Cingular - another opinion

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 28 Jul 2005 06:35:02 -0500,
"BBB" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Thank you very much for seeing my way Isaiah --- and agreeing that Cingular
>is engaging in restrictive trade practices. ...

How silly -- there's nothing at all restrictive about what Cingular is doing.
Verizon doesn't sell ATTWS handsets either -- is that restrictive? How about
Burger King? Where will it end? LOL

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

---

› See More: Cingular - another opinion

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:17:26
GMT, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:54:53 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Nonsense. Unlocked (unsubsidized) phones are freely available at competitive
>>prices from independent dealers.
>
>Hah. Where? I see unlocked phones at outlandish prices. They have a
>heck of a premium attached.

Nope. Your "outlandish" and "premium" is just the *real* price without the
contract subsidy.

>If you want to know how much a color cellphone is supposed to cost go
>look at Target at the prepaid phones. Little or no subsidy. $49.
>$99.

Actually there is a subsidy on prepaid phone packages.

>A far cry from the $399 price Sprint puts on many of their
>phones. Admittedly Sprint is the highest price IMHO.

This is the Cingular newsgroup. Could we please stay on topic?

The standard Cingular subsidy (exclusive of any promotions) is $50/year. This
a $49 phone on a two-year contract is $99 on a one-year contract or $149 if
purchased without contract. Not "outlandish" and no "premium."

--
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 Wed, 27 Jul 2005 05:41:18 -0500,
"BBB" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hello Isaiah,
>
>Thanks for making a trip to the Cingular store on my behalf. The stores
>here in Texas have the same "without commitment" price quoted as well.
>However, that invitation does not apply to a person who is already under a
>contract to Cingular and a former ATTWS customer.

Wrong. Nonsensical to boot. That "without commitment" price is available to
*anyone*. What you don't like is that Cingular only sells Cingular (orange)
phones (at any price) that won't work on your ATTWS (blue) service! In other
words, your problem is that ATTWS has ceased to exist. Imagine that.

--
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, 28 Jul 2005 07:03:43 -0500,
"BBB" <[email protected]> wrote:

>This is what I don't understand. When Cingular bought ATTWS, Cingular
>assumed all of ATTWS's contracts. I'm as bound to Cingular as I was to
>ATTWS (or at least I was before Cingular screwed me). Why all the fuss?

Because ATTWS has gone away (Cingular can't even use the name), and Cingular
wants to integrate the prior two separate networks into one new Cingular
network. Cingular is honoring your existing contract and service, but isn't
about to add to it, because that would be against its interests.

>Currently, Cingular is providing inferior customer service to its
>pre-merger/purchase ATTWS customers compared to pre-merger/purchase
>Cingular customers.

Nonsense -- ATTWS (blue) customers get the same customer service as Cingular
(orange) customers, arguably better customer service than before the merger.

>(I don't exactly know how the ATTWS/Cingular transaction
>was structured, merger, purchase, whatever.) Given this, one could argue
>that Cingular is in breach of its contract, at least to yours truely.

Nope. Or can you point to a specific term in your contract that obligates
Cingular to sell you whatever new equipment or service you want?

>One
>could also argue that Cingular is engaging in restrictive trade practices in
>violation of many proactive state consumer laws.

Such are argument would be very silly.

>On the other hand, one can simply buy a new phone at www.cellhut.com, which
>is what I did.

Good for you. Why then all the angst?

--
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, 28 Jul 2005 15:38:12
GMT, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:03:43 -0500, "BBB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>This is what I don't understand. When Cingular bought ATTWS, Cingular
>>assumed all of ATTWS's contracts. I'm as bound to Cingular as I was to
>>ATTWS (or at least I was before Cingular screwed me). Why all the fuss?
>
>I would think if you want to break your ATTWS contract since they sold
>out to Cingular that would be pretty straightforward.

Nope -- the contract is assignable.

>You didn't
>agree to deal with Cingular, did you?

Implicitly.

>If I had a contract with someone and they tried to sell *me* I would
>argue that is invalid. I am completely in control of whom I deal
>with.

Nope. I suggest you consult a qualified contract attorney.

>Maybe I have a grudge against Cingular which is why I wasn't dealing
>with them before. They could never enforce such a contract unless I
>agree.

You did agree.

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

In article <XodGe.6039$p%[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nonsense -- ATTWS (blue) customers get the same customer service as Cingular
> (orange) customers, arguably better customer service than before the merger.

And arguably *worse* service, too.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:43:30 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>How silly -- there's nothing at all restrictive about what Cingular is doing.
>Verizon doesn't sell ATTWS handsets either -- is that restrictive? How about
>Burger King? Where will it end? LOL

Nope, and Motorola doesn't sell cingular handsets, nor verizon
handsets. The carriers control all the equipment nowadays, there is
little anyone can do about it, nothing on the CDMA carriers.

You can conceivably unlock and use any GSM handset but there is
little competition, not like there would be if we could buy from
whomever we want and use that handset on any compatible service.

Real competition would have a full selection of handsets with no
subsidy on the Walmart price roll back plan, bought by Walmart direct
from handset manufacturers, duking it out with no regard to service or
contracts. Target and Sears/Kmart likewise, running ads in the Sunday
paper with lower and lower prices caused by more competition.

Like in most other items you buy. Imagine how much tires would cost
if you had to buy Ford tires only from Ford?

This fake competition serves only to keep the prices artificially high
on the equipment AND the service.

It would be much better for the users for there to be real competition
on the equipment.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03:11:22
GMT, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:43:30 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How silly -- there's nothing at all restrictive about what Cingular is doing.
>>Verizon doesn't sell ATTWS handsets either -- is that restrictive? How about
>>Burger King? Where will it end? LOL
>
>Nope, and Motorola doesn't sell cingular handsets, nor verizon
>handsets.

Actually Motorola did -- you could get the V551 direct from Motorola well
before it was available from Cingular. That was actually pretty unusual,
since most large consumer product companies don't sell direct to consumers --
they sell through dealers.

>The carriers control all the equipment nowadays, there is
>little anyone can do about it, nothing on the CDMA carriers.

On the contrary, phones are readily available through independent dealers.

For example, you can get an unlocked and unsubsidized Motorola RAZR V3 Phone
from Amazon.com, including an HS815 Bluetooth Headset, or the Samsung A670
(CDMA) without service plan, for $250.

> You can conceivably unlock and use any GSM handset but there is
>little competition, not like there would be if we could buy from
>whomever we want and use that handset on any compatible service.

There is actually lots of competition.

>Real competition would have a full selection of handsets with no
>subsidy on the Walmart price roll back plan, bought by Walmart direct
>from handset manufacturers, duking it out with no regard to service or
>contracts. Target and Sears/Kmart likewise, running ads in the Sunday
>paper with lower and lower prices caused by more competition.

If there was a big demand for that, then these companies would undoubtedly do
so. There isn't a big demand because most consumers in the USA prefer the
subsidy discount.

>Like in most other items you buy. Imagine how much tires would cost
>if you had to buy Ford tires only from Ford?

That's not the case in cellular.

>This fake competition serves only to keep the prices artificially high
>on the equipment AND the service.
>
>It would be much better for the users for there to be real competition
>on the equipment.

Nonsense.

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

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:03:43 -0500, "BBB" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>This is what I don't understand. When Cingular bought ATTWS, Cingular
>>assumed all of ATTWS's contracts. I'm as bound to Cingular as I was to
>>ATTWS (or at least I was before Cingular screwed me). Why all the fuss?
>
>
> I would think if you want to break your ATTWS contract since they sold
> out to Cingular that would be pretty straightforward. You didn't
> agree to deal with Cingular, did you?

No, but an agreement was entered into where one entity would provide
service and you would pay for that service over a specified period. The
contract is assignable. As long as Cingular follows the terms of the
contract, the it's still valid and enforceable.

> If I had a contract with someone and they tried to sell *me* I would
> argue that is invalid. I am completely in control of whom I deal
> with.

You are UNTIL you agree to the assignability of a contract, which you
did when you entered into it with AT&T.

> Maybe I have a grudge against Cingular which is why I wasn't dealing
> with them before.

Then you shouldn't have entered into a contract whose liabilities can be
assigned to other companies.



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

Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Then you shouldn't have entered into a contract whose liabilities can be
> assigned to other companies.

I looked at my AT&T agreement for the boilerplate "successors and assigns",
which I didn't find. I did find that they can make any change that they
like, with thirty days notice, and that your continued use of the service is
an acceptance of the change. Maybe at the time of the buyout, there was a
window where you could back out of the contract. Maybe not. Maybe in
order to break the contract during that window, you would have to return
your subsidized phone in "as new condition".

I would never have chosen Cingular over AT&T while I had the chance.
When I decided to upgrade my phone, I was converted to Cingular.
That was the only way to do it at the store previously known as AT&T
Wireless. I left my wife on AT&T for another week because she was out of
town, and presumably would not appreciate having her phone stop working.

Cingular, and the GSM phone, work far better at my house than AT&T-TDMA
ever did. I think I'm using the same towers. Customer service seems to be
fine so far, very helpful when I called in with some questions. The
pricing is definitely higher, and I also got sucked in for some messaging
and data plans that I might drop after playing with them for a while.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:29:58 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] wrote:

>Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Then you shouldn't have entered into a contract whose liabilities can be
>> assigned to other companies.
>
>I looked at my AT&T agreement for the boilerplate "successors and assigns",
>which I didn't find.

Neither needed nor applicable in this case, since it was a merger.

>I did find that they can make any change that they
>like, with thirty days notice, and that your continued use of the service is
>an acceptance of the change.

Yep.

>Maybe at the time of the buyout, there was a
>window where you could back out of the contract. Maybe not. ...

Not.

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

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:28:39 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The carriers control all the equipment nowadays, there is
>>little anyone can do about it, nothing on the CDMA carriers.
>
>On the contrary, phones are readily available through independent dealers.
Nope. Buy any CDMA phone that is not branded Sprint or Verizon, and
see if they will activate it. They won't.

The phones at independent dealers for GSM carriers are 99.999% branded
phones that they bought from the carriers. It's just pointless for
you to argue otherwise, you can't find hardly any at all. Maybe
..0001% of GSM phones are sold unlocked. 00% of CDMA phones.

Admittedly there are a few unlocked phones on the market for GSM. But
it's an insignificant percentage. Readily available? I think not.
Visit the first 10 (or every 10th) listing in your local phone book
for cellular dealers, it would surprise me if you could find any
unlocked phones in that sample. On ebay, yeah. That's about it
though.

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:

>
> Admittedly there are a few unlocked phones on the market for GSM. But
> it's an insignificant percentage. Readily available? I think not.
> Visit the first 10 (or every 10th) listing in your local phone book
> for cellular dealers, it would surprise me if you could find any
> unlocked phones in that sample. On ebay, yeah. That's about it
> though.
>

Google "unlocked cell phones" and see how many entries you get.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:10:20
GMT, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:28:39 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>The carriers control all the equipment nowadays, there is
>>>little anyone can do about it, nothing on the CDMA carriers.
>>
>>On the contrary, phones are readily available through independent dealers.

>Nope. Buy any CDMA phone that is not branded Sprint or Verizon, and
>see if they will activate it. They won't.

They did for me.

>The phones at independent dealers for GSM carriers are 99.999% branded
>phones that they bought from the carriers.

They are also bought from manufacturers and distributors.

>It's just pointless for
>you to argue otherwise, you can't find hardly any at all.

I can actually find lots of them.

>Maybe
>.0001% of GSM phones are sold unlocked.

With all due respect, that's absurd -- while most GSM phones sold in the USA
are subsidized and locked to a carrier, the majority of GSM is outside the
USA, and many of those phones are sold unlocked.

>00% of CDMA phones.

Is that just your opinion? Or do you have anything to back that up?

>Admittedly there are a few unlocked phones on the market for GSM. But
>it's an insignificant percentage.

It's actually quite significant worldwide.

>Readily available? I think not.
>Visit the first 10 (or every 10th) listing in your local phone book
>for cellular dealers, it would surprise me if you could find any
>unlocked phones in that sample. On ebay, yeah. That's about it
>though.

There are lots of online dealers; e.g., http://www.expansys-usa.com/.

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

[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:28:39 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>The carriers control all the equipment nowadays, there is
>>>little anyone can do about it, nothing on the CDMA carriers.
>>
>>On the contrary, phones are readily available through independent dealers.
>
> Nope. Buy any CDMA phone that is not branded Sprint or Verizon, and
> see if they will activate it. They won't.

Funny, Verizon has no problem activating an unlocked CDMA phone. In
fact, when Verion was NOT selling their branded version of the Treo650,
some diehard fans fot he Treo and Verzion managed to flash
Sprint-branded Treos with hacked ROMs, unlocking the phone and allowing
them to activate on Verizon... which Verizon readily did for them.
Alltell will also readily activate a CDMA phone not from their
inventory. Sprint is really the only holdout that will not allow this.

The caveat of course is that you might not be able to use Get It Now
services on Verizon, nor would you be able to use any BREW application
on a Java phone, or vice versa. The other caveat is that you shouldn't
expect anything but the most basic support if there's a problem and your
handset is the culprit, as you cannot reasonably expect the carrier to
have information on a model of phone they do not typically stock.
That's the equivalent of asking your broadband internet provider to
troubleshoot your linux-based homebrew computer; that's simply not
something they can be expected to do.

> The phones at independent dealers for GSM carriers are 99.999% branded
> phones that they bought from the carriers.

Yes, generally taht's because they receive them at a discount AND get a
commission fromt he carrier for activating those phones. there are
however, still outlets for buying unlocked GSM phones. eBay,
Motorola-direct, amazon, cellhut, all offer unlocked GSM phones.

> It's just pointless for
> you to argue otherwise,

It's always pointless to argue against someone who is wrong and refuses
to admit it.

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