Cingular cell phone service - Confirmation from Cingular on SmartPhone tethering

Author

Confirmation from Cingular on SmartPhone tethering

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com

2006-08-15, 3:33 pm

This is what I was told this morning when talking with Cingular's PDA
data connectivity department... Here is the information provided to me.

"...The SmartPhone unlimited data connect package gives you unlimited
data access to Cingular's WAP gatway at WAP.CINGULAR... bandwidth using
of the WAP.CINGULAR gateway is not audited on unlimited accounts as you
are paying for unlimited usage..... Since the SmartPhone devices can
tether data to a laptop using the WAP.CINGULAR gateway over GPRS EDGE,
you can use the Cingular 2125 (and presumably the 8125) in this way
with a SmartPhone unlimited account and you will not be billed
additional fees, THIS IS COVERED"

"... If you want higher connect speeds you need a Laptop data connect
account which will give you authorized access to the ISP.CINGULAR
gateway. If you configure your device to use the ISP.CINGULAR gateway
without purchasing the service, you stand to be billed for it and/or
have your account terminated"

Hopefully this clears it up for everyone. Notice I bolded THIS IS
COVERED because when he said that it just confirmed everything.

John Navas

2006-08-15, 3:33 pm

On 15 Aug 2006 10:38:06 -0700, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote in
<1155663486.219059.44700@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:

>This is what I was told this morning when talking with Cingular's PDA
>data connectivity department... Here is the information provided to me.
>
>"...The SmartPhone unlimited data connect package gives you unlimited
>data access to Cingular's WAP gatway at WAP.CINGULAR... bandwidth using
>of the WAP.CINGULAR gateway is not audited on unlimited accounts as you
>are paying for unlimited usage..... Since the SmartPhone devices can
>tether data to a laptop using the WAP.CINGULAR gateway over GPRS EDGE,
>you can use the Cingular 2125 (and presumably the 8125) in this way
>with a SmartPhone unlimited account and you will not be billed
>additional fees, THIS IS COVERED"
>
>"... If you want higher connect speeds you need a Laptop data connect
>account which will give you authorized access to the ISP.CINGULAR
>gateway. If you configure your device to use the ISP.CINGULAR gateway
>without purchasing the service, you stand to be billed for it and/or
>have your account terminated"
>
>Hopefully this clears it up for everyone. Notice I bolded THIS IS
>COVERED because when he said that it just confirmed everything.

I suggest you get that in writing, because it's in direct conflict with
Terms and Conditions:

Furthermore, unlimited plans (except for DataConnect and Blackberry
Tethered) CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY APPLICATIONS THAT TETHER THE DEVICE
(through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other
phone/PDA-to-computer accessories, Bluetooth® or any other wireless
technology) TO LAPTOPS, PCS, OR OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE.
[emphasis in the original]

and Service Agreement
<https://onlinecare.cingular.com/my-...e-agreement.jsp>

36 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the Sales Information
and all other documents and policies referenced herein, represent the
entire agreement between you and us, which may only be amended as
described in this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any
inconsistent or additional representations made to you by any of our
representatives, agents or dealers. ...

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com

2006-08-15, 3:33 pm

Well, in light of what I was finally able to get a Cingular support rep
to tell me... I think the terms your quoting can be easily interpreted
to support what I was told.

For example, notice how it says "... Furthermore, unlimited plans
(except for DataConnect and Blackberry Tethered) CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY
APPLICATIONS THAT TETHER THE DEVICE".

Notice it states except for: DataConnect and Blackberry Tethered.... It
does not say SmartPhone DataConnect tethered and Blackberry Thethered,
because according to the Cingular's service offerings there is no such
thing as a "SmartPhone DataConnect tethered" plan, there is however a
Blackberry Tethered plan.

So I think you could subtitie "DataConnect" in terms quoted for
"SmartPhone DataConnect", if you do that the terms you quoted would
read:

Furthermore, unlimited plans (except for [SmartPhone] DataConnect and
Blackberry Tethered) CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY APPLICATIONS THAT TETHER
THE DEVICE (through use of, including without limitation, connection
kits, other phone/PDA-to-computer accessories, Bluetooth=AE or any other
wireless technology) TO LAPTOPS, PCS, OR OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR ANY
PURPOSE. [emphasis in the original]

Now that would make sense, it's still confusing but it makes sense and
it lines up with what Cingular support has stated, what sales reps are
stating and what end users are experiencing....

John Navas wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2006 10:38:06 -0700, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote in
> <1155663486.219059.44700@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> I suggest you get that in writing, because it's in direct conflict with
> Terms and Conditions:
>
> Furthermore, unlimited plans (except for DataConnect and Blackberry
> Tethered) CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY APPLICATIONS THAT TETHER THE DEVICE
> (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other
> phone/PDA-to-computer accessories, Bluetooth=AE or any other wireless
> technology) TO LAPTOPS, PCS, OR OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE.
> [emphasis in the original]
>
> and Service Agreement
> <https://onlinecare.cingular.com/my-...e-agreement.jsp>
>
> 36 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the Sales Information
> and all other documents and policies referenced herein, represent the
> entire agreement between you and us, which may only be amended as
> described in this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any
> inconsistent or additional representations made to you by any of our
> representatives, agents or dealers. ...
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-08-15, 3:33 pm

I disagree completely.

On 15 Aug 2006 12:05:37 -0700, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote in
<1155668737.494468.286180@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
[color=darkred]
>Well, in light of what I was finally able to get a Cingular support rep
>to tell me... I think the terms your quoting can be easily interpreted
>to support what I was told.
>
>For example, notice how it says "... Furthermore, unlimited plans
>(except for DataConnect and Blackberry Tethered) CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY
>APPLICATIONS THAT TETHER THE DEVICE".
>
>Notice it states except for: DataConnect and Blackberry Tethered.... It
>does not say SmartPhone DataConnect tethered and Blackberry Thethered,
>because according to the Cingular's service offerings there is no such
>thing as a "SmartPhone DataConnect tethered" plan, there is however a
>Blackberry Tethered plan.
>
>So I think you could subtitie "DataConnect" in terms quoted for
>"SmartPhone DataConnect", if you do that the terms you quoted would
>read:
>
> Furthermore, unlimited plans (except for [SmartPhone] DataConnect and
>Blackberry Tethered) CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY APPLICATIONS THAT TETHER
>THE DEVICE (through use of, including without limitation, connection
>kits, other phone/PDA-to-computer accessories, Bluetooth® or any other
>wireless technology) TO LAPTOPS, PCS, OR OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR ANY
>PURPOSE. [emphasis in the original]
>
>Now that would make sense, it's still confusing but it makes sense and
>it lines up with what Cingular support has stated, what sales reps are
>stating and what end users are experiencing....
>
>
>
>
>John Navas wrote:

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com

2006-08-15, 3:33 pm

Ok, well I can see how two people could interpret those terms
differently. You're basically saying "no way.... It's got to be the way
I see it", except all tangible evidence is against you.

Which leads me to wonder what exactly it would it take to convince
you....

Out of curiosoity what's your primary mobile device? Do you even own s
SmartPhone?

John Navas wrote:
> I disagree completely.
>
> On 15 Aug 2006 12:05:37 -0700, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote in
> <1155668737.494468.286180@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
e=2E[color=darkred]
ng[color=darkred]
ou[color=darkred]
er[color=darkred]
ss[color=darkred]
p>[color=darkred]
on[color=darkred]
he[color=darkred]
Q>[color=darkred]
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-08-15, 10:34 pm

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, well I can see how two people could interpret those terms
> differently. You're basically saying "no way.... It's got to be the way
> I see it", except all tangible evidence is against you.

Welcome to Navasland...

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com

2006-08-15, 10:34 pm

No thanks, I'm leaving Navasland now....

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Welcome to Navasland...

jay420

2006-08-15, 10:34 pm

Jeremy,

Your point is that there is no such thing as "Smartphone DataConnect
tethered," but where your confusion lies, is that there really isn't even a
such a thing as Smartphone DataConnect. It is called "Smartphone Connect,"
without the word Data. Big difference, completely different product
offering.

They break it down into simple terms on this page:
http://www.cingular.com/midtolarge/data_connect

The first chart is for "Smartphone Connect"

The second chart is for "DataConnect or tethered devices," and notice the
price for unlimited.

The rep you spoke to is a dumb XXX. There is no way that you would be able
to get in writing what he told you over the phone. To insert the word
Smartphone in there before DataConnect would not make sense, and would
probably cause quite a laugh if the argument were heard in a court. Your
best bet on any legal protection would probably be to record the entire call
from beginning to end with the rep stating what you said. But even then, it
probably would not hold up, because there is still no such thing as
Smartphone unlimited Data Connect.

John is correct here, even though he does not have a Smartphone or data
connect. However, his reply of "I disagree completely," shows how his
personality disorder prevents him from explaining why he is right.

My opinion is that none of this even matters. Cingular has never taken away
unlimited data privileges for tethering yet, and there is nothing to suggest
that they will in the future. The dispute would never make it to court, and
you will not get charged even for violating the terms.

By the way, how much are you paying for this data plan, 19.99 or 44.99?

jay420

<Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155671026.660123.181400@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Ok, well I can see how two people could interpret those terms
differently. You're basically saying "no way.... It's got to be the way
I see it", except all tangible evidence is against you.

Which leads me to wonder what exactly it would it take to convince
you....

Out of curiosoity what's your primary mobile device? Do you even own s
SmartPhone?

John Navas wrote:
> I disagree completely.
>
> On 15 Aug 2006 12:05:37 -0700, Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote in
> <1155668737.494468.286180@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2006-08-15, 10:34 pm

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:38:35 -0400, "jay420" <jay420@alltel.net> wrote
in < 2e2b1$44e27721$471c0
0a7$20287@ALLTEL.NET>:

>John is correct here, even though he does not have a Smartphone or data
>connect.

I've actually had both.

>However, his reply of "I disagree completely," shows how his
>personality disorder prevents him from explaining why he is right.

Was that supposed to be funny?

I didn't explain further because: (1) I had already explained the reason
in detail, complete with citations, and saw no point in repeating
myself; and (2) Jeremy has a closed mind, is quite rude, and I'm not
going to waste time on a pointless argument.

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

jay420

2006-08-15, 10:34 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:7cv4e2dmc965jvv
dtvgukgcntl35bcvqk4@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:38:35 -0400, "jay420" <jay420@alltel.net> wrote
> in < 2e2b1$44e27721$471c0
0a7$20287@ALLTEL.NET>:
>
>
> I've actually had both.
>

You HAD both, but you don't HAVE both. What you HAVE is old MediaWorks
unlimited that is no longer offered. I was only talking about the present.
What you had in the past is most likely completely different from the terms
of today, and one would assume that you make your points based on what
Cingular's terms say, as would I.

>
> Was that supposed to be funny?
>
> I didn't explain further because: (1) I had already explained the reason
> in detail, complete with citations, and saw no point in repeating
> myself; and (2) Jeremy has a closed mind, is quite rude, and I'm not
> going to waste time on a pointless argument.
>

Yeah, I was just being funny. I rescind the statement.

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com

2006-08-15, 10:34 pm

http://onlinestorez.cingular.com/ce...phone-plans/ce=
ll-phone-plans.jsp?WT.svl=3D2206800007& q_catid=3D2206800007

Good point, the plan is called SmartPhone connect unlimited. For
billing purposes it shows up as MediaNet Data Connect Unlimited. It's
$20 month. If you take a look at the page I sent it is a bit confusing
because the section at the bottom is for SmartPhone devices.... For
example, I can not add Unlimted Data Connect to my account, but I can
add SmartPhone data connect. I've had this confirmed twice now. Once by
the sales clerk who added the SmartPhone connect/MediaNet data connect
to my account and once by PDA customer support.

Also, the Cingular 8125 is a PDA, but it's also a SmartPhone.... I was
told "that PDA counts as a SmartPhone so it qualifies for the $20/month
SmartPhone connect plan, which would save you quite a bit". The clerk
was comparing the SmartPhone data plan to the normal PDA data connect..

There will be no going to court. It's highly unlikely Cingular would
sue a customer. The worst action they would likely take is to terminate
your account if you did not pay up for a service they thought you
shouldn't have, but as you said they haven't yet.

FACTS we have to work with:

* According to populat blog postings, Cingular customers have been
using the described method to tether a laptop connection over
WAP.CINGULAR using the Cingular 2125 and 8125 devices for at least
since Jan 06 (the past seven months) with no termination of service or
billing problems

* Cingular sales clerks and support staff are telling customers that
with SmartPhone devices tethering over WAP.CINGULAR is acceptable

* The two products Cingular currently carries that qualify as
SmartPhone (i.e. Microsoft SmartPhone) devices are the 8125 and 2125.
Both of these devices are Cingular branded, Cingular is the US vendor
for these products and in the users manual for both devices it is
described in detail how to use the device as a "ModemLink" though USB
to "tether".

* On Cingular's offical (moderated) message board, detailed
instructions for setting up the device are provided many months ago.
Following the advice in these instructions successfully puts the device
in tethering mode.

* There have media reviews by popular magazines that discuss using the
device as a modem for laptop with MediaNet (MediaNet implies WAP, not
laptop connect or PDA data connect).

*This link (which was written by an end user)
http://www.momathome.com/viewfromho...r /> data_plan=
s=2Ephp
Also supports what I was told, that PDA data connect makes use of
ISP.CINGULAR while WAP.CINGULAR is a different gateway altogeather with
a different pricing model against it.

jay420 wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> Your point is that there is no such thing as "Smartphone DataConnect
> tethered," but where your confusion lies, is that there really isn't even=
a
> such a thing as Smartphone DataConnect. It is called "Smartphone Connect=
,"
> without the word Data. Big difference, completely different product
> offering.
>
> They break it down into simple terms on this page:
> http://www.cingular.com/midtolarge/data_connect
>
> The first chart is for "Smartphone Connect"
>
> The second chart is for "DataConnect or tethered devices," and notice the
> price for unlimited.
>
> The rep you spoke to is a dumb XXX. There is no way that you would be ab=
le
> to get in writing what he told you over the phone. To insert the word
> Smartphone in there before DataConnect would not make sense, and would
> probably cause quite a laugh if the argument were heard in a court. Your
> best bet on any legal protection would probably be to record the entire c=
all
> from beginning to end with the rep stating what you said. But even then,=
it
> probably would not hold up, because there is still no such thing as
> Smartphone unlimited Data Connect.
>
> John is correct here, even though he does not have a Smartphone or data
> connect. However, his reply of "I disagree completely," shows how his
> personality disorder prevents him from explaining why he is right.
>
> My opinion is that none of this even matters. Cingular has never taken a=
way
> unlimited data privileges for tethering yet, and there is nothing to sugg=
est
> that they will in the future. The dispute would never make it to court, =
and[color=darkred]
> you will not get charged even for violating the terms.
>
> By the way, how much are you paying for this data plan, 19.99 or 44.99?
>
> jay420
>
>
>
> <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155671026.660123.181400@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Ok, well I can see how two people could interpret those terms
> differently. You're basically saying "no way.... It's got to be the way
> I see it", except all tangible evidence is against you.
>
> Which leads me to wonder what exactly it would it take to convince
> you....
>
> Out of curiosoity what's your primary mobile device? Do you even own s
> SmartPhone?
>
>
>
> John Navas wrote:
er[color=darkred]
DA[color=darkred]
ed[color=darkred]
GE,[color=darkred]
ct[color=darkred]
ay[color=darkred]
ith[color=darkred]
ry[color=darkred]
ICE[color=darkred]
less[color=darkred]
jsp>[color=darkred]
our[color=darkred]

dold@XReXXConfi.usenet.us.com

2006-08-15, 10:34 pm

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> There will be no going to court. It's highly unlikely Cingular would
> sue a customer. The worst action they would likely take is to terminate
> your account if you did not pay up for a service they thought you
> shouldn't have, but as you said they haven't yet.

The suing would be by a customer trying to get out from under a $4,000
bill after the MEdiaNet Unlimited was dropped and tethering led to huge
charges before the pay-as-you-go was discovered (probably when the bill
arrived).

I'm surprised you didn't find those commentaries when you did your web
research.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

John Navas

2006-08-16, 4:33 am

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:46:44 -0400, "jay420" <jay420@alltel.net> wrote
in < 809dc$44e28716$471c0
0a7$24813@ALLTEL.NET>:

>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:7cv4e2dmc965jvv
dtvgukgcntl35bcvqk4@
4ax.com...

>
>You HAD both, but you don't HAVE both. What you HAVE is old MediaWorks
>unlimited that is no longer offered. I was only talking about the present.
>What you had in the past is most likely completely different from the terms
>of today, and one would assume that you make your points based on what
>Cingular's terms say, as would I.

I don't need to HAVE it to be able to read and understand the Terms and
Conditions. I'm guessing you don't either. Your point?

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

John Navas

2006-08-16, 4:33 am

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 03:30:05 +0000 (UTC), dold@XReXXConfi.usenet.us.com
wrote in <ebu3ft$qct$3@blue.rahul.net>:

>Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>
>The suing would be by a customer trying to get out from under a $4,000
>bill after the MEdiaNet Unlimited was dropped and tethering led to huge
>charges before the pay-as-you-go was discovered (probably when the bill
>arrived).

There would be no suing either way -- the Service Agreement specifies
mandatory arbitration.

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com

2006-08-16, 4:33 am

Not being sarcastic in the slightest, I just honestly want to know if
you can find a link to one person detailing this actually happening to
them...

I've searced and can't find one instance, if there was one it would be
relatively isolated based on what I've found, it would also contradict
what I've been told (and what others appear to have been told) by
Cingular, but at least it would give some weight to the other side of
this argument, which so far consist of a series of personal
disagreements without merit by a seemingly over confident end user who
happens to manage a Wikipedia info page on the topic.
..

dold@XReXXConfi.usenet.us.com wrote:
> Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The suing would be by a customer trying to get out from under a $4,000
> bill after the MEdiaNet Unlimited was dropped and tethering led to huge
> charges before the pay-as-you-go was discovered (probably when the bill
> arrived).
>
> I'm surprised you didn't find those commentaries when you did your web
> research.
>
> --
> ---
> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-08-16, 4:33 am

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> which so far consist of a series of personal
> disagreements without merit by a seemingly over confident end user who
> happens to manage a Wikipedia info page on the topic.

And including:

1) Using his explanation as a citation in an argument. Sort of like
telling the doctor you want a second opinion and he repeats himself.

2) His experience of something is proof enough, i.e. his extended GSM
story.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-08-16, 4:33 am

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> which so far consist of a series of personal
> disagreements without merit by a seemingly over confident end user who
> happens to manage a Wikipedia info page on the topic.

Also includes...

1) If he can't Google information to verify what you say, you are by de
facto wrong.

2) Using an irrelevant Google citation to prove his point. The signal
attenuation vs frequency thing.

3) Back peddling

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:

Navas countered with:[color=darkred]

> Wrong again.

Navas contradicted himself with:

> A port is listening if and only if some
> software has actually opened that port.

jay420

2006-08-16, 7:33 am

> I don't need to HAVE it to be able to read and understand the Terms and
> Conditions. I'm guessing you don't either. Your point?
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

You just pretty much rewrote what I said with different words. I said to
Jeremy that you were right on this one, even though you do not have a
smartphone or smartphone connect. Then you replied to my message that you
had both of them in the past, as if my post was somehow inaccurate and that
it needed you to correct me. What is the point that you were making with
that reply? Were you just trying to be an XXXXXXX?

Go read the post again, I said right there in the msg, that "one would
assume you get your points from the terms," which you are now saying back to
me. Sheesh.

jay420

2006-08-16, 7:33 am

<dold@XReXXConfi.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:ebu3ft$qct$3@bl
ue.rahul.net...
>
>
I'm surprised you didn't find those commentaries when you did your web
> research.
>
> --
> ---

I'm having trouble finding those commentaries myself when I do a web search.
The closest I've come are a few super long threads on howardforums, but none
of those situations deal with the issue being discussed, and their problems
end up being something else. I hate reading those 10 page threads just to
find out at the end it was the poster's ignorance that caused his problem,
or Cingular just made a mistake that they correct.

Do you have a link to a msg where someone had their medianet (or Smartphone
connect for that matter) taken away because of tethering on wap.cingular,
and then charged outrageous amounts?

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-08-16, 10:33 am

jay420 wrote:
> Do you have a link to a msg where someone had their medianet (or Smartphone
> connect for that matter) taken away because of tethering on wap.cingular,
> and then charged outrageous amounts?

I know that I can scan the bills of one customer that had the $19.95
Media(whatever) and it was not added back to his plan when he changed
something. There was something like a $600 data charge.

Granted, it was indeed a billing error, but....the only way he got them
to reverse the charges was to sign up for an unlimited data plan, the
$59.95/mo one, as Cingular said tethering was not allowed.

True, his account was not terminated and true he was not blocked from
using Media(whatever), but he was forced to add the higher priced $59.95
plan instead of the $19.95 plan to avoid data charges thereafter.

John Navas

2006-08-16, 10:33 am

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:16:00 -0400, "jay420" <jay420@alltel.net> wrote
in < 7b25d$44e2fe74$471c0
0a7$1691@ALLTEL.NET>:

[color=darkred]
>You just pretty much rewrote what I said with different words. I said to
>Jeremy that you were right on this one, even though you do not have a
>smartphone or smartphone connect. Then you replied to my message that you
>had both of them in the past, as if my post was somehow inaccurate and that
>it needed you to correct me. What is the point that you were making with
>that reply? Were you just trying to be an XXXXXXX?

I wasn't arguing with you, just adding more information.

>Go read the post again, I said right there in the msg, that "one would
>assume you get your points from the terms," which you are now saying back to
>me. Sheesh.

I didn't think "personality disorder" was at all funny. I still don't.
Sheesh indeed.

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

John Navas

2006-08-16, 10:33 am

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:24:30 -0400, "jay420" <jay420@alltel.net> wrote
in < 341b8$44e304af$471c0
0a7$3777@ALLTEL.NET>:

><dold@XReXXConfi.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
> news:ebu3ft$qct$3@bl
ue.rahul.net...
> I'm surprised you didn't find those commentaries when you did your web
[color=darkred]
>I'm having trouble finding those commentaries myself when I do a web search.
>The closest I've come are a few super long threads on howardforums, but none
>of those situations deal with the issue being discussed, and their problems
>end up being something else. I hate reading those 10 page threads just to
>find out at the end it was the poster's ignorance that caused his problem,
>or Cingular just made a mistake that they correct.
>
>Do you have a link to a msg where someone had their medianet (or Smartphone
>connect for that matter) taken away because of tethering on wap.cingular,
>and then charged outrageous amounts?

I've looked into this myself, and thus far all I've been able to find
are a few reports of people with MEdia packages getting surprised with
big pay-as-you-go bills, who _assumed_ Cingular deliberately dumped them
from MEdia packages for tethering -- they weren't actually told that
officially. For example, see
<http://groups.google.com/groups/sea...owboy&scoring=d>
(or <http://tinyurl.com/ha89n> ).

I know from my own experience that deleting of a MEdia package can
happen for no good reason; i.e., billing system screwup. It's happened
to me not once but twice, resulting in bills of not hundreds but
_thousands_ of dollars. In both cases I was able to get Cingular to
reverse the charges and restore the MEdia package to my account (even
though it was no longer offered), and I was also given credits for the
hassle.

Thus my guess is that these few reports are also the result of billing
system screwups, and that these people could have gotten their MEdia
packages restored and charges reversed if they tried hard enough.

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

John Navas

2006-08-16, 10:33 am

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:09:21 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <nono@no.no> wrote in
<5OEEg.7584$%j7.78@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:

>jay420 wrote:
>
>I know that I can scan the bills of one customer that had the $19.95
>Media(whatever) and it was not added back to his plan when he changed
>something. There was something like a $600 data charge.
>
>Granted, it was indeed a billing error, but....the only way he got them
>to reverse the charges was to sign up for an unlimited data plan, the
>$59.95/mo one, as Cingular said tethering was not allowed.
>
>True, his account was not terminated and true he was not blocked from
>using Media(whatever), but he was forced to add the higher priced $59.95
>plan instead of the $19.95 plan to avoid data charges thereafter.

He probably didn't try hard enough. When that happened to me (twice),
I was able to get my MEdia package back (even though it was no longer
offered), with excess charges reversed and credit for the hassle, by
being persistent (and polite). The issue of tethering never came up,
even though my usage was heavy enough that the charges ran into
literally _thousands_ of dollars.

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

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com

2006-08-16, 12:33 pm

Which is exactly why I say he appears over confident.... I called John
a moron once and I apologized for that. He appears to be an intelligent
guy, but when he has his mind set on something he's a hard nut to
crack.... I'll admit, I am too. However, when I'm wrong I'll admit it.
When I think I'm right, but through deductive reasoning all arrows
point to me being wrong, I'll admit it before I shame myself. This is
why I keep trying to get someone to post something concrete, not open
to subjectivity that will aid in the other side of this argument...

So far I feel no one has. The closest they've come is the quote from
the terms and conditions, but I feel that the wording in that document
is open interpretation and is subjective. It can mean whatever Cingular
wants it to and if they want to say a MediaNet (data) connect package
is covered under what they refer to in terms and conditions as a "data
connect" they certainly reserve the right to do that. By all accounts
that I can find, that's exactly what they are doing.

I've lost a lot of time in here posting, but I feel this is an topic
worthy of exhaustive exploration and these threads will leave behind a
trail for other Cingular customers to follow and form their own
conclusion. Of course they could also walk into a Cingular stores or
call Cingular (on a good day) and chances are pretty good they will be
told the same thing. There is the chance that they will be told
something entirely different, which is why I feel this is a worthy
cause.

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>
> And including:
>
> 1) Using his explanation as a citation in an argument. Sort of like
> telling the doctor you want a second opinion and he repeats himself.
>
> 2) His experience of something is proof enough, i.e. his extended GSM
> story.

dold@XReXXConfi.usenet.us.com

2006-08-16, 3:33 pm

Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> Not being sarcastic in the slightest, I just honestly want to know if
> you can find a link to one person detailing this actually happening to
> them...

> I've searced and can't find one instance, if there was one it would be
> relatively isolated based on what I've found, it would also contradict
> what I've been told (and what others appear to have been told) by

I found them wandering through some of the forums, and the complaint comes
up here from time to time.

You are right that there are hundreds of nearly identical posts telling you
how wonderful MEdiaNet tethering is. But there are the occasional postings
of dire billing situations.

John Navas had a couple of huge bills that were corrected.

I had a bill that was not huge, but large, also corrected. There was some
muttering about "you can't tether" during my conversation. I said I was
just using the phone a lot in my first month. Later, I caught occasions
where my plan was dropped from unlimited, due to the shabby way that the
Cingular provisioning works.

If you found no references to people having MEdiaNet cancelled, you didn't
try hard enough.

DecaturTXCowboy has told us of some of her clients having been
presented with either cancellations or large bills.
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt....i
s+group>

The $4,000 bill that I recalled was from having the wrong plan.
http://www.phonesforums.com/archive...hp/t-43355.html

There is no ending to that thread, it just deteriorated into the same
bickering that occurs here.

Having the wrong plan seems to be a popular occurrence, either from
selecting the wrong plan, having the wrong plan sold to you initially, or
having it change through Cingular's pathetic manual provisioning process.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

dold@XReXXConfi.usenet.us.com

2006-08-16, 3:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

> I know from my own experience that deleting of a MEdia package can
> happen for no good reason; i.e., billing system screwup. It's happened

"no good reason"
That's a lament about the provisioning process at Cingular. "Something"
was done to the account or features, probably because you asked for it, but
maybe not. In order to do certain provisioning, features must be removed
from the account, the desired change made, and then features are added
back. This is, from what I gather in conversations, an entirely manual
process, where someone confuses "MediaWorks" with "MediaNet" when
scribbling their notes, or selecting the feature while putting it back.

> Thus my guess is that these few reports are also the result of billing
> system screwups, and that these people could have gotten their MEdia
> packages restored and charges reversed if they tried hard enough.

The fact that they have to "try harder" is an indication that the
correction is not a simple billing correction, but that there is some need
to convince customer service that what happened was wrong.

Do you ever have occasions where you have to "convince" them of some other
credit, or is it only tethering situations?

With web browsing, Google Maps, and streaming audio and video, I would
think that the data overages would be occurring on a more common basis for
people who are not tethering, but the complaints about billing seem to come
from those who are tethering.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-08-16, 3:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> Thus my guess

The operative word.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-08-16, 3:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> He probably didn't try hard enough.

That's only your assumption, we tried very hard.

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-08-16, 3:33 pm

dold@XReXXConfi.usenet.us.com wrote:
> DecaturTXCowboy has told us of some of her clients

Ahem....I'm a he. LOL

jay420

2006-08-16, 3:33 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> I know from my own experience that deleting of a MEdia package can
> happen for no good reason; i.e., billing system screwup.

That is easy to understand how this could be a problem. Luckily I have
never been "dropped" from MediaNet, but I have had other features drop off
every now and then, such as call waiting, voicemail, and caller id, all at
different times over the last 7 years (since BellSouth Mobility).

John Navas

2006-08-16, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:50:57 +0000 (UTC), dold@XReXXConfi.usenet.us.com
wrote in <ebvpeh$72h$2@blue.rahul.net>:

>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>
>The fact that they have to "try harder" is an indication that the
>correction is not a simple billing correction, but that there is some need
>to convince customer service that what happened was wrong.

There are a number of other common reasons, including:
* The amount at issue exceeds the authority level of the person you're
dealing with.
* The feature accidentally removed can't be added back without higher
level access to the system.
* The person you are dealing with doesn't have any idea what you're
talking about.

>Do you ever have occasions where you have to "convince" them of some other
>credit, or is it only tethering situations?

It happens on other occasions as well. I use the Rule of Three -- call
back at least twice if I can't get it done the first time. Amazing how
often that works.

>With web browsing, Google Maps, and streaming audio and video, I would
>think that the data overages would be occurring on a more common basis for
>people who are not tethering, but the complaints about billing seem to come
>from those who are tethering.

I think that's because the bills are so big.

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

Todd Allcock

2006-08-17, 4:33 am

At 15 Aug 2006 12:43:46 -0700 Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, well I can see how two people could interpret those terms
> differently. You're basically saying "no way.... It's got to be the way
> I see it", except all tangible evidence is against you.
>

Gee, fellas, while I could just listen to you guys bicker about this all
day, let me see if I can find some common ground.

Jeremy, you want to pay $20 for unlimited internet with tethering, rather
than $59.99, (and who can blame you!) so despite what all the brochures,
webpages, and T&C's say, you'll keep calling Cingular reps until you find
at least one that says it's ok. And you did- congratulations!

Is that a guarantee? Personally, I doubt it, considering, if you called
10 Cingular reps on a Tuesday and asked what day it is, I'll suspect
you'd find at least one who'd tell you it's Monday, and another one who'd
say "August"!

But, you have the plan, it's working, and unless you try to eMule the
entire 20-year run of "The Simpsons" series over your smartphone, it's
likely no one is going to bother you about it, except, perhaps, John Navas.

John, you have a $20 MediaNet plan from the year 5 B.C. that apparently
allows tethering. Good for you. Why does it bug you so much that
someone else is trying to get somthing similar now? Because someone else
on the planet Earth might get as good a deal as you? Relax. It's
cellphone service, not a religion... at least not yet.

And, while I agree with you that the T&C's do prohibit tethering on the
MEdiaNet Unlimited plans, Cingular certainly has confusing, if not
actually conflicting, terms and conditions on data plans. For example,
just yesterday I picked up one of their recent data options brochures,
and it had a grid of data plans on one side, and a ton of footnoted
explanations, terms and conditions on the reverse. Among the footnotes
were things like "5. Tethering allowed with this plan" and "12. Tethering
not allowed with this plan." While MOST of the plans had either the #5
or #12 footnote in superscript next to the plan name, the smartphone
MEdiaNet Unlimited for $19.99 had NEITHER! (As a general rule, however,
any plan with a MB limit allowed tethering, and any unlimited plan except
the $59 and $79 disallowed it.)

So, in the interest of ending this discussion before 5G data services are
deployed, can we agree that Jeremy, if not "beating the system", is at
lea t "flying under the radar" due to Cingular's ignorance or oversight,
or at least found a quasi-loophole in the T&C, again, probably due to
oversight.

Can we also agree that, other than perhaps Jeremy, none of us should care
what Jeremy is paying for his service?

On the other hand, if you guys still want to fight about it but get tired
of all the typing, you can simply go to the Google News archives, search
for "tethering with Sprint Vision data plans" threads from a couple of
years ago and just cut and paste, replacing "Sprint" with "Cingular" and
"Vision" w/"MEdiaNet"...

It'll save you loads of time!
....At the very least, I might have got you guys to stop fighting long
enough to unite in telling me to f--- off and mind my own business... See,
we CAN all just get along... ;-)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

John Navas

2006-08-17, 12:33 pm

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:58:14 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in
< 44e4272f$1$6890$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>John, you have a $20 MediaNet plan from the year 5 B.C. that apparently
>allows tethering. Good for you. Why does it bug you so much that
>someone else is trying to get somthing similar now? Because someone else
>on the planet Earth might get as good a deal as you? Relax. It's
>cellphone service, not a religion... at least not yet.

That actually doesn't bug me at all. Live and let live.

What does bug me is bad information that can mislead others into making
bad decisions. What bugs me even more is incivility. Unfortunately,
when I post a different perspective, some people then see me as the
enemy (if-you-ain't-with-me-then-you're-again'-me!), and go on the
attack.

>So, in the interest of ending this discussion before 5G data services are
>deployed, can we agree that Jeremy, if not "beating the system", is at
>lea t "flying under the radar" due to Cingular's ignorance or oversight,

Yep.

>or at least found a quasi-loophole in the T&C, again, probably due to
>oversight.

Nope. I personally think the T&C are clear, and that his interpretation
wouldn't stand up at all in arbitration. His risk is being terminated,
although I think the risk is very low given reasonable usage, and I
think Cingular would probably allow him to switch to a DataConnect
package instead of termination.

>Can we also agree that, other than perhaps Jeremy, none of us should care
>what Jeremy is paying for his service?

Yep.

>On the other hand, if you guys still want to fight about it ...

Nope. I've stopped responding to him some time back, just as I do with
most others that can't at least be civil.

Thank you for civil and constructive comments. Hopefully we'll all take
them to heart. Reasonable people can disagree.

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2006-08-17, 12:33 pm

In article < lv59e2toi7bkr9gdmuj7
4e6221h18g7iee@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

> What does bug me is bad information that can mislead others into making
> bad decisions. What bugs me even more is incivility.

You mean, like you disregarding the rules of common etiquette? And then
posting a charter to other newsgroups to which it was never intended,
and then your blatantly not following the guidelines of that
charter--while scolding others who don't?

DecaturTxCowboy

2006-08-17, 3:33 pm

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article < lv59e2toi7bkr9gdmuj7
4e6221h18g7iee@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> You mean, like you disregarding the rules of common etiquette? And then
> posting a charter to other newsgroups to which it was never intended,
> and then your blatantly not following the guidelines of that
> charter--while scolding others who don't?
>

"Hypocrisy - thy name is Usenet" <-- John Navas

Ernie Klein

2006-08-17, 10:33 pm

In article < 44e4272f$1$6890$8826
0bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> At 15 Aug 2006 12:43:46 -0700 Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Gee, fellas, while I could just listen to you guys bicker about this all
> day, let me see if I can find some common ground.
>
> Jeremy, you want to pay $20 for unlimited internet with tethering, rather
> than $59.99, (and who can blame you!) so despite what all the brochures,
> webpages, and T&C's say, you'll keep calling Cingular reps until you find
> at least one that says it's ok. And you did- congratulations!
>
When I was trying to get some information about getting internet access
to my Mac iBook, they connected me to a tech in the data department who
told me that I _cannot_ use the dataconnect service with a Mac iBook
because they don't make a "PC card" for the Mac. He wasn't sure if the
Mac could interface with my Sony/Ericssson or not, but if it would, then
MEdia service would be the only service that would work.

Go figure.

--
-Ernie-

Bill Kraski

2006-08-17, 10:33 pm

Ernie Klein wrote:

> a Mac iBook because they don't make a "PC card" for the Mac. He
> wasn't sure if the Mac could interface with my Sony/Ericssson or not,
> but if it would, then MEdia service would be the only service that
> would work.

Well, if a data tech knows nothing about computers, how is he supposed
to know anything about computer data plans? :-)

--
Bill K

LinkBot