One complaint about Cingular...

Trust me...Cingular nor Verizon care less about why people cancel their
service. Most of the time...probably close to %100 of the time they get a
customer's termination fee...which is %100 profit all money into their
banks.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fO0%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 06 Sep 2004 14:33:05
GMT,
> [email protected]pamfree (John S.) wrote:
>
> >>Then switch to another carrier. That's the only way Cingular will
really get
> >>the message.
> >
> >Do you suppose that we could all the millions to switch at once and TELL
> >Cingular that is why they are switching?
> >
> >I suspect that that would be the only way they would get the message!
>
> I have no doubt that Cingular pays close attention to the number of
defections
> and to the reasons for those defections. Carriers know that we may
complain
> about customer service, but in reality we usually switch for reasons of
price,
> not customer service.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: One complaint about Cingular...

Yup...they really could care less about you. You can be with them since the
first day of going online, they're not going to care, you know that. I'm
dying for lower prices on cellular phones and I've been waiting also for
decreased prices since LNP...but nothing has happened. The companies are
still charging extreme prices for so little really. Who knows what will
happen in the future...I'm still having trouble with my VoIP home system.

"mcp6453" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Killer Madness wrote:
> >
> > Their customer service hours are terrible. They really need to be 24/7.
> > These are multi-billion dollar companies and really need to go to 24/7
> > hours. People don't stop using cell phones or stop working.
>
>
> They obviously don't care. They will not start caring until enough of us
> vote with our feet. Number portability was supposed to cause a decrease
> in rates. Maybe enough time has not passed, but I cannot wait until the
> cellular phone companies are hurting and have to cut prices.
>
> Their research has shown that $39.95 is the working price point for
> subscribers. That's too much money. They're gouging. We'll see what
> their real margins are when they have to compete.
>
> The good news is that the customer service cannot get much worse. I just
> stood in line for 48 minutes to get a snotty woman who couldn't care
> less that I have been with Cingular since 1997.

In article <MR9%[email protected]>,
"Killer Madness" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yup...they really could care less about you.

That means they care.

I think what you meant was "they couldn't care less". That means they
don't care a whit, and couldn't care any less.

>Number portability was supposed to cause a decrease
>in rates.

No it wasn't. It was supposed to allow people to take their number with them
when changing carriers.

There were supositions that this MIGHT cause a new round of competition but it
didn't. The rates are already very low and the cellular companies are not
really making any money yet.

About the only really new rates I have seen are the 1000 minute plan that
T-Mobile came out with a few months ago for $39.95 and the (essentially) same
plan that Cingular just introduced recently.

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

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

In <JN9%[email protected]> on Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:20:08
-0400, "Killer Madness" <[email protected]> wrote:

>No, it's just that when I have the time to call customer servive they're
>always closed!

Cingular Customer Service is open 9am-10pm Central Mon-Sat. (There is also an
After Hours number for network problems.) Unless your circumstances are
really unusual, it would thus seem possible to call when they are open.

>Their website is open 24/7 and they take orders 24/7, so why
>not have a customer service department open 24/7 or at least EVERYDAY...like
>Verizon. I mean they can add a shift to accomodate this...it's not brain
>surgery here.

It's a non-trivial cost issue. While it would be nice to have 24x7 customer
service, but how much more would you be willing to pay for it? Personally,
I don't want to pay any more.

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

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

I'm afraid I can't trust that. There is no profit on ETF because it costs
more than that to obtain a customer in the first place, on the order of
$350-400. In other words, even with the ETF the carrier suffers a loss when a
subscriber leaves. That's why the industry is so obsessed with minimizing
churn rate through customer retention.

In <TP9%[email protected]> on Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:22:27
-0400, "Killer Madness" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Trust me...Cingular nor Verizon care less about why people cancel their
>service. Most of the time...probably close to %100 of the time they get a
>customer's termination fee...which is %100 profit all money into their
>banks.
>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:fO0%[email protected]...

>> I have no doubt that Cingular pays close attention to the number of defections
>> and to the reasons for those defections. Carriers know that we may complain
>> about customer service, but in reality we usually switch for reasons of price,
>> not customer service.

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

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

It's not "running away" -- it's cutting your losses and avoiding future
problems. Makes no sense to keep pounding your forehead against a wall.

In <JO9%[email protected]> on Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:21:12
-0400, "Killer Madness" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Always running away from problems isn't the best way to be....is that what
>you do?
>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> Then switch to another carrier. That's the only way Cingular will really get
>> the message.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:02:01 GMT, mcp6453
<[email protected]> wrote:

>They obviously don't care. They will not start caring until enough of us
>vote with our feet. Number portability was supposed to cause a decrease
>in rates. Maybe enough time has not passed, but I cannot wait until the
>cellular phone companies are hurting and have to cut prices.
>
>Their research has shown that $39.95 is the working price point for
>subscribers.

Carriers actually track ARPU (Average Revenue Per User), which is more in the
range of $50-70/month.

>That's too much money.

The cost of cellular has been falling over the past several years, and is
increasingly a bargain.

>They're gouging.

There's no evidence of that in their financials. Cellular is a tough
business.

>We'll see what
>their real margins are when they have to compete.

We can see their real margins now.

>The good news is that the customer service cannot get much worse. I just
>stood in line for 48 minutes to get a snotty woman who couldn't care
>less that I have been with Cingular since 1997.

I've generally gotten good customer service from Cingular.

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

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

In <MR9%[email protected]> on Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:24:28
-0400, "Killer Madness" <[email protected]> wrote:

>... I'm
>dying for lower prices on cellular phones

Lower than free?!

>and I've been waiting also for
>decreased prices since LNP...but nothing has happened.

Because the industry is so competitive.

>The companies are
>still charging extreme prices for so little really. ...

Cellular is actually a bargain.

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

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

In <uJ9%[email protected]> on Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:16:38
-0400, "Steve Larson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Wrong. Cingular has taken steps to limit what their CSRs can do for their
>customers.

All carriers limit what their CSRs can do for their customers.

>[SNIP]
>They also don't give a customer service email to receive feedback
>about this new policy. Kind of convenient for them. The execs can say the
>new program works great because they've received no complaints.

No offense, but that's a pretty silly claim.

>Note that
>every one of Cingular's competitors provide a customer service email
>address.

"Every one?" And they really work? And you know that ... how?

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

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]pamfree (John S.) wrote:

> >Number portability was supposed to cause a decrease
> >in rates.
>
> No it wasn't. It was supposed to allow people to take their number with them
> when changing carriers.

And the changing of carriers was supposed to increase each carrier's
competitiveness; more competition generally results in lower prices.



> There were supositions that this MIGHT cause a new round of competition but it
> didn't.

Not yet, no. Cell phone plans seem to be like gas prices. Everyone
does the same thing at the same time. Ergo, no competition.

Oh good, it's you again, John. I was hoping you would post more
misinformation. Thanks for helping!


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%In%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <uJ9%[email protected]> on Mon, 6 Sep 2004
> 23:16:38
> -0400, "Steve Larson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Wrong. Cingular has taken steps to limit what their CSRs can do for their
>>customers.
>
> All carriers limit what their CSRs can do for their customers.
>
>>[SNIP]
>>They also don't give a customer service email to receive feedback
>>about this new policy. Kind of convenient for them. The execs can say
>>the
>>new program works great because they've received no complaints.
>
> No offense, but that's a pretty silly claim.
>
>>Note that
>>every one of Cingular's competitors provide a customer service email
>>address.
>
> "Every one?" And they really work? And you know that ... how?
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

If we were all John Navas, then we would all love Cingular and have great
experiences with them. Oh well, too bad for us.


>>The good news is that the customer service cannot get much worse. I just
>>stood in line for 48 minutes to get a snotty woman who couldn't care
>>less that I have been with Cingular since 1997.
>
> I've generally gotten good customer service from Cingular.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 07 Sep 2004
15:53:48 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]pamfree (John S.) wrote:
>
>> >Number portability was supposed to cause a decrease
>> >in rates.
>>
>> No it wasn't. It was supposed to allow people to take their number with them
>> when changing carriers.
>
>And the changing of carriers was supposed to increase each carrier's
>competitiveness; more competition generally results in lower prices.

Not when the market is already so competitive that prices have already been
pushed down. Carriers claimed that lack of number portability wasn't limiting
competition, and from the lack of increase in churn it seems they were right.
Thus cost without real benefit.

>> There were supositions that this MIGHT cause a new round of competition but it
>> didn't.
>
>Not yet, no. Cell phone plans seem to be like gas prices.

Gas prices differ considerably due to branding, even though gas is really a
commodity. Around here the range is more than 10%, which economists consider
significant.

>Everyone
>does the same thing at the same time. Ergo, no competition.

Just the opposite. Price differences tend to be greater in less competitive
markets.

I suggest you learn something about economics and how markets work.

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

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

In <4Vo%c.107867$%[email protected]> on Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:32:23
-0400, "Steve Larson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>If we were all John Navas, then we would all love Cingular

I don't "love" any supplier. I simply go with whatever works best for me.

>and have great
>experiences with them.

I tend to have good experiences because I work hard to choose carefully, and
because I do my best to work with suppliers rather than fight with them.
I do nonetheless sometimes make mistakes, like my recent switch to ATTWS,
which ended with me coming back to Cingular before the trial month was up.

>Oh well, too bad for us.

If you let yourself be ruled by emotion rather than reason, then you will
indeed probably be less fortunate.

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