|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > August 2006 > Customers file deception suit against Cingular
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 |
Customers file deception suit against Cingular
|
|
| RNess 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| I think Navas will really like this one...
http://www.americasnetwork.com/amer...?id=355321#Top3
Customers file deception suit against Cingular
Jul 7, 2006
Cingular Wireless promised to provide uninterrupted service to AT&T Wireless customers when it acquired that company in
2004, but instead it nickel-and-dimed them and degraded their reception in an effort to persuade them to sign new
contracts, a federal lawsuit said.
An Associated Press report said the lawsuit, which alleged breach of contract and violations of consumer protection
laws, sought class-action status on behalf of the more than 20 million customers AT&T Wireless had at the time of the
merger.
Many paid $18 "transfer" fees to switch to Cingular plans and were required to buy new phones or pay other fees, said
the complaint filed in a District Court in Seattle.
"Everyone who signed an AT&T contract had their service degraded," attorney Mike Withey, quoted by Associated Press,
said.
Atlanta-based Cingular acquired Redmond-based AT&T Wireless Services for $41 billion in October 2004, and promised in
advertisements and news releases that the customers of both companies would see uninterrupted and even improved service
as a result of the "combined network."
Withey argued that instead, Cingular stopped maintaining AT&T Wireless network facilities. In addition to the accounts
of his clients, he cited news articles in which industry analysts said Cingular appeared to be investing little or
nothing in the AT&T Wireless network. That breached the contracts AT&T Wireless had with its customers, he said.
Cingular spokesman Clay Owen said the company had not had a chance to review the lawsuit, the report said.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:35:49 -0700, "RNess"
<richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
< 4uCdncHdxL1ffDPZnZ2d
nUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>I think Navas will really like this one...
>
>http://www.americasnetwork.com/amer...?id=355321#Top3
>
>Customers file deception suit against Cingular
>[SNIP]
More accurately: Lawyers file class action suit against Cingular, hoping
to get large fees at the expense of Cingular customers, because Cingular
will probably settle out of expediency, just as Verizon did with the
silly Bluetooth class action suit.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| RNess 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| Yes, maybe.... (settle)
But, there is a hellof alot of difference between a "silly Bluetooth" action
vs a hobbled, piss poor basic cellular service action. One is an accessory
on a phone (non core function) the other is concerning the PRIMARY operation
of the device/service - a frickin' PHONE.
After all they are PHONES 1st and foremost - camera and multi function toy
second. At least to anyone with a brain cell or two...
Yes, Cingular MAY be all that and a bag of chips in some places, but out here in
many parts of the west and in Seattle (where this suit was filed), Cingular
is right there at the bottom of the heap - period.
No denial or spin of yours can change that fact.
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:f1pta2dbdq2l7hq
9t725ghbsgem8rvc1hd@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:35:49 -0700, "RNess"
> <richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> < 4uCdncHdxL1ffDPZnZ2d
nUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>
>
> More accurately: Lawyers file class action suit against Cingular, hoping
> to get large fees at the expense of Cingular customers, because Cingular
> will probably settle out of expediency, just as Verizon did with the
> silly Bluetooth class action suit.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| RNess 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| It's getting traction - others are picking it up...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-...?tag=zdnn.alert
Cingular accused of duping ex-AT&T subscribers
By Anne Broache, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: July 7, 2006, 3:28 PM PT
A class action lawsuit charges that Cingular Wireless, the nation's largest carrier, deceived AT&T Wireless subscribers
into paying extra fees and degraded their service after acquiring that company in 2004.
The 22-page suit (click for PDF),http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/rp/6540.pdf filed Thursday in U.S. District
Court in Seattle, was brought by two West Coast law firms and the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights, a
California-based advocacy group that said it has fielded numerous complaints related to the suit's allegations.
The complaints center on accusations that Cingular didn't live up to advertising campaigns promising that AT&T Wireless
customers would "continue to enjoy the benefits of their current phones, rate plans and features, without any service
interruption," after Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless.
The suit accuses Cingular of engaging in a "deliberate scheme" to degrade the service of those AT&T subscribers in order
to command "significant additional charges" for improvements such as requiring the purchase of a new Cingular phone,
payment of an $18 transfer fee, or entry into a contract that was "less favorable" than the subscriber's existing AT&T
plan.
One of the seven plaintiffs named in the suit, Christine Aschero, said she was "very happy" until the merger occurred.
"That's when all the trouble began," she said in a statement released by the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer
Rights. "Dropped calls, my phone not ringing, I didn't get voice mails, and my phone would randomly go into 'emergency
mode.'"
Those who chose not to make the switch had to deal with an increased number of dropped calls and poor or nonexistent
reception--or pay a $175 penalty to leave their contracts early, the suit said.
Cingular dismissed the allegations in a statement released Friday afternoon, deeming the suit "completely without
merit."
Joaquin Carbonell, the company's executive vice president and general counsel, said Cingular "has spent nearly $10
billion in integrating and improving its networks in the 21 months since the merger was completed, leading to a
significantly improved customer experience and the fewest dropped calls of any national carrier."
He also issued a warning to the suit's filers, saying the company was separately "considering our options with respect
to the false and misleading statements made to the media by the lawyer that brought this case."
It was unclear exactly which statements Carbonell was referring to. In an Associated Press story published Thursday,
attorney Mike Withey was quoted as saying at a Seattle press conference, "Everyone who signed an AT&T contract had their
service degraded."
The suit covers all AT&T Wireless customers as of Oct. 26, 2004, the date that Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless. It seeks
a jury trial and treble or punitive damages for those covered by the claims.
Earlier this month, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular that had been ordered
in 2004 by the California Public Utilities Commission. The PUC found that the wireless carrier had been signing up more
customers than its network could handle and then forcing them to pay as much as $550 to cancel their service.
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:f1pta2dbdq2l7hq
9t725ghbsgem8rvc1hd@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:35:49 -0700, "RNess"
> <richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> < 4uCdncHdxL1ffDPZnZ2d
nUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>
>
> More accurately: Lawyers file class action suit against Cingular, hoping
> to get large fees at the expense of Cingular customers, because Cingular
> will probably settle out of expediency, just as Verizon did with the
> silly Bluetooth class action suit.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues, and
all customers were free to move to another carrier, which would seem to
seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
YMMV).
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:10:18 -0700, "RNess"
<richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
< ZOqdnaaXZ6lKdDPZnZ2d
nUVZ_sOdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>Yes, maybe.... (settle)
>
>But, there is a hellof alot of difference between a "silly Bluetooth" action
>vs a hobbled, piss poor basic cellular service action. One is an accessory
>on a phone (non core function) the other is concerning the PRIMARY operation
>of the device/service - a frickin' PHONE.
>
>After all they are PHONES 1st and foremost - camera and multi function toy
>second. At least to anyone with a brain cell or two...
>
>Yes, Cingular MAY be all that and a bag of chips in some places, but out here in
>many parts of the west and in Seattle (where this suit was filed), Cingular
>is right there at the bottom of the heap - period.
>
>No denial or spin of yours can change that fact.
>
>
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:f1pta2dbdq2l7hq
9t725ghbsgem8rvc1hd@
4ax.com...
>
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:24:07 -0700, "RNess"
<richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
< 1NWdnY5KK46IcDPZnZ2d
nUVZ_t2dnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>It's getting traction - others are picking it up...
>[SNIP]
Depends on what you consider "traction" -- I think the only real
traction is in the courts, which has yet to be demonstrated.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:v3tta2l9s9vdegj
umbphnl47gpbndo1d3u@
4ax.com...
> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues,
According to who? The statement is nothing more than unfounded and
unsupported opinion.
> and
> all customers were free to move to another carrier,
only if they are out of contract
> which would seem to
> seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
> YMMV).
>
Which shows how little you know.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
>
> Which shows how little you know.
Yes, the whole point of the lawsuit is that these are customers that
were _not_ free to move to another carrier. It would be reasonable to
limit the damage awards to AT&T customers that were under contract, and
not free to move, though Cingular did mislead customers that were out of
contract as well, claiming improved coverage if the customer switched
from AT&T TDMA to Cingular GSM, when in fact the coverage was often much
worse.
JN is right (a rare event), the great majority of Cingular customers
experienced no real issues--it was the AT&T customers that experienced
the issues. Enough of them apparently to make the lawsuit seem
worthwhile to these law firms. One thing good about class action
lawsuits is that they are self-limiting--while you always see someone
trying to drum up interest in a class action lawsuit, only the ones that
actually have some merit tend to be filed because the lawyers are very
pragmatic.
A fair settlement might be:
a) refund any transfer fees paid by the subscriber.
b) refund the cost of handsets paid by the subscriber, within reason (a
full refund if the handset from Cingular had roughly the same
capabilities as the AT&T handset, and a partial refund if the subscriber
upgraded to a more fully-featured handset).
c) refund the difference between the AT&T calling plan and the Cingular
calling plan, if the plans had roughly the same number of minutes, or
were the mininum plan available. Thus refund could be limited to the
number of months that the subscriber was under contract.
d) lawyer fees.
Cingular will probably settle, as it would be a big mistake for them to
try to take this thing to trial.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:20:07 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44af0842$0$96215$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Yes, the whole point of the lawsuit is that these are customers that
>were _not_ free to move to another carrier.
Actually they were. Anyone that didn't want to migrate was let out of
contract.
>d) lawyer fees.
>
>Cingular will probably settle, as it would be a big mistake for them to
>try to take this thing to trial.
Cingular will probably settle, like almost all companies, because it's
dumb to play Russian Roulette when a settlement is comparatively cheap..
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues,
[Insert any defective product issue] did not affect most people, but
that did not dilute the seriousness of the issue.
> all customers were free to move to another carrier
Free to move? Yes.
Free as in not having to enjoy the same rate plan or
another commitment. No.
> which would seem to
> seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
> YMMV).
At least you're starting to differentiate your opinion and reality.
| |
| RNess 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local...html?source=rss
New customers sue Cingular
AT&T users say service worsened after merger
By CANDACE HECKMAN
P-I REPORTER
When AT&T Wireless and Cingular merged almost two years ago, AT&T customers were promised a seamless transition and
upgraded service from what had become the nation's largest cell phone company.
But almost immediately, calls started dropping and customers began getting network busy signals.
When they called to complain, customers were told that they had to sign a new multiyear contract with Cingular, paying
$18 here, another $18 there. They also faced a fee for terminating their AT&T contracts -- as much as $175.
New phones were no longer available. Signals got worse. And worse.
Now, some of those customers are accusing the new merged carrier of conspiring to steadily degrade the old AT&T network
in order to induce customers to sign on to Cingular instead.
A lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Seattle is seeking class-action status on behalf of 20 million
current and former AT&T Wireless customers, alleging breach of contract and claiming that consumers and federal
regulators were misled when they were told before the merger that the new company would treat its old customers fairly.
Officials at Cingular had not had time to examine the federal complaint and could not comment Thursday, said Anne
Marshall, a company spokeswoman in Redmond.
But, Marshall said, since the merger, Cingular has been spending billions of dollars to upgrade and integrate the two
systems' networks.
Cingular, based in Atlanta, acquired Redmond-based AT&T Wireless for $41 billion in October 2004. About a month after
the deal closed, said Amy Frerker, a 28-year-old Seattle architect, she started noticing fewer signal bars on her phone.
Her calls were getting dropped, as many as four or five a day.
"I didn't even know what a dropped call was at that point," she said about her previous AT&T service.
When she called customer service, representatives told her that work was being done on local cell towers and that the
problems would be temporary.
"But they weren't temporary," she said.
For the next year and a half, Frerker spent hours on the phone with AT&T/Cingular, asking the company to terminate her
contract or fix her service. At one point, she also needed a new phone. Each time, she was advised to switch to
Cingular, buy a new phone on eBay or pay an early termination fee.
Finally, last week, a supervisor at Cingular gave in to her request and terminated the service free of charge.
"For the most part," she said, "I was just really angry."
Frerker is one of seven plaintiffs named in the federal complaint. After reading about the lawsuit online, several
former and current AT&T subscribers contacted the Seattle P-I wanting to join the lawsuit.
"Every time I tried to speak with the company's representatives, they tried to convince me to switch over," said J.D.
Kritser, an AT&T customer in Seattle. "However, they always insisted that I would have to have a new contract that
locked me in again for another period.
"I would also have to get a new number. If not for that, I might have switched. The service was deplorable, but I did
not want to get rid of my old number, which was resident in another state."
Cingular spent $6.5 billion nationwide upgrading and integrating the networks in 2005 and is projected to spend more
this year, Cingular's Marshall said.
"One of the reasons Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless was to better serve consumers --and we're doing just that," Marshall
said. "We also offer a 30-day trial period for service and equipment nationwide -- which is twice as long as what's
offered by most of our competitors. It's a testament to the confidence we have in our service."
One of the obstacles Cingular faced with AT&T Wireless was the transition from an older cellular network called TDMA to
a newer, more globally integrated system called GSM.
Cingular uses GSM. But AT&T customers are currently in limbo between the two systems. One of the accusations made in the
lawsuit is that Cingular was purposely degrading AT&T's older network on the assumption that it will become obsolete.
"The company has not made an effort to hide the fact that they want people to move over to Cingular," said Harvey
Rosenfield, a lawyer with California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which is representing consumers
in the lawsuit.
The foundation began receiving specific complaints about network problems almost immediately after the merger and has
been investigating individual consumer complaints for about nine months, Rosenfield said.
Clay Owen, another Cingular representative, said Thursday that Cingular will shut down its TDMA network in about two
years. "However, plans are already under way to find ways to transition these customers," he said. "But please be
assured that this is being planned carefully, and there are no plans to shut down the TDMA network in the near future."
The company has faced other legal challenges as a result of the merger and its rapid growth.
Last week, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for signing up customers too
fast and for imposing cancellation fees without an adequate trial period to test the network. California regulators
accused the company of knowingly signing up more customers than its network could handle.
California also ordered Cingular to refund up to $10 million to customers, some of whom paid hundreds of dollars to
cancel their contracts.
Because the plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit contend that Cingular breached its contracts with customers, lawyers
believe that some consumers could be owed hundreds of dollars for having been forced to pay to get out or to continue
with sub-par service.
"Cingular misrepresented to AT&T Wireless customers that they would enjoy the benefits of their current phones, rate
plans and features, without any service interruption," according to the lawsuit. "Consequently, while Cingular is
profiting from prior AT&T Wireless customers who have 'transferred,' existing AT&T Wireless subscribers who have not
'transferred' to Cingular have suffered, and continue to suffer."
PHONING IT IN
Consumers facing wireless service problems can complain to the Federal Communications Commission online at
www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html, or by calling 888-225-5322.
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is taking complaints about the AT&T/Cingular experience at
www.consumerwatchdog.org.
Consumers Union hosts a Web site focused on problems with wireless companies: www.hearusnow.org.
AT&T Wireless customers interested in more information regarding the lawsuit can contact lawyers at the Seattle-based
firm Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Withey Coluccio at 206-448-1777.
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:v3tta2l9s9vdegj
umbphnl47gpbndo1d3u@
4ax.com...
> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues, and
> all customers were free to move to another carrier, which would seem to
> seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
> YMMV).
>
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:10:18 -0700, "RNess"
> <richard@nodamnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> < ZOqdnaaXZ6lKdDPZnZ2d
nUVZ_sOdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>:
>
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| RNess 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:he2ua2hbns8f6g8
lcj913mdcmu4li1055l@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:20:07 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 44af0842$0$96215$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> Actually they were. Anyone that didn't want to migrate was let out of
> contract.
NO!!! They also faced a fee for terminating their AT&T contracts -- as much as $175.
And I quote:
For the next year and a half, Frerker spent hours on the phone with AT&T/Cingular, asking the company to terminate her
contract or fix her service. At one point, she also needed a new phone. Each time, she was advised to switch to
Cingular, buy a new phone on eBay or pay an early termination fee.
Oh, and I let this one slide....
Last week, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for signing up customers too
fast and for imposing cancellation fees without an adequate trial period to test the network. California regulators
accused the company of knowingly signing up more customers than its network could handle.
California also ordered Cingular to refund up to $10 million to customers, some of whom paid hundreds of dollars to
cancel their contracts.
Sure sound like they were free to move???? NOT!!! The above judgement proves that.
>
>
> Cingular will probably settle, like almost all companies, because it's
> dumb to play Russian Roulette when a settlement is comparatively cheap..
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
> [Insert any defective product issue] did not affect most people, but
> that did not dilute the seriousness of the issue.
Fortunately, it isn't necessary for the "great majority" of users of a
product or service to have issues in order to get relief, it just takes
a sizable minority.
>
> Free to move? Yes.
But not free to move for free. That's one of the major points of the
lawsuit, the AT&T subscribers were being held to their contracts, being
forced to change to a less capable network, having to pay both transfer
fees and for new handsets, and having to get a new contract.
>
> At least you're starting to differentiate your opinion and reality.
LOL, it's a start!
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| In article < v3tta2l9s9vdegjumbph
nl47gpbndo1d3u@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues, and
> all customers were free to move to another carrier
on the contrary, they were *not* free to move to another carrier,
which is the basis for the lawsuit; the one you defended apparently
without researching it.
| |
|
| RNess wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:he2ua2hbns8f6g8
lcj913mdcmu4li1055l@
4ax.com...
>
> NO!!! They also faced a fee for terminating their AT&T contracts -- as much as $175.
Navas is well aware that AT&T customers were not being let out of their
contracts without an ETF. They weren't being forced to move to Cingular,
but they were strong-armed in many cases, with false claims of better
coverage. I know that my mom was "encouraged" to change to Cingular GSM,
and ended up with a phone that she couldn't use at my house in Silicon
Valley, or my sister's house in a suburb of Atlanta. When her contract
expired, she went with T-Mobile prepaid, and now she gets equally poor
coverage for a lot less money.
You have to realize, that most cellular subscribers are not familiar
with the intricacies of the different network technologies, and can be
convinced by a Cingular salesperson, or a Cingular dealer's salesperson,
that they should switch phones or switch networks. Someone with a
TDMA/AMPS phone that switched to GSM, would definitely have noticed a
big decrease in coverage, especially in the time-frame covered by the
lawsuit.
> Last week, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for signing up customers too
> fast and for imposing cancellation fees without an adequate trial period to test the network. California regulators
> accused the company of knowingly signing up more customers than its network could handle.
I had Cingular back then. They had some very good rate plans, and were
signing up a lot of new customers. "Network busy, please try later" was
a common problem at peak times.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-07-08, 4:33 am |
| SMS wrote:
> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
> But not free to move for free.
What I meant was, they had a freedom of choice to make their own person
decision...no one was holding a g*n to their head to stay.
| |
| PC Medic 2006-07-08, 7:33 am |
|
"DecaturTxCowboy" <nono@no.no> wrote in message
news:FmGrg.167822$F_3.82428@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> SMS wrote:
>
>
> What I meant was, they had a freedom of choice to make their own person
> decision...no one was holding a g*n to their head to stay.
NO...just a contract
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| In article <jgkeegan-FB6003. 22040207072006@indiv
idual.net>,
"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article < v3tta2l9s9vdegjumbph
nl47gpbndo1d3u@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> on the contrary, they were *not* free to move to another carrier,
> which is the basis for the lawsuit; the one you defended apparently
> without researching it.
"...the one you defended apparently without researching it."
Ah, the John Navas trademark.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| In article < 44af0842$0$96215$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> A fair settlement might be:
>
> a) refund any transfer fees paid by the subscriber.
>
> b) refund the cost of handsets paid by the subscriber, within reason (a
> full refund if the handset from Cingular had roughly the same
> capabilities as the AT&T handset, and a partial refund if the subscriber
> upgraded to a more fully-featured handset).
>
> c) refund the difference between the AT&T calling plan and the Cingular
> calling plan, if the plans had roughly the same number of minutes, or
> were the mininum plan available. Thus refund could be limited to the
> number of months that the subscriber was under contract.
>
> d) lawyer fees.
How about simply letting me out of my Cingular contract with no early
termination fees, such that I'm now free--literally--to move to another
carrier?
I might move to Verizon if that happens. Technically, it costs them no
money out of pocket--which will probably excite the beancounters,
because nobody looks past next week's numbers anyway.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:05:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44af12d2$0$96236$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>RNess wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>Navas is well aware that AT&T customers were not being let out of their
>contracts without an ETF.
I'm actually well aware that ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were given the
choice of migrating to Cingular or terminating without penalty.
>They weren't being forced to move to Cingular,
>but they were strong-armed in many cases, with false claims of better
>coverage.
Coverage and performance of GSM is superior in general to D-AMPS
("TDMA").
>You have to realize, that most cellular subscribers are not familiar
>with the intricacies of the different network technologies, and can be
>convinced by a Cingular salesperson, or a Cingular dealer's salesperson,
>that they should switch phones or switch networks. Someone with a
>TDMA/AMPS phone that switched to GSM, would definitely have noticed a
>big decrease in coverage, especially in the time-frame covered by the
>lawsuit.
They had the right to cancel without penalty within the trial period.
If they didn't do so, then presumably they were satisfied. Cingular
isn't responsible for customer choices.
It was simply a matter of not having a trial period, an issue that's
long since been resolved, and irrelevant in this context.
[color=darkred]
>I had Cingular back then. They had some very good rate plans, and were
>signing up a lot of new customers. "Network busy, please try later" was
>a common problem at peak times.
It was actually a rare problem.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:41:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-284449. 09410908072006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com>:
>In article < 44af0842$0$96215$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>How about simply letting me out of my Cingular contract with no early
>termination fees, such that I'm now free--literally--to move to another
>carrier?
You had that right during the trial period -- you weren't forced to
continue. Since you didn't exercise that right, you were presumably
satisfied, and short of a significant deterioration in service since
then, it's now too late to have a valid complaint. You're not "free" to
move to another carrier since you got a hefty discount (subsidy) on your
phone(s) in return for the term contract.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:33:32 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nono@no.no> wrote in
<MXDrg.61006$Lm5.42562@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>[Insert any defective product issue] did not affect most people, but
>that did not dilute the seriousness of the issue.
>
>
>Free to move? Yes.
>
>Free as in not having to enjoy the same rate plan or
>another commitment. No.
Cingular has no obligation to indefinitely continue whatever deal they
had with ATTWS, and they were free to seek a better deal from some other
carrier. And the degradation in D-AMPS ("TDMA") was started and
substantially completed by ATTWS, not Cingular. There is no real issue
here. That's presumably why the complaint had to be based on alleged
"deception" rather than conduct.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:54:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44af1041$0$96195$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
>Fortunately, it isn't necessary for the "great majority" of users of a
>product or service to have issues in order to get relief, it just takes
>a sizable minority.
It actually takes a valid class, which has yet to be proven in court.
>
>But not free to move for free. That's one of the major points of the
>lawsuit, the AT&T subscribers were being held to their contracts, being
>forced to change to a less capable network, having to pay both transfer
>fees and for new handsets, and having to get a new contract.
That's not what's alleged in the lawsuit, and isn't what actually
happened -- ATTWS customers, if not free to continue their ATTWS
contracts, had the choice of migration to Cingular GSM or termination
without penalty. There was no coercion, which is presumably why the
lawsuit has to rely on alleged "deception."
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 05:40:41 -0400, "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in
<s4Lrg.6745$nK.6548@dukeread05>:
>"DecaturTxCowboy" <nono@no.no> wrote in message
>news:FmGrg.167822$F_3.82428@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>NO...just a contract
There was no contract issue:
1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.
2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
or given a choice of:
(a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or
(b) Termination without penalty.
In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
free to cancel service without penalty.
This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:04:02 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
<jgkeegan-FB6003. 22040207072006@indiv
idual.net>:
>In article < v3tta2l9s9vdegjumbph
nl47gpbndo1d3u@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>on the contrary, they were *not* free to move to another carrier,
>which is the basis for the lawsuit; the one you defended apparently
>without researching it.
Actually they were free to move to another carrier:
1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.
2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
or given a choice of:
(a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or
(b) Termination without penalty.
In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
free to cancel service without penalty.
This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| In article <elmop-06D3C2. 09385308072006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <jgkeegan-FB6003. 22040207072006@indiv
idual.net>,
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "...the one you defended apparently without researching it."
>
> Ah, the John Navas trademark.
cingular will, of course, settle and not risk the court case.
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-07-08, 10:33 am |
| In article < nhfva25kh709rb4o28s6
t7e38ou4vqrhtt@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:04:02 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
> <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in
> <jgkeegan-FB6003. 22040207072006@indiv
idual.net>:
>
>
> Actually they were free to move to another carrier:
>
> 1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.
>
> 2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
> or given a choice of:
>
> (a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or
>
> (b) Termination without penalty.
>
> In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
> free to cancel service without penalty.
>
> This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
> presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."
the lawsuit which they will settle, because they know they are
guilty, despite your transparent attempt to deceive.
as you have been told by me and others, they were not free to move to
another character and many were deceived into migrating to cingular.
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article < 44af0842$0$96215$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> How about simply letting me out of my Cingular contract with no early
> termination fees, such that I'm now free--literally--to move to another
> carrier?
By now, most AT&T customers that were coerced into a Cingular contract
should be about done with their contracts, but yes, e) Eliminating the
termination fee for former AT&T customers that wish to terminate their
contract, and refunding the cost of handsets (perhaps on a pro-rated basis).
| |
| Ernie & Eythl 2006-07-08, 12:33 pm |
| John Navas answered:
>
> That's not what's alleged in the lawsuit, and isn't what actually
> happened -- ATTWS customers, if not free to continue their ATTWS
> contracts, had the choice of migration to Cingular GSM or termination
> without penalty.
You're so full of shit. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your XXX.
--
Ernie
<The man on the hill with a mountainous load in his shorts>
| |
| RNess 2006-07-08, 12:33 pm |
| Bottom line Johnny boy was I wanted to see how you'd spin this and the CA decisions.
A California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for imposing cancellation fees without an
adequate trial period to test the network AND Cingular was ORDERED refund up to $10 million to customers, some of whom
paid hundreds of dollars to cancel their contracts.
Bada bing - bada BOOM!!!
You remind me of the Black Knight in Python's Holy Grail....
[the Black Knight continues to threaten Arthur despite getting both his arms and one of his legs cut off]
Black Knight: Right, I'll do you for that!
King Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
King Arthur: ...You're a loony.
[King Arthur has just cut the Black Knight's last leg off]
Black Knight: Okay, we'll call it a draw.
King Arthur: [Preparing to leave] Come, Patsy.
[King Arthur and Patsy ride off]
Black Knight: [calling after King Arthur] Oh! Had enough, eh? Come back and take what's coming to you, you yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!
Totally defeated and helpless, he still continues to fight and flail...
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message news:5beva2ln1r7j7l1
7vuurjs30rh8dpfrosl@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:05:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 44af12d2$0$96236$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
>
>
> I'm actually well aware that ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were given the
> choice of migrating to Cingular or terminating without penalty.
>
>
> Coverage and performance of GSM is superior in general to D-AMPS
> ("TDMA").
>
>
> They had the right to cancel without penalty within the trial period.
> If they didn't do so, then presumably they were satisfied. Cingular
> isn't responsible for customer choices.
>
>
> It was simply a matter of not having a trial period, an issue that's
> long since been resolved, and irrelevant in this context.
>
>
> It was actually a rare problem.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Ernie & Eythl wrote:
> You're so full of shit. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
> and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
> pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your XXX.
This is correct. I had three relatives on AT&T Wireless, and none were
offered to terminate their service without the termination fee. They all
waited out their contracts and then switched to other carriers, rather
than pay the $175.
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:qteva2tb8d6oao0
om7eeuq5lsua3qn0bb7@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:33:32 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nono@no.no> wrote in
> <MXDrg.61006$Lm5.42562@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>
> Cingular has no obligation to indefinitely continue whatever deal they
> had with ATTWS,
So John is saying that they are allowed to discriminate against these
customers and not offer the same good faith to them as legacy Cingular
customers enjoy. His pathetic support of this angle is that he never refers
to them as Cingular customers, which they have been for quite a while now.
Of course, unless they show the same unwillingness to allow legacy Cingular
customers to maintain their service after the contract period, they will
face a new action charging discrimination. There is no technological or
platform issue preventing the continuation of these services- it is simply
the decision of the Company to discontinue them. It will be interesting to
see how the Company defends this second-class approach.
> and they were free to seek a better deal from some other
> carrier.
Which they have done and will continue to do- the churn numbers are about to
go back up and they are weeks away from being recognized as the
second-largest carrier.
> And the degradation in D-AMPS ("TDMA") was started and
> substantially completed by ATTWS, not Cingular. There is no real issue
> here. That's presumably why the complaint had to be based on alleged
> "deception" rather than conduct.
>
We don't need you to "presume" anything, Novice- we would prefer that you
simply took your head out of the sand and went away.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> So John is saying that they are allowed to discriminate against these
> customers and not offer the same good faith to them as legacy Cingular
> customers enjoy. His pathetic support of this angle is that he never refers
> to them as Cingular customers, which they have been for quite a while now.
I don't think that he understands the basis of the lawsuit. The claims
by the plaintiffs are at
"http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/fs/?postId=6539"
The plaintiffs are also asking for punitive damages, which is unlikely
to happen. Cingular will likely settle, but not with punitives.
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article <qfednR4- 1vQSRjLZnZ2dnUVZ_oqd
nZ2d@giganews.com>,
Ernie & Eythl <ernie&eythl@mountain> wrote:
> John Navas answered:
>
> You're so full of shit. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
> and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
> pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your XXX.
yes, he does.
| |
|
| james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <qfednR4- 1vQSRjLZnZ2dnUVZ_oqd
nZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Ernie & Eythl <ernie&eythl@mountain> wrote:
>
> yes, he does.
I wonder where he got the idea that Cingular was letting AT&T Wireless
subscribers out of their contracts?
I think what he might be trying to say is that AT&T customers that were
already out of contract had the choice of migrating to Cingular, or
termination without penalty (duh, they were out of contract), but did
_not_ have the option of continuing on a month to month basis on AT&T
Wireless. Actually this is also false as well, since you could continue
on the same rate plan on AT&T, on the AT&T network, whether it was TDMA
or GSM, but the degradation of service made this an unappealing choice.
What you couldn't do, was to migrate to Cingular, with no contract
extension, at the same rate plan that you has with AT&T Wireless. This
would have been fair enough, had Cingular not begun to dismantle the
AT&T wireless network while millions of AT&T wireless customers were
still under contract.
Cingular should have said something like, "Look, you have a sweetheart
rate with AT&T, but we're dismantling the AT&T TDMA network so you need
to finish out your contract on our GSM network, and BTW here's a
complimentary handset comparable to what you're using now (or we'll give
you a good deal on a more featured handset). When your contract expires,
you'll have to choose a currently available rate plan, but we want you
to stay so we'll give you a 20% discount on that plan for the 12 months,
and then a 10% discount on that plan 12 months after that. Or you can
leave with no termination fee and no hard feelings."
This would have slowly weaned the AT&T Wireless customers off of their
low-rate plans, and would have helped lower churn. Sure you'd have had
some customers walk away with their old TDMA handset, whose subsidy
wasn't yet paid for, but geez, after paying $41 billion for AT&T
wireless, it wouldn't be a big deal.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 44b02d54$0$96209$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder where he got the idea that Cingular was letting AT&T Wireless
> subscribers out of their contracts?
Out of his XXX.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-C083F8. 19195008072006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com...
> In article < 44b02d54$0$96209$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Out of his XXX.
That would explain how he was able to make room for his head.
>
| |
| Larry 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
| "james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in news:jgkeegan-
88CABA. 10243408072006@indiv
idual.net:
> cingular will, of course, settle and not risk the court case.
>
The trade organization wouldn't want any of it in front of a jury full of
cellular contractees, either. They'll make sure Cingular never gets in
court. Imagine the repercussions to all their sleazy asses if the jury
nullified the law they bribed the FCC bureaucrats to make and decided
differently that what is being done to everyone, now. Juries can do that,
you know. OJ is walking free because of it..."Jury Nullification".
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-C083F8. 19195008072006@nntp2
.usenetserver.com...
>
> That would explain how he was able to make room for his head.
Please try to rise above the kind of thing that JN posts. It's bad
enough dealing with all of his mis-statements, but these personal
attacks are uncalled for.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 44b04685$0$96154$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Please try to rise above the kind of thing that JN posts. It's bad
> enough dealing with all of his mis-statements, but these personal
> attacks are uncalled for.
Who said it was a personal attack?
You get shit out of your XXX. That's a fact.
| |
|
| Larry wrote:
> The trade organization wouldn't want any of it in front of a jury full of
> cellular contractees, either. They'll make sure Cingular never gets in
> court. Imagine the repercussions to all their sleazy asses if the jury
> nullified the law they bribed the FCC bureaucrats to make and decided
> differently that what is being done to everyone, now. Juries can do that,
> you know. OJ is walking free because of it..."Jury Nullification".
Can you imagine trying to choose a jury for a case like this? They'd
have to choose jurors that were never an AT&T Wireless or Cingular customer.
Given Sprint's customer service ratings, Sprint customers would probably
be rejected by the defense as well.
It's be a jury of Verizon customers, which might be good, as they tend
to be the smartest people.
Of course it will be settled out of court. Maybe make the settlement a
certain percentage of what Cingular paid for AT&T Wireless, say 10%.
Divide $4.1 billion dollars between the 22 million AT&T Wireless
customers, and give each customer $186, or they could opt for a larger
payment in Cingular scrip.
| |
| Larry 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:44b049d7$0$9614
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> They'd
> have to choose jurors that were never an AT&T Wireless or Cingular
> customer.
>
If I were Cingular's lawyers, I'd reject anyone who ever had a cellphone
contract. Most everyone had a bad experience with the contracts and would
still be a big, shall we say, "vindictive"?..(c;
Nope...I doubt the company could win in America in 2006.....too many
screwed people from all the companies.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44b049d7$0$9614
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> It's be a jury of Verizon customers, which might be good, as they tend to
> be the smartest people.
>
Based on what?
| |
|
| Larry wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
> news:44b049d7$0$9614
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> If I were Cingular's lawyers, I'd reject anyone who ever had a cellphone
> contract. Most everyone had a bad experience with the contracts and would
> still be a big, shall we say, "vindictive"?..(c;
>
> Nope...I doubt the company could win in America in 2006.....too many
> screwed people from all the companies.
You only get to reject a certain number of jurors. There is no way you
could seat a jury if you excluded post-paid cellular users.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:44b049d7$0$9614
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>
>
> Based on what?
They understand that the most important issue in choosing a carrier is
coverage. They read the surveys from entities like Consumer Reports and
JD Power, and don't try to invent fantastic theories as to why they must
have screwed up somehow because the survey results don't match the
company that someone is shilling for. They understand what evidence is
(it's not their own personal experience). Most important, they are able
to think critically, and are very fair.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44b04685$0$9615
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Please try to rise above the kind of thing that JN posts.
We're already there- we post substantiated facts and are not blind to the
truth.
> It's bad enough dealing with all of his mis-statements, but these personal
> attacks are uncalled for.
Actually, the personal attacks are very much called for. Anybody who is so
incapable of carrying on a rational discussion, makes up 'facts' and is so
allergic to the truth deserves no better. He is a dinosaur who proves day
after day that his useful life is long over in this group.
| |
| Larry 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:44b07562$0$9619
6
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> They understand that the most important issue in choosing a carrier is
> coverage.
They do? Geez, most of the ones I see look like teenage girls or huge
black women with blue lights blinking away in their hobbled up bluetooth
headsets in the mall to me. Do you think they can identify Consumer's
Reports or JD Power on a magazine rack?
I thought all VZW, like the rest of the carriers, was selling her the
glitzy little phones. Isn't that why they advertise with a stupid little
drug addict in a grey work jacket walking around in July asking, "Can you
hear me now?" He doesn't seem interested in pandering to the academic
elite consumer to me....(c;
Too funny......thanks.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-08, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44b07562$0$9619
6$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Scott wrote:
>
> They understand that the most important issue in choosing a carrier is
> coverage. They read the surveys from entities like Consumer Reports and JD
> Power, and don't try to invent fantastic theories as to why they must have
> screwed up somehow because the survey results don't match the company that
> someone is shilling for. They understand what evidence is (it's not their
> own personal experience). Most important, they are able to think
> critically, and are very fair.
So, based on what you just posted, any customer on another carrier is an
uneducated idiot, unable to show critical thinking skills when choosing a
phone? Sounds like something Navas would say. You might also explain why
Verizon is far from the most popular choice for large business and
government agencies.
| |
|
| Larry wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
> news:44b07562$0$9619
6 $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> They do? Geez, most of the ones I see look like teenage
> girls or huge black women with blue lights blinking away
> in their hobbled up bluetooth headsets in the mall to me.
> Do you think they can identify Consumer's Reports or JD
> Power on a magazine rack?
Larry, that's because all you do anymore is hang
out at the mall trying to impress the clerks.
-Quick
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-09, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 08:29:00 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44afcf3a$0$96221$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>By now, most AT&T customers that were coerced into a Cingular contract ...
No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-09, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:21:35 -0700, Ernie & Eythl <ernie&eythl@mountain>
wrote in <qfednR4- 1vQSRjLZnZ2dnUVZ_oqd
nZ2d@giganews.com>:
>John Navas answered:
>
>You're so full of shit. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
>and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
>pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your XXX.
1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.
2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
or given a choice of:
(a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or
(b) Termination without penalty.
In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
free to cancel service without penalty.
This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-09, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:10:29 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44b02d54$0$96209$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>
>
>I wonder where he got the idea that Cingular was letting AT&T Wireless
>subscribers out of their contracts?
>
>I think what he might be trying to say is that AT&T customers that were
>already out of contract had the choice of migrating to Cingular, or
>termination without penalty (duh, they were out of contract), but did
>_not_ have the option of continuing on a month to month basis on AT&T
>Wireless. Actually this is also false as well, since you could continue
>on the same rate plan on AT&T, on the AT&T network, whether it was TDMA
>or GSM, but the degradation of service made this an unappealing choice.
What I'm actually saying:
1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.
2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
or given a choice of:
(a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or
(b) Termination without penalty.
In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
free to cancel service without penalty.
This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."
>What you couldn't do, was to migrate to Cingular, with no contract
>extension, at the same rate plan that you has with AT&T Wireless. This
>would have been fair enough, had Cingular not begun to dismantle the
>AT&T wireless network while millions of AT&T wireless customers were
>still under contract.
Unrealistic and inaccurate: The new contract was to cover the subsidy
(discount) on new equipment, the standard industry practice. They could
avoid a long contract by paying more for the new hardware.
>Cingular should have said something like, "Look, you have a sweetheart
>rate with AT&T, but we're dismantling the AT&T TDMA network so you need
>to finish out your contract on our GSM network, and BTW here's a
>complimentary handset comparable to what you're using now (or we'll give
>you a good deal on a more featured handset). When your contract expires,
>you'll have to choose a currently available rate plan, but we want you
>to stay so we'll give you a 20% discount on that plan for the 12 months,
>and then a 10% discount on that plan 12 months after that. Or you can
>leave with no termination fee and no hard feelings."
>
>This would have slowly weaned the AT&T Wireless customers off of their
>low-rate plans, and would have helped lower churn. Sure you'd have had
>some customers walk away with their old TDMA handset, whose subsidy
>wasn't yet paid for, but geez, after paying $41 billion for AT&T
>wireless, it wouldn't be a big deal.
They should obviously hire you to run the company.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-09, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 13:57:21 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
< ivydnXQqyM61ky3ZnZ2d
nUVZ_rSdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:qteva2tb8d6oao0
om7eeuq5lsua3qn0bb7@
4ax.com...
>
>So John is saying that they are allowed to discriminate against these
>customers and not offer the same good faith to them as legacy Cingular
>customers enjoy. ...
What I'm actually saying is that they weren't discriminated against in
any way, and they weren't -- they got the same deals as legacy Cingular
customers (and new customers).
>
>Which they have done and will continue to do- the churn numbers are about to
>go back up and they are weeks away from being recognized as the
>second-largest carrier.
Churn is actually down.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-09, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:44:07 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44b01916$0$96239$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>I don't think that he understands the basis of the lawsuit. The claims
>by the plaintiffs are at
>"http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/fs/?postId=6539"
You should read it yourself. I have, which is how I know that your
posts misstate the allegations in the suit.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-09, 12:33 pm |
| On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:03:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44b071f3$0$96188$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Larry wrote:
>
>You only get to reject a certain number of jurors. There is no way you
>could seat a jury if you excluded post-paid cellular users.
That's not how jury selection works. You obviously need to learn about
the process. Jurors can be excluded without the use of preemptory
challenges.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Tinman 2006-07-09, 12:33 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
>
> What I'm actually saying:
You're about the only person I've noticed on Usenet that regularly has
to use that phrase. Ever wonder why that is?
>
> 1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without
> penalty.
>
Pure genius. What's yer next revelation John? "If not for being inmates,
they were free to leave without penalty."
<snip the oft-repeated, unsubstantiated, drivel>
--
Mike
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-07-09, 3:33 pm |
| In article < dla2b2l6ari1j32a3j07
sg1cdas9g13ttp@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 08:29:00 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 44afcf3a$0$96221$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way.
when you post something like that i am forced to conclude that you
are willfully dishonest or obstinately ignorant.
| |
|
| james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article < dla2b2l6ari1j32a3j07
sg1cdas9g13ttp@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> when you post something like that i am forced to conclude that you
> are willfully dishonest or obstinately ignorant.
Or both.
AT&T customers were definitely coerced (or deceived) into switching, I
personally know of three instances of this happening. Whether it was
deception or coercion is splitting hairs, the lawsuit says it was
deception, and maybe deception is actually the more correct description.
Where he got the idea that AT&T customers, that were under contract,
could leave without paying the termination fee, we'll never know.
It's actually amusing to see Cingular's PR machine in action (the real
one, not Navas's). Every time there is a lawsuit, and every time a new
independent survey comes out, the stock Cingular response is to talk
about how many billions of dollars they are spending to improve their
network, as if that makes everything they did to their customers okay.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-09, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:20b2b21o9n55efe
fddktlqlgq1c1g950fq@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 13:57:21 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
> < ivydnXQqyM61ky3ZnZ2d
nUVZ_rSdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>:
>
>
>
> What I'm actually saying is that they weren't discriminated against in
> any way, and they weren't -- they got the same deals as legacy Cingular
> customers (and new customers).
And you failed to actually respond to the post- how unusual. Try again.
>
>
> Churn is actually down.
>
One quarter does not indicate a pattern.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-09, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:f7b2b2pnh7bhnem
ficael1b4o86mo5sn9s@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:03:22 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 44b071f3$0$96188$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> That's not how jury selection works. You obviously need to learn about
> the process. Jurors can be excluded without the use of preemptory
> challenges.
Hey John- where di you get your legal degree from?
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> Hey John- where di you get your legal degree from?
What he doesn't understand is that a judge isn't going to allow a
plaintiff's or defendant's lawyer to exclude a juror for cause, when the
only "cause" is that they are a wireless customer of Cingular, or a
wireless customer in general.
So the lawyer will have to use their few peremptory challenges very
carefully.
Obviously he's not a lawyer, as he doesn't even know that it's
"peremptory" not "preemptory."
It's all immaterial, as we all know that this will be settled out of
court, the only question now is for how much.
The lawsuit is seeking $15 million (triple the alleged damages). Not
sure if this includes the legal fees or not. Since Cingular has said
that it spent nearly USD 10 billion to integrate and improve its
networks over 21 months since the merger was completed, the $15 million
is a trivial amount for them to pay out to settle this.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2006-07-09, 10:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Can you imagine trying to choose a jury for a case like this? They'd
> have to choose jurors that were never an AT&T Wireless or Cingular
> customer.
Here I am. But I'm way biased against AT&T/SBC anyhow, so I'd not be a good
juror.
> Given Sprint's customer service ratings, Sprint customers would probably
> be rejected by the defense as well.
>
> It's be a jury of Verizon customers, which might be good, as they tend
> to be the smartest people.
WTF?? I don't like the implications of that statement...
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2006-07-09, 10:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> They understand that the most important issue in choosing a carrier is
> coverage. They read the surveys from entities like Consumer Reports and
> JD Power, and don't try to invent fantastic theories as to why they must
> have screwed up somehow because the survey results don't match the
> company that someone is shilling for. They understand what evidence is
> (it's not their own personal experience). Most important, they are able
> to think critically, and are very fair.
This is an uncharacteristically
obnoxious post from you, and a stupid one to
boot. It ignores the fact that all carriers DO have a certain number of
satisfied customers. So people happy with carriers other than Verizon are
morons? I guess that makes me a moron, since I got tired of VZW's network
problems a couple years ago and am currently with T-Mobile. I'll go put my
dunce cap on and sit in the corner now.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
| |
|
| Steve Sobol wrote:
> This is an uncharacteristically
obnoxious post from you, and a stupid one to
> boot.
Sarcasm doesn't come across well on Usenet. Sorry.
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-07-09, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 44b157c5$0$34497$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> Or both.
or both, i agree.
> AT&T customers were definitely coerced (or deceived) into switching, I
> personally know of three instances of this happening. Whether it was
> deception or coercion is splitting hairs, the lawsuit says it was
> deception, and maybe deception is actually the more correct description.
>
> Where he got the idea that AT&T customers, that were under contract,
> could leave without paying the termination fee, we'll never know.
>
> It's actually amusing to see Cingular's PR machine in action (the real
> one, not Navas's). Every time there is a lawsuit, and every time a new
> independent survey comes out, the stock Cingular response is to talk
> about how many billions of dollars they are spending to improve their
> network, as if that makes everything they did to their customers okay.
cingular is in trouble. they had every opportunity to close the gap
with verizon. instead they were outmanaged by sprint who moved ahead
of them in many categories.
i wouldn't be surprised to see a cingular management shakeup.
| |
|
| james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> i wouldn't be surprised to see a cingular management shakeup.
I don't know how that would help solve their problems.
Long term, they should be able to improve their margins, once they are
able to be all-GSM, and reduce their expenditures on network
improvements (this is going to happen next year according to analysts).
Of course it remains to be seen how long it'll take to have a positive
ROI after spending $41 billion on AT&T Wireless, and all the
expenditures for HSDPA deployment. Verizon is doing so well because CDMA
and EV-DO proved to be a lot less expensive to deploy.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-07-09, 10:33 pm |
| Scott wrote:
> Hey John- where di you get your legal degree from?
John has posted that he worked as a law clerk...or something like that.
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-07-09, 10:33 pm |
| In article <zUgsg.118310$H71.63832@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
DecaturTxCowboy <nono@no.no> wrote:
>
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> John has posted that he worked as a law clerk...or something like that.
Probably cleaning toilets.
| |
|
|
"DecaturTxCowboy" <nono@no.no> wrote in message
news:zUgsg.118310$H71.63832@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> John has posted that he worked as a law clerk...or something like that.
Actually, his professed experience is as an "expert witness" some years back
and that this experience gave him a much higher understanding of the legal
system than the rest of us.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2006-07-10, 4:33 am |
| Scott wrote:
> "DecaturTxCowboy" <nono@no.no> wrote in message
> news:zUgsg.118310$H71.63832@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Actually, his professed experience is as an "expert witness" some years back
> and that this experience gave him a much higher understanding of the legal
> system than the rest of us.
Ah, just like my experience as a patient in my general practitioner's office
gives me a much higher understanding of medicine than most people who aren't
doctors? :)
"Expert witness" means "expert in your field" where "your field" is something
other than law. :)
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
| |
|
|
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:e8skqb$ce1$1@ja
miebaillie.com...
> Scott wrote:
>
> Ah, just like my experience as a patient in my general practitioner's
> office
> gives me a much higher understanding of medicine than most people who
> aren't
> doctors?
Exactly.
>
> "Expert witness" means "expert in your field" where "your field" is
> something
> other than law. :)
>
For the entire population of the planet, except JN.
| |
| Rudy Reckel 2006-07-10, 4:33 am |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:dla2b2l6ari1j32
a3j07sg1cdas9g13ttp@
4ax.com...
>
> No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way
While not being "coerced", I was put over a barrel. Been a customer since
Cellular one days and was very happy with my ATT account with my Samsung
426x. All of a sudden the internet stopped working on the phone. It was fine
on 3 other different phones. After 3 months of trying through customer
service and way too many phone calls, it was found there was an "issue" in
the ENTIRE north east with that phone model connecting to the Cingular
towers and the issue in my case was the dismantling of the ATT tower that
served the area since Cingular was here too. I told CIngular I had to have
internet for business purposes and was told the only way to get it was to
switch to Cingular. The phone was 15 months into a two year ATT contract and
I was basically told I was screwed. No new phones would be activated to ATT
and switching to Cingular would cost $80 per line, I have 4 and would have
to do them all, ) AND I was gonna get hit with the $200 ATT early
termination fee. It took more calls than necessary, several from a lawyer,
to convince Cingular that I paid for mMode service, They removed it from me
and was not giving me any recourse and CINGULAR was breaking the contract.
Wasn't "coerced" but was told pay the fees or do with out.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-10, 4:33 am |
| Cingular, Verizon Wireless face class-action lawsuits
<http://rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=26776>
Verizon Wireless, meantime, faces a new class action suit that moved
to federal court in Detroit late last month.
The suit--technically filed against parent Verizon Communications Inc.
but directed at its wireless unit--alleges Verizon Wireless charged a
monthly $2 roadside assistance fee since January 2004 without prior
consent and later refused to offer refunds for the charge. The suit
accuses Verizon Wireless of violating Michigan’s consumer protection
act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
A Verizon Wireless spokeswoman declined to comment, noting the No. 2
mobile carrier has yet to file a response with the court.
Verizon Bias Suit Deal Sets Record
<http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13672>
Verizon Communications Inc. will pay almost $49 million to 12,326
current and former female employees as part of a landmark class-action
lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement
in 2002 against Verizon predecessors Nynex Corp. and Bell Atlantic
Corp. But the total amount of the settlement was not made public until
yesterday, when the EEOC completed its projections of how much would
be paid in future benefits.
The final figure makes the case the largest pregnancy discrimination
settlement in EEOC history. It covers women in 13 states and the
District.
Verizon Implements New Policies In Face Of Defense Of California Class
Action Regarding Cancellation Fees
<http://classactiondefense.jmbm.com/...ew_policie.html>
Both the Los Angeles Times and Yuki Noguchi of the Washington Post
report today on yesterday's announcement by Verizon that it will soon
implement a fundamental change in its cancellation fee policy for
cellular telephone subscribers. In the face of a California class
action that the Times reports seeks "to recover early cancellation
fees from Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel," the company will
calculate the early termination fee based on the proportional amount
of time remaining on the subscription agreement.
Verizon's defense against this California class action is not a lone
event. Similar class actions are pending in several states, the
Washington Post reports. ...
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2006-07-10, 7:33 am |
| In article <o2lsg.13966$Wh7.4095@trnddc07>,
"Rudy Reckel" <bitbucket86@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:dla2b2l6ari1j32
a3j07sg1cdas9g13ttp@
4ax.com...
>
> While not being "coerced", I was put over a barrel. Been a customer since
> Cellular one days and was very happy with my ATT account with my Samsung
> 426x. All of a sudden the internet stopped working on the phone. It was fine
> on 3 other different phones. After 3 months of trying through customer
> service and way too many phone calls, it was found there was an "issue" in
> the ENTIRE north east with that phone model connecting to the Cingular
> towers and the issue in my case was the dismantling of the ATT tower that
> served the area since Cingular was here too. I told CIngular I had to have
> internet for business purposes and was told the only way to get it was to
> switch to Cingular. The phone was 15 months into a two year ATT contract and
> I was basically told I was screwed. No new phones would be activated to ATT
> and switching to Cingular would cost $80 per line, I have 4 and would have
> to do them all, ) AND I was gonna get hit with the $200 ATT early
> termination fee. It took more calls than necessary, several from a lawyer,
> to convince Cingular that I paid for mMode service, They removed it from me
> and was not giving me any recourse and CINGULAR was breaking the contract.
> Wasn't "coerced" but was told pay the fees or do with out.
just think of how many others were pressured in the same manner,
illegally of course.
| |
|
| In-Reply-To: <jgkeegan-28CFA8. 08042910072006@indiv
idual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 42
Message-ID: < 44b26649$0$96206$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
Organization: Sonic.Net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jul 2006 14:38:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0efc909c.news.sonic.net
X-Trace: DXC=_iLe=LBm40A^Q[[? GPKa1Em4K\QM1CV^@1OY
f0H`?;XALOd> hJ]YGlMGTZ^SjVP7DK5]
of86^<=HI
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:68441 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:278768 alt.cellular.verizon:208392
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <o2lsg.13966$Wh7.4095@trnddc07>,
> "Rudy Reckel" <bitbucket86@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> just think of how many others were pressured in the same manner,
> illegally of course.
Well that's what's going to be interesting. As deceptive as it was, it
may not have been illegal. Cingular could argue that AT&T Wireless
customers had no guarantee of coverage where they previously had
coverage. Cingular may claim that what some people call coercion and
deception, was merely encouragement. Of course they can't say any of
that in open court, which is why this will most likely be settled out of
court.
The plaintiffs are not suing for enough. The percentage of customers
under contract was almost certainly around 75-80% (of around 20
million). I don't know how many AT&T Wireless customers had problems,
but all of the ones I know who were on AT&T Wireless, had the deception
practiced on them (a sample of three).
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>
> I don't know how that would help solve their problems.
>
> Long term, they should be able to improve their margins, once they are
> able to be all-GSM, and reduce their expenditures on network
> improvements (this is going to happen next year according to analysts).
> Of course it remains to be seen how long it'll take to have a positive
> ROI after spending $41 billion on AT&T Wireless, and all the
> expenditures for HSDPA deployment. Verizon is doing so well because CDMA
> and EV-DO proved to be a lot less expensive to deploy.
And don't forget the costs of changing back to the AT&T name sometime in
the near future.
| |
| Jim Seymour 2006-07-19, 7:33 am |
| In article < e8rvv9$h28$1@jamieba
illie.com>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
> Here I am. But I'm way biased against AT&T/SBC anyhow, so I'd not be a good
> juror.
[snip]
What Steve said. Some of us, tho never having been AT&T or Cingular
customers, would not be good for Cingular on a jury because we
basically distrust and dislike anything even remotely associated with
SBC.
--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
| |
| Jim Seymour 2006-07-19, 10:33 am |
| In article < 0jp3b2lq5aikq0bk6gnf
rvplv47kg719fo@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> writes:
> Cingular, Verizon Wireless face class-action lawsuits
> <http://rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=26776>
>
> Verizon Wireless, meantime, faces a new class action suit that moved
> to federal court in Detroit late last month.
[snip]
Yeah, okay, so? VZ is an ILEC, just like SBC. You expect something
different? *shrug* We're almost back to the "bad old days" of Ma
Bell (aka: "The Phone Company"), but without the regulatory
protections that existed back then. These old-school TelCom people
will continue to stonewall on modern, advanced telecommunications as
long as they can, gouging their customers all the while, whenever
they can get away with it. There's nothing much to stop them and
they've little incentive to improve their products. The paltry little
fines that some state regulators occasionally impose are regarded by
the TelCom monopolies as nothing more than a cost of doing business.
--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-07-19, 12:33 pm |
| Jim Seymour wrote:
> will continue to stonewall on modern, advanced telecommunications as
> long as they can, gouging their customers all the while, whenever
> they can get away with it. There's nothing much to stop them and
> they've little incentive to improve their products.
The "Preservation of Innovation of Telecom Act" that we see many states
passing to prohibit free municipal WiFi to protect cellular wireless
broadband comes to mind.
| |
| Larry 2006-07-19, 10:33 pm |
| jseymour@LinxNet.com (Jim Seymour) wrote in news:12bs8sniodt5u57
@corp.supernews.com:
> basically distrust and dislike anything even remotely associated with
> SBC.
>
....or cellular phone companies.....(c;
| |
| Larry 2006-07-19, 10:33 pm |
| | |