sticker shock: forwarding e-mail: former AT&T now Cingular

I was an AT&T customer and forwarded my e-mail to my cell phone. Yes, it
only showed the first 250 characters but it was helpful to know if I needed
to log-on to pick up any critical messages. I changed to Cingular and
specifically asked if the same service was included in the base plan. I was
told (at the same AT&T store where I originally signed-up for AT&T, now a
Cingular store) that I would get the same service without add'l charge.

My first bill arrived and had 450 "text messages" for $45! I called
Cingular customer service and they told me that "their plan was not for me
if I wanted to forward my messages at no cost." I had to dig-out the fact
that they have a $10/month option for 750 text messages/month. I asked to
speak with a supervisor because I was not going to pay $45 for the messages.
The supervisor said that they would credit me $45 and enroll me for the
$10/month plan.

It looks like this confusion is a casualty of their merger and different
definition of terms and their service plans. At least they waived the
charge but it was a major sticker shock.

---

› See More: sticker shock: forwarding e-mail: former AT&T now Cingular

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

> I was an AT&T customer and forwarded my e-mail to my cell phone. Yes, it
> only showed the first 250 characters but it was helpful to know if I needed
> to log-on to pick up any critical messages. I changed to Cingular and
> specifically asked if the same service was included in the base plan. I was
> told (at the same AT&T store where I originally signed-up for AT&T, now a
> Cingular store) that I would get the same service without add'l charge.
>
> My first bill arrived and had 450 "text messages" for $45! I called
> Cingular customer service and they told me that "their plan was not for me
> if I wanted to forward my messages at no cost." I had to dig-out the fact
> that they have a $10/month option for 750 text messages/month. I asked to
> speak with a supervisor because I was not going to pay $45 for the messages.
> The supervisor said that they would credit me $45 and enroll me for the
> $10/month plan.
>
> It looks like this confusion is a casualty of their merger and different
> definition of terms and their service plans. At least they waived the
> charge but it was a major sticker shock.

But everyone was trained by November 15, at least thats what their
November 16 press release said.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...924&TICK=CINGU
L04&STORY=/www/story/11-16-2004/0002458939&EDATE=Nov+16,+2004

"Each former AT&T Wireless store now has a supply of Cingular phones,
accessories, branding elements and signage. More importantly, thousands
of customer-facing employees have completed training to ensure that they
can provide all visitors to Cingular stores with accurate and
up-to-the-minute information "

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:10:43 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Harry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You have mentioned this 10,000 times in the past few months. Those of
>> us following the group have already absorbed the statment. It may mean
>> something to us, it may mean nothing.
>>
>> In the meantime why don't you get a life and come up with something
>> new.
>>
>
>Sorry you cant stand the fact that Cingular lied.

What I said you idiot was that you have said many times that Cingular
lied about how long it would take to fully complete the merger. I did
not indicate whether I agreed with you or not. Perhaps I do, perhaps I
don't.

Please don't show your additional stupidity by assuming one thing or
the other about what I believe.

I repeat, you are an idiot.

>
>Three reasons for posting it.
>
>1. Its relevant to what the OP said, and the small quote from the press
>release has NEVER been posted before.
>
>2. It may be news to the OP.
>
>3. Neither You nor Navis are the controllers of USENET, and have zero
>standing to declare what I may and may not post.
>
>"Big men discuss ideas, little men discuss people". Eleanor Roosevelt.
>
>>
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:47:04 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "Robert Cowen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I was an AT&T customer and forwarded my e-mail to my cell phone. Yes, it
>> >> only showed the first 250 characters but it was helpful to know if I
>> >> needed
>> >> to log-on to pick up any critical messages. I changed to Cingular and
>> >> specifically asked if the same service was included in the base plan. I
>> >> was
>> >> told (at the same AT&T store where I originally signed-up for AT&T, now a
>> >> Cingular store) that I would get the same service without add'l charge.
>> >>
>> >> My first bill arrived and had 450 "text messages" for $45! I called
>> >> Cingular customer service and they told me that "their plan was not for me
>> >> if I wanted to forward my messages at no cost." I had to dig-out the
>> >> fact
>> >> that they have a $10/month option for 750 text messages/month. I asked to
>> >> speak with a supervisor because I was not going to pay $45 for the
>> >> messages.
>> >> The supervisor said that they would credit me $45 and enroll me for the
>> >> $10/month plan.
>> >>
>> >> It looks like this confusion is a casualty of their merger and different
>> >> definition of terms and their service plans. At least they waived the
>> >> charge but it was a major sticker shock.
>> >
>> >But everyone was trained by November 15, at least thats what their
>> >November 16 press release said.
>> >
>> >http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...924&TICK=CINGU
>> >L04&STORY=/www/story/11-16-2004/0002458939&EDATE=Nov+16,+2004
>> >
>> >"Each former AT&T Wireless store now has a supply of Cingular phones,
>> >accessories, branding elements and signage. More importantly, thousands
>> >of customer-facing employees have completed training to ensure that they
>> >can provide all visitors to Cingular stores with accurate and
>> >up-to-the-minute information "

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


>
> I repeat, you are an idiot.

I must be right if you have to resort to childish name calling.
Thanks for demonstrating your maturity (or lack thereof).