|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > August 2006 > Cingular scaling back on deals for customers out of conntract
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 |
Cingular scaling back on deals for customers out of conntract
|
|
|
|
| Anon E. Muss 2006-07-28, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:32:24 GMT, Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>If you have a "grandfathered" contract that Cingular would just as soon
>you not have, no more discounts on phones every two years.
>
>Details here in Internal Cingular documents:
>
>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wir...ds-giving-disco
>unts-to-worthless-customers-188422.php
>
>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wir...-customer-value
>-into-thermometer-form-188379.php
I would not be surprised to see Cingular cowarldy sick their lawyers
on the people responsible for this leakage.
| |
| Jack Zwick 2006-07-28, 10:33 pm |
| In article < uptkc2d165hlu631ptjd
f1agi9pikgo807@4ax.com>,
Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:32:24 GMT, Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I would not be surprised to see Cingular cowarldy sick their lawyers
> on the people responsible for this leakage.
Apple has tried that (sueing websites) and lost.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/188500787
| |
|
|
| Anon E. Muss 2006-07-29, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:41:22 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:32:24 GMT, Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote
>in <jackzwick-484B2F. 15323528072006@newsc
lstr02.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>
>
>
>Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/gz2oh>
>"How Cingular Avoids Giving Discounts to Worthless Customers"
>
>
>
>Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/qykr3>
>"Cingular Distills Customer Value Into Thermometer Form"
>
>
>This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business practice.
If Verizon did this, I would be willing to bet any amount of money you
would be singing a different tune.
Of course, you would deny this.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-29, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:01:51 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < 0sqlc2drvsope5j3rmt0
77cq14odp9ajev@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:41:22 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>If Verizon did this, I would be willing to bet any amount of money you
>would be singing a different tune.
No.
>Of course, you would deny this.
Yes.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Jack Zwick wrote:
> If you have a "grandfathered" contract that Cingular would just as soon
> you not have, no more discounts on phones every two years.
>
> Details here in Internal Cingular documents:
>
> http://consumerist.com/consumer/wir...ds-giving-disco
> unts-to-worthless-customers-188422.php
>
> http://consumerist.com/consumer/wir...-customer-value
> -into-thermometer-form-188379.php
While all of the carriers would prefer to get customers to spend more
per month, Cingular seems to be doing the most in terms of trying to
actually get low value customers to leave, either by not offering them
various perks, or by simply forcing them to leave.
| |
|
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44cafeed$0$9616
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Jack Zwick wrote:
>
> While all of the carriers would prefer to get customers to spend more
> per month, Cingular seems to be doing the most in terms of trying to
> actually get low value customers to leave, either by not offering them
> various perks, or by simply forcing them to leave.
Could this explain why in the last month or so, the quality of my cell phone
service has gone kaputs? I mean it was like night and day!
I've been with BS/Cingular since 1998 without a contract. I just never
wanted to be stuck if I wanted to switch. But overall, the service and cell
has served my well since then. Never really had drop problems and when I
did, it as usually with friends who had Sprint or "metro piece of shit" as I
used to rub on my friends all the comm issues.
But in the last month, they are now throwing it back to me, its nearly with
everyone, with less issue with my wife cells, but pretty much the same. I
did a simple test to talk to land lines and no problems.
With all the Net Neutrality baloney, the bandwidth throttling and capping of
DSL lines, the VOIP battles between Telcos, etc, I figured, something was
up along these lines with my cell.
This also kind of explains the odd behavior and EXTREMELY polite behavior of
the CSR and not really explaining why I was having these problems. She
didn't go thru any procedure to find out what was going on, like testing my
cell, NOR ask if my battery was going bad. No input whatsoever on the
support side of things. But I was also thinking and mentioning considering
going to PDA so I maybe shot myself in the foot there.
Wow, but not surprise at all. Not one bit. But I can't help but think they
are setting themselves up with all kinds of class action suits. I mean for
one thing, cell phones are not a Luxury anymore. So they shouldn't be a
"luxury tax" any more. I heard on one bill by some senator in some state
wanted to kill the luxury tax. That was last year. Probably got paid to
shut up. :-)
---
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-07-29, 3:33 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 05:46:58 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:01:51 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < 0sqlc2drvsope5j3rmt0
77cq14odp9ajev@4ax.com>:
>
[snip RE: Cingular not giving phone discounts to "LTV1" customers]
[color=darkred]
>
>No.
>
>
>Yes.
And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.
You really need to get off your Karl Marx, pro-socialist bent. We
live in a capitalistic society here, John.
| |
|
| In-Reply-To: < dp6nc2589u5poq9m2k2l
tjh10k9gib31dc@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 12
Message-ID: < 44cbd09d$0$96201$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
Organization: Sonic.Net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jul 2006 21:18:21 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: c176dc53.news.sonic.net
X-Trace: DXC=>4Vlgg;ll3B< fPBSOUXeoNm4K\QM1CV^
@1OYf0H`?;XA\NaA<A?>CiIGTZ^SjVP7DKN?Zefbd@gjE
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:69662
Anon E. Muss wrote:
> And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
> practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
> GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.
Are they doing this? The prepackaged GoPhones seemed to be priced at a
level where there are no subsidies taking place, because they aren't
requiring that you sign up for service when you buy one.
I've used prepaid Verizon phones on non-Verizon service, and they don't
seem to care.
| |
| PC Medic 2006-07-29, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:9m0lc21ul9i5fqh
qo7pdl093mp69gueo6g@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:32:24 GMT, Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote
> in <jackzwick-484B2F. 15323528072006@newsc
lstr02.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>
>
>
> Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/gz2oh>
> "How Cingular Avoids Giving Discounts to Worthless Customers"
>
>
>
> Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/qykr3>
> "Cingular Distills Customer Value Into Thermometer Form"
>
>
> This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business practice.
>
While it may be 'normal' for the unscrupulous vendors out their, it is far
from reasonable (or ethical IMHO) business practice. I work for one of the
worlds largest computer and imaging product manufactures and we treat every
customer with equal care and respect. Perhaps if Cingular did this they
could build some customer loyalty which any one with any business sense
knows is more profitable than continuously trying to drum up new ones with
ficticious survey results.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-07-29, 10:33 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:18:16 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>
>Are they doing this?
That's what I am hearing.
Look at the GoPhone prices.
o Nokia 6010 -- $39.99
o Pantech C300 -- $119.99
Look at the respective post-paid phone prices with *2-year contract*,
activation fee, etc.:
o Nokia 6010 -- $29.99
o Pantech C300 -- $69.99
Who would buy one of these post-paid plan phones and get locked into a
2-year contract extension?
I was also told that a few months ago, they were pricing the pre-paid
Razr a lot cheaper than the $249 they are now (somewhere around $99
IIRC); people were gobbling them up and using them for "phone
upgrades" on their post-paid plans.
Or, if someone loses their phone, they go down and buy a $30.00
GoPhone to get them by rather than having to buy a much more expensive
phone that locks them in to another additional 2-years on their
contract.
So... Now the reports are when someone purchases a GoPhone at many
places like WalMart, Radio Trash, or thru Cingular on-line, that
phone's IMEI is entered into Cingular's mainframes and if someone
tries to use it on a non pre-paid or pay-as-you-go SIM, the phone will
not work.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-30, 10:33 pm |
|
"Cliff" < missingrealname@yaho
o.com> wrote in message
news:B2czg.31440$Cn6.6799@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> <Snip>
>
>
> You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do this.
> If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the customer.
> Economics 101.
But prepaid (GoPhone) customers are the cheapest channel to support and
therefore among the most profitable. High cost per minute, low fraud,
little to no collection effort required and phones sold at a much higher
price than postpaid. Disallowing the use of prepaid hardware on a post-paid
account is simply nothing more than muscle flexing by any carrier willing to
do it. It comes across as rather desperate and extremely cusotmer
unfriendly.
I also believe that the rest of the bunch (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mo, etc.) do
allow this type of movement. And when comparing margins with many of these
carriers, Cingular loses quarter after quarter.
The problem here is this assumption is that these customers are suddenly
unprofitable for the company, when in fact they are simply less profitable
than desired. With just the slightest effort, they could have retained the
customer and made them more profitable for the company. Cingular chose not
to do that. Their loss and everybody elses' gain.
>
| |
|
| Cliff wrote:
> You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do this.
> If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the customer.
> Economics 101.
But the low ARPU customers are not causing them to lose money, they just
make less from them than from other customers. It's a lot different than
having a product that's in short supply where you want to sell the
limited supply to the customers that will pay the most.
| |
|
| Good points.
My opinion:
It makes good sense to continue retain customers of all levels, especially
since concentrating on having service contracts is already on flimsy footing
as a long term strategy. I predict class action suits will eventually rule
them as illegal when the cell phone is no longer deemed a luxury item.
---
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
>
> But prepaid (GoPhone) customers are the cheapest channel to support and
> therefore among the most profitable. High cost per minute, low fraud,
> little to no collection effort required and phones sold at a much higher
> price than postpaid. Disallowing the use of prepaid hardware on a
post-paid
> account is simply nothing more than muscle flexing by any carrier willing
to
> do it. It comes across as rather desperate and extremely cusotmer
> unfriendly.
>
> I also believe that the rest of the bunch (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mo, etc.) do
> allow this type of movement. And when comparing margins with many of
these
> carriers, Cingular loses quarter after quarter.
>
> The problem here is this assumption is that these customers are suddenly
> unprofitable for the company, when in fact they are simply less profitable
> than desired. With just the slightest effort, they could have retained
the
> customer and made them more profitable for the company. Cingular chose
not
> to do that. Their loss and everybody elses' gain.
>
>
>
>
| |
| William Ahern 2006-07-31, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS wrote:
> Cliff wrote:
>
>
> But the low ARPU customers are not causing them to lose money, they just
> make less from them than from other customers. It's a lot different than
> having a product that's in short supply where you want to sell the limited
> supply to the customers that will pay the most.
I have some evidence that Cingular is blocking RTSP, though it's hard to
pin down how, where and when it's doing this.
Has anybody had any difficulties w/ RTSP?
I've found a way to alleviate the issue, for now, and so I'm confident
that either Cingular's proxies have a bug, they're actively
blocking/filtering, or I'm a complete idiot (along w/ Apple and Real
Networks) in misreading the RTSP specification.
It would be a shame if Cingular became a walled garden like Verizon. In
the long term it will only help Sprint and T-Mobile. Things like MobiTV
are "nifty", but Cingular will never find the right formula for profiting
from 3G unless it keeps an open market place.
- Bill
| |
| William Ahern 2006-07-31, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:52:52 -0700, William Ahern wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS wrote:
>
> I have some evidence that Cingular is blocking RTSP, though it's hard to
> pin down how, where and when it's doing this.
Oops. I meant to start a new thread.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-07-31, 4:33 am |
| Scott wrote:
> I also believe that the rest of the bunch (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mo, etc.) do
> allow this type of movement. And when comparing margins with many of these
> carriers, Cingular loses quarter after quarter.
This might be old information, but a year ago Sprint did not allow
Virgin (Sprint prepaid) to migrate to Sprint. On the other hand, a
friend of mine bought a Cingular prepaid GoPhone a few weeks ago and
migrated to a $60 per month plan last week.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:52:52 -0700, William Ahern
< william@25thandCleme
nt.com> wrote in
<pan.2006.07.31.03.52.49. 241669@25thandClemen
t.com>:
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS wrote:
>
>I have some evidence that Cingular is blocking RTSP, though it's hard to
>pin down how, where and when it's doing this.
>
>Has anybody had any difficulties w/ RTSP?
>
>I've found a way to alleviate the issue, for now, and so I'm confident
>that either Cingular's proxies have a bug, they're actively
>blocking/filtering, or I'm a complete idiot (along w/ Apple and Real
>Networks) in misreading the RTSP specification.
>
>It would be a shame if Cingular became a walled garden like Verizon. In
>the long term it will only help Sprint and T-Mobile. Things like MobiTV
>are "nifty", but Cingular will never find the right formula for profiting
>from 3G unless it keeps an open market place.
What specific things won't work?
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:52:36 -0400, "Sam" <foobar@foobar.com> wrote in
<p8fzg.4512$Z7.1266@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
>My opinion:
>
>It makes good sense to continue retain customers of all levels, especially
>since concentrating on having service contracts is already on flimsy footing
>as a long term strategy. I predict class action suits will eventually rule
>them as illegal when the cell phone is no longer deemed a luxury item.
I seriously doubt that -- no law makes them "illegal".
Losing money on customers is bad business.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44cd74bd$0$96169$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Cliff wrote:
>
>
>But the low ARPU customers are not causing them to lose money, they just
>make less from them than from other customers. It's a lot different than
>having a product that's in short supply where you want to sell the
>limited supply to the customers that will pay the most.
In fact carriers can and do lose money on low revenue customers.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:42:30 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
< FrWdnbR39qG_81DZnZ2d
nUVZ_vGdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>:
>But prepaid (GoPhone) customers are the cheapest channel to support and
>therefore among the most profitable. High cost per minute, low fraud,
>little to no collection effort required and phones sold at a much higher
>price than postpaid. Disallowing the use of prepaid hardware on a post-paid
>account is simply nothing more than muscle flexing by any carrier willing to
>do it. It comes across as rather desperate and extremely cusotmer
>unfriendly.
There's no real evidence of this.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jonathan Boswell 2006-07-31, 3:33 pm |
| Anon E. Muss wrote:
> Now the reports are when someone purchases a GoPhone... thru Cingular
> on-line, that phone's IMEI is entered into Cingular's mainframes and
> if someone tries to use it on a non pre-paid or pay-as-you-go SIM, the
> phone will not work.
I just bought a reburbished Nokia 6061 for $35 from Cingular.com. It
arrived in 2 days in pristine condition and is working fine on it's own
SIM as well as on my Family Plan SIM. (They definitely have the IMEI
because their on-line activation forms require it.)
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:31:51 -0400, "PC Medic" <pcmedic2@gmail.com>
wrote in <tlRyg.1498$W93.222@dukeread05>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:9m0lc21ul9i5fqh
qo7pdl093mp69gueo6g@
4ax.com...
>
>While it may be 'normal' for the unscrupulous vendors out their, it is far
>from reasonable (or ethical IMHO) business practice. I work for one of the
>worlds largest computer and imaging product manufactures and we treat every
>customer with equal care and respect.
Really? You sell below cost?
>Perhaps if Cingular did this they
>could build some customer loyalty which any one with any business sense
>knows is more profitable than continuously trying to drum up new ones with
>ficticious survey results.
Selling below cost isn't profitable.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 3:33 pm |
| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: 8b6f943c1f97d287901c
4726dbcc5810
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1154372882 8b6f943c1f97d287901c
4726dbcc5810 (Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:08:02 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:08:02 GMT
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:08:02 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:69763
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:33:27 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < dp6nc2589u5poq9m2k2l
tjh10k9gib31dc@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 05:46:58 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
>practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
>GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.
Cingular refuses to switch the phone to postpaid? Really?
>You really need to get off your Karl Marx, pro-socialist bent. ...
You have that backwards.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jack Zwick 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
| In article <kaszg.15$uk2.5@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
Jonathan Boswell <jsbNOSP@M.ost.cdrh.fda.gov> wrote:
> Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
> I just bought a reburbished Nokia 6061 for $35 from Cingular.com. It
> arrived in 2 days in pristine condition and is working fine on it's own
> SIM as well as on my Family Plan SIM. (They definitely have the IMEI
> because their on-line activation forms require it.)
Try using it on your Family Plan SIM for 48 hours straight and you might
get a different result.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:08:02 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:33:27 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < dp6nc2589u5poq9m2k2l
tjh10k9gib31dc@4ax.com>:
[snip]
>
>Cingular refuses to switch the phone to postpaid?
Just like I wrote elsewhere in the thread.
What is reportedly happening is that when the "system" detects one is
using a post-paid SIM plan in an pre-paid phone via its IMEI, the
phone reports one is using an invalid SIM and will not make calls.
This reportedly happens within 48 hours and when one calls to
complain, CINGULAR reportedly tells people they can't use GoPhones
with post-paid SIM/plans.
People have been using GoPhones for cheap replacements of their lost,
broken or dysfunctional phones, and CINGULAR appears to be trying to
stop that now. It appears that CINGULAR wants people to only purchase
higher cost post-paid phone with a contract extension, or at the "no
commitment" price.
>Really?
Please don't tell me this surprises you.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:40:36 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < 271tc255ol9i5ru6u5kc
8vbs7g675pul40@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:08:02 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Just like I wrote elsewhere in the thread.
>
>What is reportedly happening is that when the "system" detects one is
>using a post-paid SIM plan in an pre-paid phone via its IMEI, the
>phone reports one is using an invalid SIM and will not make calls.
>This reportedly happens within 48 hours and when one calls to
>complain, CINGULAR reportedly tells people they can't use GoPhones
>with post-paid SIM/plans.
You know this to be true, and not just another Internet rumor?
>People have been using GoPhones for cheap replacements of their lost,
>broken or dysfunctional phones, and CINGULAR appears to be trying to
>stop that now. It appears that CINGULAR wants people to only purchase
>higher cost post-paid phone with a contract extension, or at the "no
>commitment" price.
>
>
>Please don't tell me this surprises you.
I'm frankly skeptical.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>
especially[color=dar
kred]
footing[color=darkre
d]
rule[color=darkred]
>
> I seriously doubt that -- no law makes them "illegal".
Obviously, not today.
There are all kinds of stringent criminal, federal, state, local tax laws
associated with Luxury items. Without having to waste time to research and
confirm this for your sake, cell phone classification of luxury item
provides the a justification for service contracts to exist. In other
words, you can't fight it because cell phone is still classified as a luxury
item.
Once the luxury classification is removed, service contracts will be harder
to justify. Just consider that cell phones are now being giving to our kids
and our old folks just for the sake of security. It is fast coming a
non-luxury and necessary good and if you want to believes Ray Ozzies long
term strategy for Microsoft, Windows has come to the cell phone (or has the
cell phone come to Windows?) It would be Microsoft stragetic advantage to
make sure everyone has a WM ready PC/phone!
> Losing money on customers is bad business.
Of course and when you begin to have bad policies, typically by trying
mandate localized monopolistic policies is usually enough in creating PR
issues, PSC complaints, incite riots, terrorism and chaos and, yes, calls
for federal regulations. But I am sure, you, I and that fence post in the
corner, doubt we will see any policy change until the Dems are back in
power. Probably explaining the mad rush to consolidate now before its too
late. :-)
---
| |
| Scott 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:elesc2dku90mrjt
rk3mg74024qvb0lcpj0@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 44cd74bd$0$96169$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> In fact carriers can and do lose money on low revenue customers.
>
No fact there- only mindless and inaccurate speculation from someone who
admits getting all of his knowledge from the internet. No practical
eworking knowledge of anything posted here.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:ph2tc2tt55vt2an
vtjtrqom1t5a5lheq8c@
4ax.com...
>
> You know this to be true, and not just another Internet rumor?
Holy shit- these words came form Navas? The Prince of Internet Fabrication
and Speculation?
>
>
> I'm frankly skeptical.
>
No- you're frankly clueless.
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:56:08 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:40:36 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < 271tc255ol9i5ru6u5kc
8vbs7g675pul40@4ax.com>:
[snip]
>
>You know this to be true, and not just another Internet rumor?
No. I have not personally witnessed this, but it has been reported to
be occuring via members at HowardForums:
see <http://tinyurl.com/kn5gd>
It's pretty easy and cheap to verify for the doubters -- by getting a
cheap GoPhone. The IMEI apparently has to be entered in the system
for Cingular to disallow its use with post-paid plans/SIMs, so if you
can somehow avoid that from happening, you may be OK.
>
>I'm frankly skeptical.
I was too.
But after seeing how Cingular crippled the Nokia 6620's firmware so it
can't use MP3 ringtones, how Verizon crippled bluetooth features,
nothing these cellular companies should surprise me... or you.
| |
| Bill Kraski 2006-08-01, 4:33 am |
| PC Medic wrote:
>
> While it may be 'normal' for the unscrupulous vendors out their, it
> is far from reasonable (or ethical IMHO) business practice. I work
Why "unsrupulous"? If you patronize a particular bar well enough, the
bartender will send a few free drinks your way. If you go to a
restaurant often, periodically you'll get a drink, desert or appetizer
for free. Airlines have frequent flyer miles. Credit card companies &
"big box" electronics stores have variations of reward systems for
faithfulness in buying there (or with a particular card). All figured
into the cost of doing business to keep the better customers loyal.
> manufactures and we treat every customer with equal care and respect.
It sounds like, at your level, you don't deal with the street level
consumer. Which makes how you do business a different model than if
you were directly dealing with the consumer. However, having been
involved in both purchasing & sales in both commercial & military
venues, I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't perks for large
quantity purchasers. But, be that as it may, let me give you an
interesting example of what you say Cingular does not do.
I have a friend who also is a Cingular customer. He's tough on phones.
Between warrantee & insurance replacements, he's gone through multiple
replacements in his last 2 year contract period. When it came time to
renew, he got the normal opportunity to upgrade his phone at a
discounted rate & insure the new one -- after costing both Cingular &
the insurance company with the number of replacements he got. Sounds
like "equal care and respect" to me.
> Perhaps if Cingular did this they could build some customer loyalty
> which any one with any business sense knows is more profitable than
> continuously trying to drum up new ones with ficticious survey
> results.
So a cell carrier should have repetitive discount pricing on phones,
even if a 2 year contract has not been fulfilled? That's like you
using your frequent flyer miles to take a free trip, then you tell the
airline that you want another free trip off those same frequent flyer
miles. Do you think the airlines are dumb enough to let you get away
with that one? Why should it be any different for a cell carrier?
--
Bill K
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-01, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:35:41 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
wrote in < jbbtc2536ev4blus36i7
l5e9gevo0rfm0d@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:56:08 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>No. I have not personally witnessed this, but it has been reported to
>be occuring via members at HowardForums:
>
> see <http://tinyurl.com/kn5gd>
Sorry, but I don't think that's much to go on.
>It's pretty easy and cheap to verify for the doubters -- by getting a
>cheap GoPhone. The IMEI apparently has to be entered in the system
>for Cingular to disallow its use with post-paid plans/SIMs, so if you
>can somehow avoid that from happening, you may be OK.
So what happened?
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-01, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:06:12 -0400, "Sam" <foobar@foobar.com> wrote in
<IUwzg.28482$ZH1.10534@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
>There are all kinds of stringent criminal, federal, state, local tax laws
>associated with Luxury items. Without having to waste time to research and
>confirm this for your sake, cell phone classification of luxury item
>provides the a justification for service contracts to exist. In other
>words, you can't fight it because cell phone is still classified as a luxury
>item.
>
>Once the luxury classification is removed, service contracts will be harder
>to justify. ...
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. For example, apartments aren't
luxuries, yet we still have apartment leases.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:06:12 -0400, "Sam" <foobar@foobar.com> wrote in
harder[color=darkred
]
>
> Sorry, but I strongly disagree. For example, apartments aren't
> luxuries, yet we still have apartment leases.
Is that that reason you strongly disagee? Come on, you can do better than
that. :-)
Nonetheless, Apples and oranges. Different and extremely strong consumer
laws apply to residential lenses. For one, its easier to break. Second, you
don't pay taxes on apartment leases or rentals. The difference with luxury
items essentially is its tax classification. But this is old school
information. Talk to a contract lawyer or just google and research it.
It is reaching a point where they simply can't classify the cell phone as a
luxury item anymore. How many people here can do their work or live or play
without a cell phone today? Not many.
Remove the Luxury Item Classification and its a whole new ball game. Of
course, the Telcos will fight tooth and nail against any declassification,
and they might get the support of local, state since after all, it is tax
money we are talking about. :-)
---
| |
| Anon E. Muss 2006-08-01, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:37:59 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:35:41 -0700, Anon E. Muss <anonymous@example.org>
>wrote in < jbbtc2536ev4blus36i7
l5e9gevo0rfm0d@4ax.com>:
>
>
>Sorry, but I don't think that's much to go on.
One person wrote:
| I've done it plenty of times, order a cheap GoPhone as a backup for my
| main phone. However, my buddy who's still a rep said he had a guy come
| in the other day who had bought a gophone, put his post-paid SIM in
| it, and it wouldn't work. When the guy called CS, they told him that
| yeah, the newer GoPhones wouldn't work like that, it was effective
| back in April or something.
another wrote:
| My daughter bought a Moto C139, one of the new Gophones, at my
| direction to replace her old phone. She put her old sim in the new
| phone and it worked for about an hour, after which it did not work. CS
| gave her the "effective 4/1 we don't allow GoPhones to be used on
| postpay plans."
I take these people at their word until proven otherwise.
>
>So what happened?
You tell me.
Let me emphasize the important part of quote the part I wrote above:
"It's pretty easy and cheap to verify for the DOUBTERS..."
| |
|
| Bill Kraski wrote:
> PC Medic wrote:
>
>
> Why "unsrupulous"? If you patronize a particular bar well enough, the
> bartender will send a few free drinks your way. If you go to a
> restaurant often, periodically you'll get a drink, desert or appetizer
> for free. Airlines have frequent flyer miles. Credit card companies &
> "big box" electronics stores have variations of reward systems for
> faithfulness in buying there (or with a particular card). All figured
> into the cost of doing business to keep the better customers loyal.
What has upset people in this case, is the policy change from treating
everyone equally, to taking something away from the lower revenue
customers. It's not unscrupulous what they did, it just appears better
when you add benefits to your high revenue customers, than when you take
away benefits from your low revenue customers.
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-01, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:18:20 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44cf70c0$0$96238$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Bill Kraski wrote:
>
>What has upset people in this case, is the policy change from treating
>everyone equally, to taking something away from the lower revenue
>customers. It's not unscrupulous what they did, it just appears better
>when you add benefits to your high revenue customers, than when you take
>away benefits from your low revenue customers.
That's a pretty bizarre claim -- such changes are normal and happen all
the time. Promotions and deals come and go. Items go on and off sale.
Prices go up and down. Get over it.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Anon E. Muss wrote:
> Let me emphasize the important part of quote the part I wrote above:
>
> "It's pretty easy and cheap to verify for the DOUBTERS..."
LOL, if he verified it, then he'd have to stop lying about it. Or maybe not.
| |
| Bob Fry 2006-08-01, 10:33 pm |
| >>>>> "JN" == John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> writes:
JN> In fact carriers can and do lose money on low revenue
JN> customers.
The only way I can think of to lose money on a customer is if the
customer makes non-reimbursed demands on the company that exceed the
customer's revenue. Since cell calls are more-or-less covered I would
think--either by the prepaid minutes or by additional minute
charges--that leaves lots of calls to customer service making
inquiries or tech calls, stuff that they should be able to figure out
on their own or on the web page but can't or won't.
Those customers probably should be dumped. But they should at least
give you an indication that you're wearing out your welcome.
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-02, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:16:45 -0700, Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com>
wrote in <ejw0djia.fsf@mailinator.com>:
>
> JN> In fact carriers can and do lose money on low revenue
> JN> customers.
>
>The only way I can think of to lose money on a customer is if the
>customer makes non-reimbursed demands on the company that exceed the
>customer's revenue. Since cell calls are more-or-less covered I would
>think--either by the prepaid minutes or by additional minute
>charges--that leaves lots of calls to customer service making
>inquiries or tech calls, stuff that they should be able to figure out
>on their own or on the web page but can't or won't.
There are considerable per subscriber costs other than support, as well
as the opportunity cost of resources allocated to them.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Jonathan Boswell 2006-08-02, 10:33 am |
| Jack Zwick wrote:
> Try using it on your Family Plan SIM for 48 hours straight and you might
> get a different result.
Seems not. My Go Phone has been on my Family Plan SIM for 3 days with
no loss of functionality. It has been running fine (off and on) for a
week since Cingular has known it's IMEI. The latter was probably
scanned before shipping. But if it wasn't, I activated the included $10
pre-paid SIM last week and they got the IMEI again.
| |
| Scott 2006-08-02, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:8ke0d2p676li50h
sqp9tpv6qeuk15lvmlo@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:16:45 -0700, Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com>
> wrote in <ejw0djia.fsf@mailinator.com>:
>
>
> There are considerable per subscriber costs other than support, as well
> as the opportunity cost of resources allocated to them.
>
No there are not. The costs associated with these customers have not
increased at the same rate as price plans, and in many cases are cheaper to
provide today than five years ago. You've already proven yourself wrong in
other threads about your vapor "opportunity" cost.
|
|
|
|
|