Cingular "Fast Forward" Caution!

SBC sold me the Cingular service with the $40 "fast forward" device and
$2.99 monthly forwarding charge waived. What a great idea...you just place
the phone in the charger/fast forward device and your calls are
automatically forwarded to the preassigned number. Here is the problem:
Unless I am totally inept when it comes to mechanical things and
electronics, this "Fast Forward" device is quite poorly designed. This is
supposed to be a combination charging base and automatic call forwarder.
Good idea, poorly executed. The phone is a Sony-Ericsson T-616 (but that's
another post altogether).

The first fast forward device failed after about four weeks. SBC directed
me to a Cingular Store, where SBC/Cingular customers are not even
acknowledged as Cingular users, to exchange the unit. The manager, after a
few minutes of grumbling, did exchange the device, however. In the several
months since then, I have continued to use the fast forward device, while
informally collecting statistics on its use.

1 of 4 attempts OK. In use, a successful connect and forward activity
occurs about one time in four. Of the other three attempts out of four, one
time will just lock up the phone requiring battery removal to restart it.
The other two times out of four, the Fast Forward device just beeps in
protest, and you have to press the cancel button, remove the phone and try
again. Just the "plug in" procedure is an exercise in manual dexterity
requiring a fair amount of practice.

Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
Again, a good idea, poorly executed.

Oh yes, one more thing. I cannot prove it yet, but I will have evidence at
the end of this billing cycle I think, that forwarded calls DO use your
Cingular minutes, so all you get for the forwarding is use of your other,
probably more convenient, phones.

It looks like Verizon, in spiter of their higher prices, may have to be my
next carrier.

"SBC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am sure you "get" (enabled) call forwarding for "free" which each
>carrier,
> but you have to pay per forwarded call, or per forwarded minute. Each
> carrier charges differently.
>
> Cingular is 10 cents a minute I believe. Cingular offers as an option,
> the
> fast-forwarding package, that is intended to be use with the included
> cradle, but also has unlimited call forwarding for the monthly $2.99(?)
> fee.
> This fee is waived with combined SBC billing.
>
> Lance
>
> "Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I just signed up with Cingular, and don't have the phone yet, however,
>> I picked up a brochure at a Cingular store today. It lists:
>>
>> Basic voicemail
>> Call forwarding
>> Call waiting
>> 3-way calling
>> Caller ID
>> Detailed billing
>> Text/Instant messaging (10-cents a message unless you pay extra)
>> Multimedia messaging (25-cents per message unless you pay extra)
>> Media net (1-cent per kilobyte unless you pay extra)
>>
>> This is for GSM National plans. Don't know if it would be different
>> for regional plans.
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:16:19 -0800, "Halogen8" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I've been a wireless phone user for a long time now and it seems that
>> >wireless companies always included services such as call forwarding with
>> >just about all calling plans.
>> >
>> >For example Verizon includes these services:
>> >3-Way Calling
>> >411 Connect®
>> >Basic Voice Mail
>> >Call Forwarding
>> >Call WaitingCaller ID
>> >New Every Two®
>> >No Answer/Transfer
>> >TXT Messaging
>> >
>> >ATT gave free call forwarding as well.
>> >
>> >I was looking on the cingular page, and call forwarding is not listed as
> a
>> >service included with your plan. Is it truly the case that you have to
> pay
>> >for call forwarding with cingular?
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>

---

› See More: Cingular "Fast Forward" Caution!

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

>
> Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
> joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
> Again, a good idea, poorly executed.
>
Well you can save the command to your phone book in in the format:

**61*<forward to number>*11*5# This serves to forward calls if
unanswered after 5 seconds. there are other codes for busy and
unavailable transfer.

BTW, T-mobile provides 500 minutes per month for conditional forwarding
(busy, no answer, unavailable) the is no charge for it. with this
service I dial **61*<forward to number>*11*5# and hit send.


steve

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Good idea, poorly executed. The phone is a Sony-Ericsson T-616 (but that's
> another post altogether).
>
Sounds like it's a problem with the base communicating with the SE T-616
not really a problem with the device. Can't say I'm surprised
considering all the problems people report with the Txxx phones.

> Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
> joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
> Again, a good idea, poorly executed.

Again, not Cingular's fault. Does the phone have any "one-touch" speed
dialing where you just push and hold a 1-9 button? Every brand I've
ever had has had such a feature. You'd need to dedicate two buttons to
that.

> Oh yes, one more thing. I cannot prove it yet, but I will have evidence at
> the end of this billing cycle I think, that forwarded calls DO use your
> Cingular minutes, so all you get for the forwarding is use of your other,
> probably more convenient, phones.
>

Let us know but from what others, and the Cingular website, says there
should be NO forwarding charges and NO minutes used. If you see
otherwise more than likely the "unlimited forwarding" feature is not
activated correctly and CS will have to fix it (and credit your
minutes).
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
16:53:34 GMT, "William" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
>joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
>Again, a good idea, poorly executed.

That can be greatly simplified with a Shortcut using standard GSM codes.

>Oh yes, one more thing. I cannot prove it yet, but I will have evidence at
>the end of this billing cycle I think, that forwarded calls DO use your
>Cingular minutes, so all you get for the forwarding is use of your other,
>probably more convenient, phones.

Contact Customer Care.

>It looks like Verizon, in spiter of their higher prices, may have to be my
>next carrier.

"The grass isn't greener..." -- Verizon has its own set of issues, including
the lack of standard GSM codes.

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:53:34 GMT, "William" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
>joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
>Again, a good idea, poorly executed.

Lord knows what you're doing since you can either use codes punched
into your keypad or use phone menus to forward and it shouldn't take
more than a few key strokes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

William wrote:

>
> Oh yes, one more thing. I cannot prove it yet, but I will have evidence at
> the end of this billing cycle I think, that forwarded calls DO use your
> Cingular minutes, so all you get for the forwarding is use of your other,
> probably more convenient, phones.
>

So, what would you expect to be billed for the following scenarios:

- mobile to mobile forwarded to land where both mobiles have free mobile
to mobile

- land to mobile forwarded to long distance where the mobile has free
long distance

In either of those cases, and probably others, there is the potential
for abuse if you didn't get billed for something. Minutes of use seems
fair because then the forwarding leg is treated as if you made the call.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:53:34 GMT, "William" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The first fast forward device failed after about four weeks. SBC directed
>me to a Cingular Store, where SBC/Cingular customers are not even
>acknowledged as Cingular users

I've heard similar things about the SBC/Dish Network partnership, i.e.
from a customer service standpoint, it's better to sign up with Dish
Network directly than to sign up through SBC.

>It looks like Verizon, in spiter of their higher prices, may have to be my
>next carrier.

Don't go to Verizon expecting it to be any better. I left Verizon
Wireless for Cingular, and VZW said "goodbye" by raping me with a $175
"early termination fee" even though there was nothing early about my
termination at all. Cingular offered me month-to-month service from
day one, AND they have many cool Bluetooth phones whereas VZW
grudgingly offers only one (and it doesn't work well with the
Bluetooth Hands Free Link in my Acura TL). AND their prices are
higher.

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy *or* become Verizon customers.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:40:33 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sounds like it's a problem with the base communicating with the SE T-616
>not really a problem with the device. Can't say I'm surprised
>considering all the problems people report with the Txxx phones.

What problems are these?

I have two T-616s and a T-637 - they work just fine for me.

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy *or* become Verizon customers.

could you clarify a bit? i am on Verizon Wireless so this interests me. I
signed up for a 1-yr. plan in May 2003. I have been month-to-month (as far
as i know) since then, but it sounds like they may have some provision
saying you automatically renew for another year??


>
> Don't go to Verizon expecting it to be any better. I left Verizon
> Wireless for Cingular, and VZW said "goodbye" by raping me with a $175
> "early termination fee" even though there was nothing early about my
> termination at all.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:23:54
-0800, Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> wrote:

>Don't go to Verizon expecting it to be any better. I left Verizon
>Wireless for Cingular, and VZW said "goodbye" by raping me with a $175
>"early termination fee" even though there was nothing early about my
>termination at all.

Then you are also at fault for letting VZW get away with it. Did you even
file a complaint with the BBB?

>Cingular offered me month-to-month service from
>day one,

No longer -- minimum 1-year term.

>AND they have many cool Bluetooth phones whereas VZW
>grudgingly offers only one (and it doesn't work well with the
>Bluetooth Hands Free Link in my Acura TL). AND their prices are
>higher.

True.

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

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:20:03 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Don't go to Verizon expecting it to be any better. I left Verizon
>>Wireless for Cingular, and VZW said "goodbye" by raping me with a $175
>>"early termination fee" even though there was nothing early about my
>>termination at all.
>
>Then you are also at fault for letting VZW get away with it.

Yeah, I'm "at fault" for cutting my losses and refusing to throw good
money after bad. I'm "at fault" for realizing that time is money, and
that to waste any more time trying to get those blood sucking leeches
at Verizon to reverse their charge is an exercise in futility.

I guess I deserved whatever ass-raping I got from VZW, huh?

>>Cingular offered me month-to-month service from
>>day one,
>
>No longer -- minimum 1-year term.

Since when?

And how do they justify locking a customer into a contract when they
have no subsidy costs to recover? Or are they like T-Mobile, who
doesn't even TRY to justify their outright rapaciousness?

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for resale on eBay).

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott en Aztl?n <[email protected]> wrote:

> >No longer -- minimum 1-year term.
>
> Since when?

Since John felt he had to open his mouth and say SOMETHING, and this was
the only thing that came to mind for him.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:01:47
-0800, Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 01:20:03 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Don't go to Verizon expecting it to be any better. I left Verizon
>>>Wireless for Cingular, and VZW said "goodbye" by raping me with a $175
>>>"early termination fee" even though there was nothing early about my
>>>termination at all.
>>
>>Then you are also at fault for letting VZW get away with it.
>
>Yeah, I'm "at fault" for cutting my losses and refusing to throw good
>money after bad. I'm "at fault" for realizing that time is money, and
>that to waste any more time trying to get those blood sucking leeches
>at Verizon to reverse their charge is an exercise in futility.

Actually it's not. Filing a complaint with the BBB is often (usually?)
effective, and takes very little time.

>I guess I deserved whatever ass-raping I got from VZW, huh?

If you act like a victim, expect to get treated like one.

>>>Cingular offered me month-to-month service from
>>>day one,
>>
>>No longer -- minimum 1-year term.
>
>Since when?

Sometime in the past year.

>And how do they justify locking a customer into a contract when they
>have no subsidy costs to recover?

Sign-up costs. Cingular wants to minimize churn.

>Or are they like T-Mobile, who
>doesn't even TRY to justify their outright rapaciousness?

T-Mobile is actually the price leader.

--
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 Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:49:40
-0800, Scott en Aztlán <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:52:54 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>>And how do they justify locking a customer into a contract when they
>>>have no subsidy costs to recover?
>>
>>Sign-up costs.
>
>Bull****. Those are more than covered by the "activation fee" that you
>pay when you add a new line. The fact that I signed up last year with
>no contract whatsoever is proof of this.

I don't agree.

>Cingular has just removed the main reason people like me signed up
>with them in the first place. I guess arrogance is part of the package
>you get when you're #1.

I don't think so.

>Hey, maybe now that VZW is #2 they'll try harder!

It's been trying harder, which is how it got to be the prior #1.

>>Cingular wants to minimize churn.
>
>Gee, maybe they could try doing that by offering better service at a
>better price?

I think it is; otherwise I would be with some other carrier.

>BTW, what's so special about the cellular industry that they feel
>their "churn" problems are so much worse than, say, the pay TV
>industry's? ...

What's special is the ease of switching carriers. It's much harder to switch
TV services.

>>>Or are they like T-Mobile, who
>>>doesn't even TRY to justify their outright rapaciousness?
>>
>>T-Mobile is actually the price leader.
>
>That may be, but they lost their chance to have me as a customer with
>their ridiculous policy of insisting on a long-term contract even when
>I was supplying my own hardware.

Sounds to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face, since that's
standard industry practice. You're not the kind of customer cellular carriers
want, so they choose not to give you what you want -- that's how a free market
works.

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:50:23 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>And how do they justify locking a customer into a contract when they
>>>>have no subsidy costs to recover?
>>>
>>>Sign-up costs.
>>
>>Bull****. Those are more than covered by the "activation fee" that you
>>pay when you add a new line. The fact that I signed up last year with
>>no contract whatsoever is proof of this.
>
>I don't agree.

Why not? Any logical reason, or do you just enjoy arguing?

>>>Cingular wants to minimize churn.
>>
>>Gee, maybe they could try doing that by offering better service at a
>>better price?
>
>I think it is; otherwise I would be with some other carrier.

Then they don't need to lock you in with a contract, do they?

>>BTW, what's so special about the cellular industry that they feel
>>their "churn" problems are so much worse than, say, the pay TV
>>industry's? ...
>
>What's special is the ease of switching carriers. It's much harder to switch
>TV services.

Hardly. Until number portability, it was actually EASIER to switch
your TV service. Drop Dish and call DirecTV - you can even use the
same dish if you want - just re-aim it to the DirecTV satellite. The
Dishes and LNBs are compatible. Or switch from Dish to cable.

>>>>Or are they like T-Mobile, who
>>>>doesn't even TRY to justify their outright rapaciousness?
>>>
>>>T-Mobile is actually the price leader.
>>
>>That may be, but they lost their chance to have me as a customer with
>>their ridiculous policy of insisting on a long-term contract even when
>>I was supplying my own hardware.
>
>Sounds to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face, since that's
>standard industry practice.

That doesn't mean it's not asinine.

>You're not the kind of customer cellular carriers
>want, so they choose not to give you what you want -- that's how a free market
>works.

I pay Cingualr $114/month in service charges - just what sort of
customers does Cingular want if not people like me?

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for resale on eBay).