Cingular Sucks

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> I know some people who, while painting the living room, screwed up and
> dropped a can of paint on the carpet. They put in a claim.

I bet it covered it, too.

Not that the policy covered the damage, that the paint covered the carpet.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

---

› See More: Cingular Sucks

It is alleged that Scott en Aztlán claimed:

; >> I don't understand why people insist on using third party *phone*
; >> insurance when they can get an endorsement on their personal
; >> homeowner's or renter's insurance policies.
;
; I don't understand why people buy insurance for a $300 item PERIOD. If
; it gets lost, stolen, or broken, just replace it.

The replacement cost for the Treo is more like $600. And as for me
specifically, I had to weigh the hardware cost of the +subsidized+
price against my potential savings by switching to Cingular, because
VZW has no signal where I live, forcing me to get a higher rate plan on
my landline.

I +could+ pay full price to replace my Treo if need be, but my wallet
would very much not like it.

; If your 27" TV set were to fall off the shelf tomorrow and the CRT
; were to implode from the impact, would you file a claim against your
; homeowner's insurance? Of course not - you'd drive down to Circuit
; ****ty and plunk down $300 for a new one. Why should your cell phone
; be any different?

It is also way more likely to lose or drop a cellphone than a TV, and
for a lot of people, the cellphone is more than just a convenience or
entertainment.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"I don't know if you appreciate how messy this situation can get."
(Capt. Ellis Pierce, B5 "A Voice in the Wilderness II")

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:18:18 -0500,
"BBB" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Let me reiterate, I don't object to paying full price for a new phone. I
>object to Cingular's refusal to sell an existing customer a replacement
>phone. Cingular's policy: no new service contract, no new phone.

Cingular's actual policy is: no new service contract, no subsidy on a new
phone. Seems quite reasonable to me. Without a new service agreement you can
pay full price at Cingular, or try to get a better price someplace else.

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

Not true.

"BBB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let me reiterate, I don't object to paying full price for a new phone. I
> object to Cingular's refusal to sell an existing customer a replacement
> phone. Cingular's policy: no new service contract, no new phone.
>
>
>
> "Jack D. Russell, Sr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ===============================================
> > * Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
> > * Newsgroup: alt.cellular.cingular
> > * Reply to: All; "BBB" <[email protected]>
> > * Date:Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:41:42 -0500
> > * Subj: Cingular Sucks
> > =====================================================
> >
> > B>You've all heard this story 100 times. You buy a bunch of
> > B>phones, get on a family plan, you break ONE phone, and you go to
> > B>Cingular to replace the one phone that is broken. Save
> > B>yourself the trip, here's Cingular's customer service number:
> > B>1-800-EAT-****.
> >
> > It's happened to me...twice. My teenage daughter is rough on phones.
On
> > the latest occasion, one call to the insurance company (Before 3 PM for
> > overnight delivery) and $50 later she had a new phone (not used). On the
> > first occasion, went to the CW store, they called the insurance company
> > and replaced the phone and all accessories on the spot. They don't do
that
> > anymore. If you fail to insure your handsets, you're on your own.
> > --
> > Jack
>
>

John Navas wrote:
>
>
> Cingular's policy: no new service contract, no new phone.
>
>
> Cingular's actual policy is: no new service contract, no subsidy on a new
> phone. Seems quite reasonable to me. Without a new service agreement you can
> pay full price at Cingular, or try to get a better price someplace else.
>


Isn't the OP saying that Cingular will not sell him a new phone, not
even at full price--unless he agrees to a new term agreement?

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:37:12 GMT, Jeremy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> Cingular's policy: no new service contract, no new phone.
>>
>> Cingular's actual policy is: no new service contract, no subsidy on a new
>> phone. Seems quite reasonable to me. Without a new service agreement you can
>> pay full price at Cingular, or try to get a better price someplace else.
>
>Isn't the OP saying that Cingular will not sell him a new phone, not
>even at full price--unless he agrees to a new term agreement?

Yes, and he's wrong.

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

>
> Isn't the OP saying that Cingular will not sell him a new phone, not even
> at full price--unless he agrees to a new term agreement?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.



"Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>
>> Cingular's policy: no new service contract, no new phone.
>>
>>
>> Cingular's actual policy is: no new service contract, no subsidy on a new
>> phone. Seems quite reasonable to me. Without a new service agreement
>> you can
>> pay full price at Cingular, or try to get a better price someplace else.
>>

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:07:24 -0500,
"BBB" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Isn't the OP saying that Cingular will not sell him a new phone, not even
>> at full price--unless he agrees to a new term agreement?
>
>Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Still? Even though we've shown that to be wrong? Oh well.

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

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:18:32 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't understand why people buy insurance for a $300 item PERIOD. If
>it gets lost, stolen, or broken, just replace it.

Because the replacement cost of $600 is higher than the subsidized original
purchase price of $300.

>BINGO. Insurance is really intended for CATASTROPHIC loss, like having
>your house burn down. It is NOT intended to eliminate all possible
>out-of-pocket expenses.

Wrong. It's intended to make money for the insurance company, and create peace
of mind for the insured. If I don't want to salt away $600 of replacement cash,
yet I want to know my Binford 6000 will be replaced toot suite if broken or
lost, I just may be willing to pay that $72/year. Freedom of choice.

>Most people would be better off putting the
>money they spend on insurance premiums into a self-insurance fund and
>paying for losses themselves.

Define 'better off'. Money isn't everything.. convenience and peace of mind are
values folks treasure over $$.

>The problem is most people lack the discipline to do this

There you go again, getting judgemental.

> and insurance companies are taking advantage of this and cashing in.

So? It's a service, offered with no compulsion. You want in the game, you ante
up and roll the dice alongside the insurance company, knowing the house odds.



--
John Bartley K7AAY USBC/DO PDX OR USA
"This is a carburetor," Hank tells his son. "Take it apart, put it back together; repeat until you're normal." - KOTH

My take on insurance: I can afford $5/month; maybe even the $50 deposit.
Much better than a $300-$600 loss. I encourage all my customers to take it;
and then I offer little sympathy if the phone gets lost/stolen. Rip-off,
maybe; but better than buying a new phone. dr
--
dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you are
used to)
If I can help: [email protected]te-the-obvious or thru this
notes forum.
home of the better priced phone and service:
http://free.better-price.biz

"John Bartley K7AAY telcom admin, Portland OR" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:18:32 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I don't understand why people buy insurance for a $300 item PERIOD. If
>>it gets lost, stolen, or broken, just replace it.
>
> Because the replacement cost of $600 is higher than the subsidized
> original
> purchase price of $300.
>
>>BINGO. Insurance is really intended for CATASTROPHIC loss, like having
>>your house burn down. It is NOT intended to eliminate all possible
>>out-of-pocket expenses.
>
> Wrong. It's intended to make money for the insurance company, and create
> peace
> of mind for the insured. If I don't want to salt away $600 of replacement
> cash,
> yet I want to know my Binford 6000 will be replaced toot suite if broken
> or
> lost, I just may be willing to pay that $72/year. Freedom of choice.
>
>>Most people would be better off putting the
>>money they spend on insurance premiums into a self-insurance fund and
>>paying for losses themselves.
>
> Define 'better off'. Money isn't everything.. convenience and peace of
> mind are
> values folks treasure over $$.
>
>>The problem is most people lack the discipline to do this
>
> There you go again, getting judgemental.
>
>> and insurance companies are taking advantage of this and cashing in.
>
> So? It's a service, offered with no compulsion. You want in the game, you
> ante
> up and roll the dice alongside the insurance company, knowing the house
> odds.
>
>
>
> --
> John Bartley K7AAY USBC/DO PDX OR USA
> "This is a carburetor," Hank tells his son. "Take it apart, put it back
> together; repeat until you're normal." - KOTH

And while you're at it, buy insurance for the refrigerator, computer,
printer, TV, DVR, Xbox, modem, toaster, microwave, telephone, paper
shredder, ipod, walkman, camera, battery charger, and everything else that
runs on electricity.



"dr.news" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My take on insurance: I can afford $5/month; maybe even the $50 deposit.
> Much better than a $300-$600 loss. I encourage all my customers to take
> it; and then I offer little sympathy if the phone gets lost/stolen.
> Rip-off, maybe; but better than buying a new phone. dr
> --
> dr.news Better Price? (not better than you deserve, just more than you
> are used to)
> If I can help: [email protected]te-the-obvious or thru this
> notes forum.
> home of the better priced phone and service:
> http://free.better-price.biz
>
> "John Bartley K7AAY telcom admin, Portland OR" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:18:32 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't understand why people buy insurance for a $300 item PERIOD. If
>>>it gets lost, stolen, or broken, just replace it.
>>
>> Because the replacement cost of $600 is higher than the subsidized
>> original
>> purchase price of $300.
>>
>>>BINGO. Insurance is really intended for CATASTROPHIC loss, like having
>>>your house burn down. It is NOT intended to eliminate all possible
>>>out-of-pocket expenses.
>>
>> Wrong. It's intended to make money for the insurance company, and create
>> peace
>> of mind for the insured. If I don't want to salt away $600 of
>> replacement cash,
>> yet I want to know my Binford 6000 will be replaced toot suite if broken
>> or
>> lost, I just may be willing to pay that $72/year. Freedom of choice.
>>
>>>Most people would be better off putting the
>>>money they spend on insurance premiums into a self-insurance fund and
>>>paying for losses themselves.
>>
>> Define 'better off'. Money isn't everything.. convenience and peace of
>> mind are
>> values folks treasure over $$.
>>
>>>The problem is most people lack the discipline to do this
>>
>> There you go again, getting judgemental.
>>
>>> and insurance companies are taking advantage of this and cashing in.
>>
>> So? It's a service, offered with no compulsion. You want in the game, you
>> ante
>> up and roll the dice alongside the insurance company, knowing the house
>> odds.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Bartley K7AAY USBC/DO PDX OR USA
>> "This is a carburetor," Hank tells his son. "Take it apart, put it back
>> together; repeat until you're normal." - KOTH
>
>

BBB wrote:
> And while you're at it, buy insurance for the refrigerator, computer,
> printer, TV, DVR, Xbox, modem, toaster, microwave, telephone, paper
> shredder, ipod, walkman, camera, battery charger, and everything else that
> runs on electricity.

None of the items you mention above cost twice as much to replace as it
is to aquire initially, unlike a cell phone, particularly the higher-end
models.

And actually, a personal effects line or at least an extended warranty
for an ipod isn't a bad idea, considering $400 a pop for an item you
KNOW is going to fail in a year is way more than $39.00 for a service
plan to replace it when the battery dies on you.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

BBB <[email protected]> wrote:
> And while you're at it, buy insurance for the refrigerator, computer,
> printer, TV, DVR, Xbox, modem, toaster, microwave, telephone, paper
> shredder, ipod, walkman, camera, battery charger, and everything else that
> runs on electricity.

This isn't an extended warranty we're talking about, it's insurance.
It's unlikely that I'm going to drop my refrigerator in the swimming pool,
and even if I did, I suspect it might survive, as opposed to a $229
unsubsidized cellphone.

On your list, I think the camera and ipod might be the only comparable
items, and those don't have the high first year subsidy of a cellphone.
After one year, the picture changes a lot, as the cellphone becomes
dramatically cheaper to replace.

---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

> >Cingular replaces the phone with a second hand phone.
>
> Actually refurbished to as new condition, like other carriers, and other
> consumer product companies, because it's a standard practice, and not a bad
> one, since refurbished often gets more thorough testing than new.

It's not necessarily second-hand. I know people who buy a phone, don't use it
because they prefer their old, and then take it back and exchange it. Because
the phone has left the store in customer possession, it must be treated as
refurbished. There are also cases where people sign up for service, find out it
doesn't work at their home or office, and return it with little to no use.

As for the refurbished issue for carriers such as Verizon and Sprint, well, the
industry is running out of ESNs, and is doing anything it can to conserve them
(kind of like phone number). However, ESNs CANNOT be reissued. They are
currently working on MEID, which would be similar to IMEI in GSM, but in the
meantime they have to do what they can to conserve ESNs.

The practice is not unique to Cingular.

TH