, and it does show when it's off the
Cingular network, as there are high roaming charges. TDMA phones also
show when you're roaming. Cingular should provide some indication of
roaming, and have a way to warn the user that they are roaming too much.
They could automatically send a text message to the phone anytime the
roaming total was over their threshold.

On Verizon, the phone will show whether it's on Verizon, Verizon's
Extended Network with included roaming, or just roaming, even though
AFAIK, there is no limit to the use of the Extended Network, so the only
one to worry about is the off network roaming. Their new plans do not
allow any off-extended network roaming (supposedly there are only a
couple of locations where this is a problem) and one reason is that too
many people were not paying attention to the roaming indicator, or had
out-of-date PRL's, and complained about huge roaming charges.

SMS

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

mc wrote:
> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:1220380lmuu461@
corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> Reading the wxyztv.com report, it sounds like the catch is that this
> customer didn't *know* he was roaming onto another carrier's network. He
> paid for nationwide service and his phone worked, and that's all he knew.
> Roaming is not something he did voluntarily.
>
> It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand
> him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him.

The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more
revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an
alternate approach to excessive roaming.

Why don't they just alert the customer, and charge extra when the
customer exceeds the 50% limit? Are they concerned that putting this
into the contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive
as they claim?

Harry

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:50:34 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Per Harry:
>
>Not a logical conclusion. The corporation gets to select which people run it.
>
>To the extent that a corporation's immediate goals require something besides
>honesty, the corporation will replace those who do not perform as the
>corporation desires until the jobs in question are filled by people who will toe
>the line.
>
>Been there. Rode out the deregulation of a major urban utility and it's
>subsequent acquisition by a larger entity and experienced it from within - all
>the way from an environment where things were 98% factual/honest and 2%
>political/BS to something approaching the exact opposite.
>
>In that case, I should point out that it wasn't the larger entity behind the
>change. Instead it was the CEO who took over after regulation to groom the
>company for eventual sale.
>
>Astonishing. If somebody had told me that such drastic changes could happen in
>such a big corporation in such a short timeframe I would not have believed them.

My original comment was that since most people are honest I find most
companies to be honest also. I know there was Enron and you have this
one. However that doesn't make all companies dishonest. (By the way I
never said that Cingular was dishonest)

Furthermore I also said "Just as one has to be carefull in
choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies
they deal with."

John Navas

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < 44205e09$0$95951$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:12:00
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>mc wrote:
>
>The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more
>revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an
>alternate approach to excessive roaming.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

>Why don't they just alert the customer,

Probably worries over TMI (too much information) -- the average customer
doesn't want to have to worry about such things.

>and charge extra when the
>customer exceeds the 50% limit?

Probably because that would undercut the marketing of flat rate plans, which
have proven to be very popular.

>Are they concerned that putting this
>into the contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive
>as they claim?

Perhaps. More likely that it's confusing to most customers. The percentage
affected is probably very small.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Jeremy

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

"Harry" <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v9b022p3tfruo7i
ft0ft0hcib0b0cd502a@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:22:45 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Cingular advertises the "all-over" network.
>
> Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which
> areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no
> such thing.
>
> I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every
> call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says
> Cingular on it. Even though some calls on my bill are marked follow me
> roaming.
>
> So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or
> not.
>
> I have had Cingular service for a year now. I have never had a call
> dropped on my end. I have never had a bad experience with customer
> service. The call quality on my phone is excellent.
>
> Never the less I may well change carriers at the end of my contract.
>
> WHY? In following discussion about Cingular I note that in every
> single case they choose the method best for them even if it hurts the
> customer. And make no pretense about doing otherwise.
>
> Although I don't think I am affected by this change of theirs why
> should I trust them in the future. Maybe I am roaming and just don't
> know it.
>
> I can not trust Cingular.
>

When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a
setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS
network--something I never could do with my old TDMA phones.

There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.

At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about
whether to roam or not.

tmoran@acm.org

2006-03-21, 5:48 pm

> >Most people are honest. Since people run
>
> Companies act in their own self-interest, as they should, which doesn't mean
> they are being dishonest.
"Trust" and "honest" make for more heat than light here. How about
"act as if they plan to keep customers like me in the long term" - which
companies do and which don't.

John Navas

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <96_Tf.3089$4N1.2252@trnddc06> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:20:05 GMT, "Jeremy"
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a
>setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS
>network--something I never could do with my old TDMA phones.
>
>There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
>Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
>calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
>situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
>user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
>inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.
>
>At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about
>whether to roam or not.

The vast majority of Cingular customers don't have any need to know.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

John Navas wrote:
> Do you have any real evidence of dishonesty on the part of Cingular?

Perhaps he was thinking of disengenuinous.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

Jeremy wrote:
> There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
> Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
> calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
> situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
> user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
> inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.

Get the Free and Clear $5/mo option and you won't have to worry about
roaming charges. While day time minutes come out of your day time
minutes bucket, roaming nights and weekends would be free. Well worth it!

SMS

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

Jeremy wrote:

> When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a
> setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS
> network--something I never could do with my old TDMA phones.
>
> There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
> Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
> calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
> situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
> user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
> inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.
>
> At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about
> whether to roam or not.

Good for Sprint.

On Verizon, the roaming indicator is counter-intuitive, it's solid for
off-network paid roaming, and flashing for included extended network
roaming. To most people, flashing indicates a warning.

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

>>>>I can not trust Cingular.
>
> Trusting any company is dangerously naive.

If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy.
Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted.

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

>> It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand
>
> The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more
> revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an
> alternate approach to excessive roaming.
>
> Why don't they just alert the customer, and charge extra when the customer
> exceeds the 50% limit? Are they concerned that putting this into the
> contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive as they
> claim?

A lot of companies just don't seem to know how to make money. It comes from
confusing economic competition (which means offering people a choice) with
things like athletic competition (defeating your adversary). As soon as you
view the customer as someone to be outwitted and defeated, you put yourself
into a very weak position. The customers, as a group, have all the power.

Kevin K

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:12:00 UTC, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

> mc wrote:
>
> The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more
> revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an
> alternate approach to excessive roaming.
>
> Why don't they just alert the customer, and charge extra when the
> customer exceeds the 50% limit? Are they concerned that putting this
> into the contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive
> as they claim?

It may not help if, at least every 3 months, you don't get into an
area.

But it would seem that, if you get plenty of weekend minutes, one
weekend a month using 800 or so minutes while in a Cingular area would
go a long ways towards making 50% of your time on Cingular's service.
Of course, it is by using even MORE Cingular service.

Of course, you have to be sure that you are truly in a Cingular area
if you do this.

My reading of the terms is 50% of total usage over a 3 month period.
Not going over 50% for each of 3 consecutive months.

--

Kevin K

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:52:43 UTC, Harry <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:22:45 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Cingular advertises the "all-over" network.
>
> Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which
> areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no
> such thing.
>
> I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every
> call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says
> Cingular on it. Even though some calls on my bill are marked follow me
> roaming.
>
> So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or
> not.
>
> I have had Cingular service for a year now. I have never had a call
> dropped on my end. I have never had a bad experience with customer
> service. The call quality on my phone is excellent.
>
> Never the less I may well change carriers at the end of my contract.
>
> WHY? In following discussion about Cingular I note that in every
> single case they choose the method best for them even if it hurts the
> customer. And make no pretense about doing otherwise.
>
> Although I don't think I am affected by this change of theirs why
> should I trust them in the future. Maybe I am roaming and just don't
> know it.
>
> I can not trust Cingular.
>

I admit I wasn't aware of the 50% rule until I read it on the
newsgroups. It is in the middle of a large amount of small print. I
couldn't even find it on Cingular's site until I went to google and
searched.

My year with Sprint was the first time I really had nationwide roaming
without roaming charges, and I wouldn't want to go back to paying
$.69/minute for roaming. In the past, I did only because with the
plans then, the regional plans had enough extra minutes vs the
national plans that it was still cheaper.

Kevin K

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:20:05 UTC, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> "Harry" <tigerfan@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:v9b022p3tfruo7i
ft0ft0hcib0b0cd502a@
4ax.com...
>
> When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a
> setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS
> network--something I never could do with my old TDMA phones.
>
> There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
> Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
> calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
> situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
> user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
> inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.
>
> At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about
> whether to roam or not.
>
>

When I had Sprint, the phone only had the option to enable roaming, or
not. No third option was available. When, after the first month, I
had an extra $30 in roaming charges for calls made from my home, I
just disabled roaming. If they had had better coverage where I lived,
it wouldn't have been necessary, and I would probably still have the
service.

At the time, there was an option for an extra $5/month to allow the
roaming to be free.

John Navas

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <wx%Tf.1045$sU4.936@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:00:35
-0500, "mc" <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:

>
>A lot of companies just don't seem to know how to make money. It comes from
>confusing economic competition (which means offering people a choice) with
>things like athletic competition (defeating your adversary). As soon as you
>view the customer as someone to be outwitted and defeated, you put yourself
>into a very weak position. The customers, as a group, have all the power.

With all due respect, that's a shortsighted view that doesn't work terribly
well in practice. There is indeed real competition between companies.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-21, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <pu%Tf.1044$sU4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:57:16
-0500, "mc" <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:

>
>If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy.

A company can be trustworthy but still act in its own interest, which may well
not be the same as the interest of the consumer.

>Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted.

That's a big leap. The interests of the company and the customer don't always
coincide. For example, companies try to maximize profit, whereas customers
try to minimize price. That tension is an essential part of the free market
mechanism. Companies that give away the store to please customers tend to go
out of business, as in the case of AT&T Wireless.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Littleguy

2006-03-22, 2:48 am

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:36:26 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

> Companies that give away the store to please customers tend to go
>out of business, as in the case of AT&T Wireless.

AT&T wireless didn't go out of business because they were "giving away
the store" you XXXXing idiot.

If your going to post crap to YOUR group, you should at least post
factual statements.
--
Littleguy

Littleguy

2006-03-22, 2:48 am

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:57:16 -0500, "mc"
<look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:

>
>If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy.
>Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted.

Most, not all are in business and make a profit by pleasing the many.
Not the few.

It's a volume thing. Think McDonalds-:)
--
Littleguy

Littleguy

2006-03-22, 2:48 am

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:41:16 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy
<forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

>Harry wrote:
>
>That could present a reasonable and obvious expectation of "in network
>coverage" to the point it could dilute Cingular's effort to drop anyone
>for excessive roaming. A possible similarity to a "bait and switch" scheme

Have you or anybody you know ever signed up for NetFlex? Sign up for
there 3 at a time package and you'll get 3 alright, just not the "hot
ones".
--
Littleguy

Jerome Zelinske

2006-03-22, 2:48 am

Cingular is not doing anything to the ex-att customers. It is att
that went out of business on them. What good does it do a company to
charge rates too low to stay in business?

2006-03-22, 2:48 am

>
> With all due respect, that's a shortsighted view that doesn't work
> terribly
> well in practice. There is indeed real competition between companies.

Well... I would think that if it doesn't work in practice, it's too
longsighted rather than too shortsighted. Anyhow, I conflated 2 points and
didn't express myself too clearly. Real competition between companies is a
good thing. Viewing the customer as an adversary is not. Real competition
between companies gives the customer more choices and more power.

You seem to view all companies as adversaries. Are you a Marxist?

John Navas

2006-03-22, 2:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <p54Uf.475$Pe.401@bignews6.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:12:08
-0500, "mc" <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:

>
>
>Well... I would think that if it doesn't work in practice, it's too
>longsighted rather than too shortsighted. Anyhow, I conflated 2 points and
>didn't express myself too clearly. Real competition between companies is a
>good thing. Viewing the customer as an adversary is not.

Agreed.

>Real competition
>between companies gives the customer more choices and more power.

Not necessarily -- competition between companies can occur in other ways. For
example, one company might compete by developing a patenting a process that it
might then refuse to license to competitors, but that it might not actually
use itself.

>You seem to view all companies as adversaries. Are you a Marxist?

No. Do you always libel those with different points of view?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Iopsy

2006-03-22, 2:48 am

> Perhaps. More likely that it's confusing to most customers. The
> percentage
> affected is probably very small.
> Best regards, John Navas

Right, Cingular admits less than 1% have breached their contract by
violating the 50% clause. Since only a relatively few customers are
involved, why not just let it go rather than ignominiously terminating
these people and risking the bad publicity over an issue involving nickels
and dimes. The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk
scaring off potential new customers and making existing ones nervious. Why
not try an experiment -- print out the article, blank out Cingular's name,
and show it to people and ask them how it makes feel about this nameless
carrier. Ask them if this info would make them shop all the harder for an
alternative to this carrier. Between the lot us we could quickly and
cheaply pull of a national sample survey -- albeit non-random. Even so,
it would an impressive piece of marketing research because of the geogrpahic
spread and, if lots of us join in, sample size as well. It would also be
one of few instances of newgroups engaging in empiricism rather than just
rationalism In other words, instead of trying to reason out how many teeth
are in a horses mouth, we will count them and find out once and for all.
--Iopsy .

John Navas

2006-03-22, 2:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < cni122tdikhik68lds5p
1opv4n05eapp9c@4ax.com> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:57:26
-0800, Littleguy <Littleguy@dslr.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:57:16 -0500, "mc"
><look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:
>
>
>Most, not all are in business and make a profit by pleasing the many.
>Not the few.
>
>It's a volume thing. Think McDonalds-:)

True for some companies, but not for all companies -- many companies choose to
make a profit by pleasing the few. Think Rolex.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-22, 2:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < voudnT_1u_Kadb3ZnZ2d
nUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast
.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:00:13
-0500, "Iopsy" <cml@wayne.edu> wrote:

[color=darkred]
>Right, Cingular admits less than 1% have breached their contract by
>violating the 50% clause.

Citation?

>Since only a relatively few customers are
>involved, why not just let it go rather than ignominiously terminating
>these people and risking the bad publicity over an issue involving nickels
>and dimes.

P&L.

>The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk
>scaring off potential new customers and making existing ones nervious.
>...

There will always be a certain amount of bad press no matter how a business is
run, and some of the most successful businesses have a relatively high level
of bad press. Think WalMart.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-03-22, 5:48 pm

In article
<JH_Tf.601332$qk4.388151@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>
> The vast majority of Cingular customers don't have any need to know.

Therefore, according to Navas, how Cingular does it is perfectly
acceptable.

Navas sounds like one of those Mac fanatics who can't acknowledge that a
different way might be a better way, or that Apple could possibly screw
up.

(PeteCresswell)

2006-03-22, 5:48 pm

Per Iopsy:
>The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk
>scaring off potential new customers

It seems to be working on me...
--
PeteCresswell

SMS

2006-03-22, 5:48 pm

Iopsy wrote:

> Right, Cingular admits less than 1% have breached their contract by
> violating the 50% clause. Since only a relatively few customers are
> involved, why not just let it go rather than ignominiously terminating
> these people and risking the bad publicity over an issue involving nickels
> and dimes. The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk
> scaring off potential new customers and making existing ones nervious.

Wireless companies are used to getting away with very little bad press
in most media because they spend so much on advertising. It has to be
either a very big story, or one with a very good human interest angle,
in order to be published. You can bet that Cingular never dreamed that
such a story would be published, and that the newspaper responsible for
publishing it will not see any Cingular advertising dollars for a while.

Jeremy

2006-03-22, 5:48 pm

"mc" <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:pu%Tf.1044$sU4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be
> trustworthy. Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted.
>
>

They have a monopoly. It is the same few companies, and their terms are
about the same.

GomJabbar

2006-03-22, 11:48 pm

Harry wrote:
> Cingular advertises the "all-over" network.

> Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which
> areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no
> such thing.

I recently ran into a simular issue. I was offshore in the Gulf of
Mexico. I was showing a strong "Cingular Extend" signal. My question
was: am I roaming (paying extra) or not? I called 611 on my cell phone
to find out. I asked the person who answered, and he said he didn't
know, but he could transfer me to Cingular. I asked: who is this? He
replied: Petrocom. I ended the call there. I later called 611 when I
had "Cingular" on my display, but since it was the weekend, I could not
reach a real person. While searching on the internet for an answer, I
found the following post in this forum:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....92566
96f

Scott Thompson wrote:
> Why do the new Cingular contracts exclude Petrocom (Gulf of Mexico) in their
> nationwide "no roaming" plans? The old contracts did not charge roaming
> when using a Petrocom tower, now the new contracts exclude Petrocom and
> Cingular charges a $0.79 per minute roaming charge even though your phone
> does not indicate you are roaming. All that is displayed is "Cingular
> Extended".

Today I called 611 again and spoke with a customer service
representative to verify if I would be paying roaming charges in the
above scenerio. The customer service rep could not answer! She said I
could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular
would treat the call. Yeah right.

John Navas

2006-03-22, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <gnjUf.8668$vy.7274@trnddc01> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:31:56 GMT, "Jeremy"
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>"mc" <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
>news:pu%Tf.1044$sU4.295@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>They have a monopoly. It is the same few companies, and their terms are
>about the same.

There is no monopoly in cellular, which is intensely competitive.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-22, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <1143076753.073834.142610@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> on 22 Mar 2006
17:19:13 -0800, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Harry wrote:
>
>
>I recently ran into a simular issue. I was offshore in the Gulf of
>Mexico. I was showing a strong "Cingular Extend" signal. My question
>was: am I roaming (paying extra) or not? I called 611 on my cell phone
>to find out. I asked the person who answered, and he said he didn't
>know, but he could transfer me to Cingular. I asked: who is this? He
>replied: Petrocom. I ended the call there. I later called 611 when I
>had "Cingular" on my display, but since it was the weekend, I could not
>reach a real person. While searching on the internet for an answer, I
>found the following post in this forum:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt....92566
96f
>
>Scott Thompson wrote:
>
>Today I called 611 again and spoke with a customer service
>representative to verify if I would be paying roaming charges in the
>above scenerio. The customer service rep could not answer! She said I
>could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular
>would treat the call. Yeah right.

Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Iopsy

2006-03-23, 2:48 am

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:US5Uf.16730$bn3.11117@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>
>
>
> Citation?

John, if you had read the article all the way through you wouldn't be asking
that.
--
Cordially, Iopsy

Paula Thomson

2006-03-23, 2:48 am

why dont they just try to run an honest business...

John Navas

2006-03-23, 2:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <6LSdnZMOm-YBvr_ZRVn-vQ@comcast.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:26:43 -0500,
"Iopsy" <cml@wayne.edu> wrote:

>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:US5Uf.16730$bn3.11117@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>John, if you had read the article all the way through you wouldn't be asking
>that.

Nasty comment -- how nice.

What that article actually says:

A company spokeswoman also said customers like Pat, who use mainly other
networks, make up about 1% of Cingular’s 54 million customers.

Nothing there about "breach" or "violate".

In other words, your interpretation, not what it actually says.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-03-23, 2:48 am

In article <6LSdnZMOm-YBvr_ZRVn-vQ@comcast.com>,
"Iopsy" <cml@wayne.edu> wrote:

>
> John, if you had read the article all the way through you wouldn't be asking
> that.

But then, John never reads anything. Does this surprise you?

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-03-23, 2:48 am

In article
<P_pUf.608872$qk4.516197@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

> What that article actually says:
>
> A company spokeswoman also said customers like Pat, who use mainly other
> networks, make up about 1% of Cingular’s 54 million customers.
>
> Nothing there about "breach" or "violate".

Fact: the contract says that more than 50% use of another company's
network is a breach of contract.

Fact: the article says...well, hell, you quoted it above for everyone
to see.

Add up A plus B. 1% of Cingular's customers use "mainly other
networks". The word "mainly" is quite clear, and is obviously where
you're sticking your head in the sand (again).

"Mainly" other networks means "more than 50%" of the time. That is, by
their definition and by that article, a breach of contract.

One day you'll learn to read, Navas. Until then, you'll keep
entertaining us with your sad attempts at sticking your head in the sand
and making that the real world.

John Navas

2006-03-23, 2:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <16015-44222782-122@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006
22:43:46 -0600, ebnozn@webtv.net (Paula Thomson) wrote:

> why dont they just try to run an honest business...

What actual evidence of dishonesty do you have?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-03-23, 2:48 am

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> One day you'll learn to read, Navas. Until then, you'll keep
> entertaining us with your sad attempts at sticking your head in the sand
> and making that the real world.

Careful, that might win you the Lord Vaders "hard on for Navas" award.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-03-23, 2:48 am

John Navas wrote:
> Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage?

Unlike airplanes, you can use a cellphone on a boat. Lot of Gulf Coast
oil rigs use cellular.

GomJabbar

2006-03-23, 5:48 pm

John Navas wrote:
> Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage?

I didn't really. Why do you think I called 611 first? To make sure I
wouldn't see any roaming charges on my bill. I have been caught by
Petrocom in the past, when I had AT&T wireless (TDMA and AMPS). I
have even incurred Petrocom charges with AT&T while making calls from
places like Galveston; where you might get a land signal or an offshore
signal. In addition, my coworkers have incurred Petrocom charges with
other carriers. Hence my caution. BTW, none of my coworkers currently
use Cingular.

The other thing is that the display shows "Cingular Extend". What does
this mean? If it showed "Roaming", I would have no doubt. In the
other areas I have been, I have not seen "Cingular Extend" or "Roaming"
on my display.

Jeremy

2006-03-23, 5:48 pm

"GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1143076753.073834.142610@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Harry wrote:
>
>
> I recently ran into a simular issue. I was offshore in the Gulf of
> Mexico. I was showing a strong "Cingular Extend" signal. My question
> was: am I roaming (paying extra) or not? I called 611 on my cell phone
> to find out. I asked the person who answered, and he said he didn't
> know, but he could transfer me to Cingular. I asked: who is this? He
> replied: Petrocom. I ended the call there. I later called 611 when I
> had "Cingular" on my display, but since it was the weekend, I could not
> reach a real person. While searching on the internet for an answer, I
> found the following post in this forum:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt....92566
96f
>
> Scott Thompson wrote:
>
> Today I called 611 again and spoke with a customer service
> representative to verify if I would be paying roaming charges in the
> above scenerio. The customer service rep could not answer! She said I
> could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular
> would treat the call. Yeah right.
>

Transfer over to Sprint. You can set your phone not to roam off the Sprint
PCS Network, anytime you want.

Jeremy

2006-03-23, 5:48 pm

"Paula Thomson" <ebnozn@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16015-44222782-122@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net...
> why dont they just try to run an honest business...
>

They and their parent, the former SBC Communications, now trading under the
name AT&T, have a reputation for arm-twisting their customers.

They are in loosely-regulated businesses, and I read just the other day that
AT&T is selling off unprofitable telephone lines (translation: regulated
POTS) in some areas.

Best thing to do if you are unhappy is to take your business elsewhere. If
enough people do that, Cingular won't be so smug.

Marty

2006-03-23, 5:48 pm

Somewhere around 22 Mar 2006 17:19:13 -0800, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "GomJabbar"
<dkbatson@earthlink.net>:

>
>Today I called 611 again and spoke with a customer service
>representative to verify if I would be paying roaming charges in the
>above scenerio. The customer service rep could not answer! She said I
>could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular
>would treat the call. Yeah right.

I have one suggestion - if you get an answer like that, ask them if they
really think that is a good idea, or if there might be some way to find out
before you get obligated to pay. It's a reasonable request, and if asked in
a reasonable manner, most would agree. If they don't, thank them and end
the call. Then call back to talk to someone who has a clue.

My experience (personal experience, not what I read) is that there is a
small percentage of people that are either new, don't care, or on drugs at
many helpdesks, Cingular included. If you get one, it doesn't really mean
the whole company sucks, unless it happens repetedly. This technique has
worked for me, but of course, it will not work for anyone whose agenda is to
simply dis the company rather than solve a problem (not referring
specifically to you here, just in general).

By the way, if it's important, I often call back even when I get an answer
to verify the answer.

--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

John Navas

2006-03-23, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <gDwUf.15830$gD4.14148@trnddc05> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:36:28 GMT, "Jeremy"
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>"Paula Thomson" <ebnozn@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:16015-44222782-122@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net...
>
>They and their parent, the former SBC Communications, now trading under the
>name AT&T, have a reputation for arm-twisting their customers.

Nonsense.

>Best thing to do if you are unhappy is to take your business elsewhere. ...

True.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-23, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <_crUf.58624$H71.13769@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006
06:27:06 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>
>Unlike airplanes, you can use a cellphone on a boat. Lot of Gulf Coast
>oil rigs use cellular.

You didn't answer my question.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-03-23, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <yAwUf.15829$gD4.8190@trnddc05> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:33:34 GMT, "Jeremy"
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>Transfer over to Sprint. You can set your phone not to roam off the Sprint
>PCS Network, anytime you want.

Depends on the phone.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

SMS

2006-03-23, 5:48 pm

Marty wrote:
> Somewhere around 22 Mar 2006 17:19:13 -0800, while reading
> alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "GomJabbar"
> <dkbatson@earthlink.net>:
>
>
> I have one suggestion - if you get an answer like that, ask them if they
> really think that is a good idea, or if there might be some way to find out
> before you get obligated to pay. It's a reasonable request, and if asked in
> a reasonable manner, most would agree. If they don't, thank them and end
> the call. Then call back to talk to someone who has a clue.

I don't think any of the CSRs at any of the carriers have a clue about
something like that. The Gulf of Mexico is a grey area. Depending on
your location, you might pick up an analog signal from the U.S., if
you're close to land maybe a CDMA digital signal from the U.S., and if
you're really close, maybe a GSM or TDMA signal.

I think the problem here is that Cingular automatically assumes that any
800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz GSM network that the phone picks up is included
roaming, so it just displays "Cingular Extend." They should use an MNC
which distinguishes between included roaming and not-included roaming,
if indeed they charge for it. You'd have a good case for disputing any
roaming charges, since the phone didn't display "roaming." Actually they
should make the phone display the current roaming charge!

From what I heard, the main reason that Verizon dropped all
out-of-extended-network roaming was because often customers had old PRLs
that were displaying the wrong thing, especially as Verizon was cutting
back significantly on included roaming. On a CDMA phone, the user must
download a new PRL for the phone to correctly display the network
status. So now, if you want to use your CDMA Verizon phone on a network
with whom Verizon has no roaming agreement, you can't do it, your phone
simply will have "No Service." Verizon is able to use this policy to
force smaller companies into roaming agreements, since without one, the
smaller company can no longer get any roaming revenue at all from
Verizon's customers.

John Navas

2006-03-23, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < 4422e42b$0$95939$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:08:54
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>... The Gulf of Mexico is a grey area. Depending on
>your location, you might pick up an analog signal from the U.S., if
>you're close to land maybe a CDMA digital signal from the U.S., and if
>you're really close, maybe a GSM or TDMA signal.

Coastal GSM signals are actually comparable in range to CDMA -- here in
Northern California, I consistently pick up Cingular GSM farther out to sea
that Verizon phones on the same boat.

>I think the problem here is that Cingular automatically assumes that any
> 800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz GSM network that the phone picks up is included
>roaming, so it just displays "Cingular Extend." They should use an MNC
>which distinguishes between included roaming and not-included roaming,
>if indeed they charge for it.

Cingular SIMs are in fact programmed that way.

>You'd have a good case for disputing any
>roaming charges, since the phone didn't display "roaming." Actually they
>should make the phone display the current roaming charge!

The problem is International Roaming. If it's turned off, then there
shouldn't be a charge for roaming; if it's turn on, then the phone will roam
on foreign networks. If you don't need or want International Roaming, call
Customer Care and make sure that it's turned off.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

GomJabbar

2006-03-23, 11:48 pm

John Navas wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Cingular SIMs are in fact programmed that way.

[color=darkred]
> The problem is International Roaming. If it's turned off, then there
> shouldn't be a charge for roaming; if it's turn on, then the phone will roam
> on foreign networks. If you don't need or want International Roaming, call
> Customer Care and make sure that it's turned off.

Petrocom is not an international service. It is part of the U. S. of A.
It is a service for use by the oilfield workers, so they can call home
(or elsewhere). And they get charged out the ying-yang for the
privilege of using it. "Cingular Extend" on the display of the phone
gives the unwitting user no indication that he will be billed for
roaming. Of course after the bill comes in, then he will know.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-03-23, 11:48 pm

GomJabbar wrote:
> And they get charged out the ying-yang for the
> privilege of using it.

*THAT* is an understatement!

http://www.petrocom.com/gsmedge.asp

Per Month
$ 30 pay as you go

$ 200 200 minutes

$ 400 500 minutes

$ 700 1,000 minutes

$1,300 2,000 minutes

$1,800 3,000 minutes

SMS

2006-03-30, 5:48 pm

Iopsy wrote:
> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article
> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's
> your take?
>
> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_inves...> 56035,00.html

Also see
"http://www.cm-life.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/03/22/4420eba3cd5b0"

"Cingular discontinues area service
Lack of towers causes company to end contracts"

It's not like these customers were traveling outside the area where they
lived when they signed up for service. Cingular should also be refunding
any money that they paid for handsets, when their service is discontinued.

LinkBot