Getting out of 2 year contract

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
11:10:51 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
>> coverage in that area, but not that particular location. The burden, quite
>> simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the particular location,
>> and choose accordingly.
>
>We aren't talking about NEW service here; we're talking about someone
>using the provider's map data to determine where to move to, given that
>he has existing service and wants to continue it.
>
>He can't really test it, not fully. If the provider says "yeah, we have
>service there"--either the CS rep or a map--then the customer has to
>expect that to be true.

Relying on a general coverage map (if he did) would be just plain silly.
Because we aren't talking about new service here, he can indeed really test
it, and fully. All he need do is (a) look at the signal strength on his
phone, or [drum roll] (b) try to make a call. Or are you suggesting that he
didn't even inspect the new location before moving?

>They can't hide behind the old "yeah, we said so, but it isn't true, so
>it's your fault" thing.

The subscriber can't hide behind the old, "yeah, I picked an area with no
coverage, so I figure you should just forget about the big discount you gave
me on my cell phone" thing.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Getting out of 2 year contract

>> > OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an
>area
>> > that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>> >
>> >
>> certainly NOT Cingular.
>
>So tell me . . . if Cingular is not responsible for maintenance of the
>Cingular towers, who is? -Dave

Dave, you all seem to forget several things.

The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have a
lisence to operate in his new home area. No lisence, no towers.

Maintenance would indicate that there was some service at one time but maybe
not at this time. From the sounds of it there never was any.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

Robert [email protected] aka David Abrams/Tracey/Phil_Real/and 200+ other id's
wrote:



>>In article <[email protected]>,

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:



>>>If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000

>>>miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near

>>>your new house?

>

>>Well put.



>No but many will happily give a refund. Verizon typically does upon

>request.



Filty Troll Boi, you are a LIAR! Many = ? Verizon typically?

PPOSTFU, filthy Troll Boi.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> >He can't really test it, not fully. If the provider says "yeah, we have
> >service there"--either the CS rep or a map--then the customer has to
> >expect that to be true.
>
> Relying on a general coverage map (if he did) would be just plain silly.
> Because we aren't talking about new service here, he can indeed really test
> it, and fully. All he need do is (a) look at the signal strength on his
> phone, or [drum roll] (b) try to make a call. Or are you suggesting that he
> didn't even inspect the new location before moving?

That may be entirely impractical. So he goes by the coverage map and/or
CS rep.

Now what?

John, you're tiring. It's not always the customer's fault. Sometimes
it's the fault of the cellular provider. In that case, it's up to the
cellular provider to make good on things--in this case, "we said we had
service but we don't, therefore there's no contract". That's simple law.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> >But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
> >he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.
>
> On the contrary -- as I wrote in the part you snipped:
>
> The burden, quite simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the
> particular location, and choose accordingly.

The subscriber may not have the opportunity to do so.

If that's the case, the subscriber will fall back to the next
opportunity: ask the company. Give a ZIP code, and ask if there's
coverage. And then double check that with another phone call to CS, and
then the published map.

And when all of those things indicate that there's service, but he moves
and finds out there's not--guess what? It's the provider's problem, not
his.

When he makes best effort and they fall down on their face, it's their
fault.

John, it's not always the customer's fault. And if the provider makes a
claim that there's service but it turns out there isn't, then the
provider broke the contract. *Now* what are the penalties? Do we as
subscribers have any penalties we can levy on the providers for breaking
the contract?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
> > he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.
>
> The more scientific and logical determination is to have the cellphone on
> when looking at houses.

That won't always happen. Some people move without even seeing the
house.

Besides: what if I base my house hunting on prior research performed by
calling the provider and asking about service in that ZIP code? And the
provider says "yes, we have full coverage in that ZIP code"?

If they don't, at that point the provider has broken their contract.
They've made a representation that isn't true.

Tell us, Scott and John, what penalties do you suggest for cellular
providers that lie and break their contracts? That lie on the phone and
on their coverage maps? Oh, I see--none. You don't think the providers
should be held responsible for lying.

> Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
>
> The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have
a
> lisence to operate in his new home area.

So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave

In article <[email protected]>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
> > >represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
> > >holds the burden here.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well
> > be
> > coverage in that area, but not that particular location.
>
> But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
> he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.


If someone makes a decision where to move based on cellular coverage,
they have a lot more problems than just whether to pay the $70 to get
out of the contract.

In article <[email protected]>, "Dave C." <[email protected]>
wrote:

> > Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
> >
> > The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have
> a
> > lisence to operate in his new home area.
>
> So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
> would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave

Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
that has no service.


It appears from your responses that if you convinced people you had a
brain, that would be FRAUD. I'm not convinced you have a brain, hence,
no fraud.

In article <[email protected]>,
Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Dave C." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > > Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
> > >
> > > The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have
> > a
> > > lisence to operate in his new home area.
> >
> > So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
> > would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave
>
> Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
> don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
> go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
> that has no service.

Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.

In article <[email protected]>,
Robert <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
> > don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
> > go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
> > that has no service.
>
> Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.

Don't confuse Steve and John with the facts.

I see John is too busy preening himself to pay attention here.

John had some good information back when modems were a hot topic. What
was that, 10 years ago? But time has passed John by. Now he's trying
to convince the world of his knowledge on other things, but he's failing.

John, you need to take a vacation. If you want to reinvent yourself in
the modern world, you'd do best to drop out of it for awhile and assess
yourself and the world in which you live.

>So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
>would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave

Well, Dave, just because you change YOUR address doesn't void your contract.

You (whomever) had service when they signed up. It is not the carriers fault
that you decided to move.

I don't know of any other contract that is voided by moving.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps,
then
> > > he made the best effort that was available to him to make that
decision.
> >
> > The more scientific and logical determination is to have the cellphone
on
> > when looking at houses.
>
> That won't always happen. Some people move without even seeing the
> house.

And that is there decision. Not a wise one, but that is solely my opinion.

>
> Besides: what if I base my house hunting on prior research performed by
> calling the provider and asking about service in that ZIP code? And the
> provider says "yes, we have full coverage in that ZIP code"?

Number one, get it in writing. A phone call with a 'mystery rep' wouldn't
hold water anywhere. And anybody who's used a cell phone for more than a
week will have experienced anything but blanket coverage in just about any
area code they frequent.

>
> If they don't, at that point the provider has broken their contract.
> They've made a representation that isn't true.

Agreed, but one that is undocumented.

>
> Tell us, Scott and John, what penalties do you suggest for cellular
> providers that lie and break their contracts? That lie on the phone and
> on their coverage maps? Oh, I see--none. You don't think the providers
> should be held responsible for lying.
>

Never said that, and you can venture over to the Verizon group and view a
couple of my posts over the last week, that show how I feel about broken
promises. From your tone, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

However, you injecting things into this thread that are not applicable to
the OP. Having signed a legally valid and enforceable contract, the OP has
made the decision to move, and has unilaterally diminished the value of the
service. Cingular has not changed or diminished the service that was
available a week ago. There is no legal requirement that Cingular offer
service in the new area just because a subscriber moves out of coverage.
The network described in the contract hasn't changed. What's to prevent me
from calling and cancelling service, because I'm moving out of coverage?
Don't plan on moving, but it gets me out of the contract. Believing that
I'm not the first to think of this, it may explain the firm ground being
exhibited by Cingular.

"Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Dave C." <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
> > > >
> > > > The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might
not have
> > > a
> > > > lisence to operate in his new home area.
> > >
> > > So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then.
That
> > > would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave
> >
> > Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
> > don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
> > go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
> > that has no service.
>
> Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.

Funny- I don't see anything on the books. Care to expand on that, and you
need to provide more than 'fit for purpose', which the phone meets when used
on network.

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:55:14 -0400, "Dave C."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
>>
>> The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have a
>> lisence to operate in his new home area.
>
>So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
>would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave

No fraud. There is a contract to provide service in those areas in which
service is available. No carrier guarantees universal coverage. You're still
obligated to pay your bill even when you aren't in an area with coverage.
Don't like that? Then don't sign the contract in the first place.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>