Cingular-- Breach of Contract

[ a m z ] wrote:

>>>So, "Cingular can void the contract at will and with no penalty, but
>>>consumer can't" is a FAIR contract?
>>
>>It is if you agreed to it. If this is an unacceptable clause to you,
>>then your choice is to other go prepaid with no contract, or not get
>>service through cingular at all.
>
>
> Actually, no judge will uphold a contract that isn't fair. If you agreed --
> even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out, the
> judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery slope."


I think you've just proven the validity of Cingular's side of the
equation, actually. Cingular is increasingly being required to conserve
spectrum, and to do that it has to consolidate the signalling formats
being used on tis network in order to maximize spectrum efficiency. It
can be easily argued that it's unfair to Cingular to expect them to
indefinitely support an antiquated technology through GAIT, and are
being more than fair in letting someone out of a contract if they don't
want to migrate to a Cingular plan and off GAIT.


>>>I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative.
>>
>>Probably because you know you won't find anything? Google's easy. It
>>doesn't cost you anything except a couple of keystrokes.
>
>
> Uhhh... you're making my point for me.

If your point is that you don't want to expend a minimal effort to back
up your own assertions because you know there's none to be found, then
sure, the point is effectively proven.

> I'm saying there AREN'T any
> precedent-setting cases that say that specifically say the one-sided "out"
> clauses are fair and legal.

There doesn't need to be. Contracts aren't treated as null and void
until they can be upheld in court, so not finding a case in which the
contract IS affirmatavely upheld doesn't mean the contract can't be
upheld. Our legal system does not work that way. Such a negative
finding It could just as easily mean that no one has bothered to
challenge such a contract.

If you know of a case that upholds that part of
> a contract -- or that says the provider can materially alter the terms at no
> penalty to itself -- go ahead and cite it.

Sorry, the onus isn't on me here. Contracts that CAN'T be enforced are
instead challenged legally in the courts and struck down. Thus the
burden is on you to cite a case in which a court has nullified that
portion of the contract.



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

---

› See More: Cingular-- Breach of Contract

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [ a m z ] wrote:
>
> > Actually, no judge will uphold a contract that isn't fair. If you
agreed --
> > even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out,
the
> > judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery
slope."
>
> I think you've just proven the validity of Cingular's side of the
equation,
> actually. It can be easily argued that it's unfair to Cingular to expect
> them to indefinitely support an antiquated technology through GAIT,
> and are being more than fair in letting someone out of a contract if
> they don't want to migrate to a Cingular plan and off GAIT.

Big difference if the Cingular knowingly CAUSES the circumstances to
change -- especially if they are the ones totally in control and if they
could have reasonably predicted industry circumstances. Also, the OP wasn't
asking them to indefinitely support GAIT. Instead, he was only asking for
the completion of the contract ATTWS/Cingular so aggressively pursued.

Furthermore, the OP was only asking Cingular to honor the minutes and cost
of his plan for the same time left on his contract. Since the marginal cost
of on-network minutes approaches ZERO, the cost to Cingular to meet that
small request is significantly smaller than the bad PR and the value of
Cingular employees' time responding to the OP's numerous requests.

> >>>I'm not going to Google to try and prove a negative.
> >>
> >>Probably because you know you won't find anything?
>
> If your point is that you don't want to expend a minimal effort to back
> up your own assertions...

No, I'm saying it makes no sense to try and NOT find any cases. As I said
in the previous posts, I don't believe there are any comparable cases where
the contract was challenged and upheld.

> > I'm saying there AREN'T any precedent-setting cases that say
> > that specifically say the one-sided "out" clauses are fair and legal.
>
> ... not finding a case in which the contract IS affirmatavely upheld
> doesn't mean the contract can't be upheld... Such a negative
> finding It could just as easily mean that no one has bothered to
> challenge such a contract.

EXACTLY! Read back up the thread. The poster (not the OP) said that all of
the contract terms HAD been reviewed and upheld by courts AND that their
existence was proof that they were fair and valid.

I simply asked that the poster cite ONE case where the contracts were upheld
in toto or in circumstances similar to the OP's.

> > If you know of a case that upholds that part of a contract -- or that
> > says the provider can materially alter the terms at no
> > penalty to itself -- go ahead and cite it.
>
> Sorry, the onus isn't on me here. Contracts that CAN'T be enforced are
> instead challenged legally in the courts and struck down. Thus the
> burden is on you to cite a case in which a court has nullified that
> portion of the contract.

As I said above, I believe the cases are VULNERABLE to challenge and that
such a challenge had not yet been mounted. Again, I can't prove a
negative -- that no cases had been filed.

Think of it this way... Imagine that I said, "courts have held that Isaiah
Beard knows nothing about the law."

You reply, "oh yeah? Prove it!" and I come back with, "No, the onus is on
you. YOU prove that they haven't said it!"

Same thing.

I never said courts have thrown out contracts. I merely said that the early
termination terms, in my opinion, are imbalanced and unfair and that they
wouldn't stand up to a solid legal challenge.

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

In <2NNOe.30$nq.10@lakeread05> on Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:52:47 -0400, Tropical
Haven <[email protected]> wrote:

>With Cingular, if you bring a compatible handset, you can activate
>service WITHOUT a contract. ...

That used to be true, but when I checked a year ago, a minimum 1-year contract
was required for new SIM-only 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]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:33:52 -0700, "[
a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:>

>> Customer Service (as measured by a variety of metrics) is no worse.
>
>Do you have links to outside audited data?

http://www.jdpower.com/cc/telecom/ra...eless/Find.jsp

>> That's grossly exaggerated and misleading. On my last bill, total charges
>> were just $3.43. There were also taxes of $1.10, but then my grocery and dry
>> cleaner add on taxes too. The total of $4.53 as a percentage add-on is
>> actually *lower* than the sales tax added on to most prices in this state.
>
>My basic service is $50 ($39.95 plan + $10 data). In addition to that, I
>paid $14.76 in various surcharges and taxes (federal, state, county and
>local).

That's hardly the fault of Cingular.

>Of that, only $6.39 was sales tax. What is interesting, though, is
>that sales tax in this area is only 8.6%. Where did the other 3+% come
>from? Tax on the excise taxes and surcharges??!!

Why not find out?

>> It's actually cheap and easy; e.g., BBB, state Attorney General, and/or Small
>> Claims. With reasonable claims, I've always gotten complete satisfaction.
>
>You're making my point for me. I said that the contracts have gone
>unchallenged because they'll settle instead of putting up a test case.

Not true.

>> Surely you jest. Carriers have both excellent legal resources and excellent
>> political connections.
>
>I'm saying that LEGISLATORS lack the legal training to properly know what is
>going on. ...

Actually they do -- most are attorneys, and they generally have qualified
staffers.

>> The ball is actually in your court, and you've not yet come up with any
>> specific language that's even arguably unenforceable.
>
>The fact that the customer cannot simply "walk away" from the terms of the
>contract, but the carrier can (or can alter terms at will) makes the
>contract unfair on its face.

Again, not true. Regardless, you've still not yet come up with any specific
language that's even arguably unenforceable.

>As for cites, how can I prove a negative? Scott said (or at least implied)
>that courts have upheld the contracts. I'm saying that I'd bet there are NO
>test cases. It is up to Scott or you or anyone else to show a test case
>where the contract was challenged and upheld. ...

No it's not -- it's up to you to substantiate your own claim, positive or
negative -- otherwise it's just personal speculation.

--
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 Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:28:52 -0700, "[
a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> ... If this is an unacceptable clause to you,
>> then your choice is to other go prepaid with no contract, or not get
>> service through cingular at all.
>
>Actually, no judge will uphold a contract that isn't fair. If you agreed --
>even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out, the
>judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery slope."

You are badly misinformed. I suggest you consult a qualified attorney.

>> Probably because you know you won't find anything? Google's easy. It
>> doesn't cost you anything except a couple of keystrokes.
>
>Uhhh... you're making my point for me. I'm saying there AREN'T any
>precedent-setting cases that say that specifically say the one-sided "out"
>clauses are fair and legal. ...

With nothing to back it up, which makes it nothing more than uninformed
personal speculation.

--
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, 25 Aug 2005 19:19:14 -0700, "[ a
m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"troyboy30" wrote:
>>
>> the contract does, since it states they can opt out anytime they want.
>
>And if the fine print of the contract said they get your firstborn child as
>an "early termination fee," you'd do it? A contract is a contract is a
>contract -- until challenged. A judge can view a contract as unfair and
>order "specific performance" or appropriate compensation.

Only in rare and extreme circumstances that don't exist here -- consult a
qualified attorney if you don't agree.

Regardless, the specific claim here (see Subject) is "Breach of Contract." To
be taken seriously, that claim needs to be backed up by the specific language
in the Contract (Service Agreement) that has been breached, not just vague
hand waving about service not being as good as it was before, since there is
no guaranteed level of service or feature.

If the contract has been breached by the carrier, then of course the
subscriber would be entitled to damages, but I think it would be hard to show
actual damages in excess of the ETF (Early Termination Fee). No judge is
going to order a carrier to maintain a particular kind of service for an
individual subscriber. Again, consult a qualified attorney if you don't
agree.

>Even those in this NG who believe the contracts would generally stand up in
>court have acknowledged that the OP has a valid cause.

Not me.

The Cingular Contract (Service Agreement) only applies to service in general,
not any specific type of service (AMDS, D-AMPS, GSM, GAIT). That Cingular is
discontinuing the GAIT feature doesn't mean that it's not prepared to continue
providing service in other ways at the option of the customer:

1. The customer can continue on the same service agreement, albeit without
GAIT, which is no longer offered.

2. The customer can discontinue service without penalty, compensated by
waiving of the ETF.

3. The customer can switch to a different type of service agreement (ENS GSM
on two networks), albeit with an extended term in return for equipment
subsidy.

The only real complaint then would be less favorable plan terms in option (3),
but only when all of the value proposition (including things like rollover
minutes, and greatly expanded free mobile to mobile) is taken into account.

My own experience is that Cingular will generally make the subscriber whole
*if* the consumer is (a) sufficiently persistent to get through to someone
with the necessary authority and (b) reasonable in the request.

For example, standard plan terms can be sweetened with a bucket of rollover
minutes. If the old plan is (say) 800 anytime minutes and the new plan is
(say) 600 anytime minutes at the same price point, and the rest of the value
proposition is the same, then a bucket of (800 - 600) x 12 = 2400 minutes
would make the subscriber whole (actually better off due to rollover) on a
minimum 1-year term.

All in all this seems reasonable to me. I see no real basis for "Breach of
Contract" or any other cause of action. YMMV.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
> >
> >Actually, no judge will uphold a contract that isn't fair. If you
agreed --
> >even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out,
the
> >judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery slope."
>
> You are badly misinformed. I suggest you consult a qualified attorney.

Contract Law 101.

If Cingular can void a contract "because they just wanna," but won't let the
customer do the same, then there is no performance obligation or penalty on
their end and it could be viewed as an "unconscionable contract" -- one that
is unfair, unjust, one-sided, etc. I will grant, however, that they likely
have two defenses. First, if they gave a free phone AND unlocked it at
contract termination, it could be said that the phone was the cost to break
the deal. If the phone remains locked to their system, however, it has no
more value than a doorstop (or what you might get for a used locked phone on
eBay). Second, they could argue "usage of trade." If that held up, it
would mean that they succeeded in enforcing terms through sheer inertia.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote
> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
>
> If the contract has been breached by the carrier, then of course the
> subscriber would be entitled to damages, but I think it would be hard to
show
> actual damages in excess of the ETF (Early Termination Fee).

John, you need to read from the start of the thread. The OP isn't asking
for damages -- merely specific performance in a comparable manner. He just
wants the same minutes-to-dollars plan on GSM as he had on GAIT.

> No judge is going to order a carrier to maintain a particular kind of
> service for an individual subscriber.

The OP merely wanted comparable minutes -- which they CAN do with relative
ease and almost no cost to themselves.

> 1. The customer can continue on the same service agreement, albeit
without
> GAIT, which is no longer offered.

NOT TRUE. The customer is being FORCED off of the contract plan on 9/3 and
onto one with fewer minutes for more dollars. I got the same letter.

> 2. The customer can discontinue service without penalty, compensated by
> waiving of the ETF.

How magnanimous of them! The ETF is a PENALTY for non-performance on the
part of the consumer. Since the consumer was willing to complete the
contract, the ETF is moot.

> 3. The customer can switch to a different type of service agreement
> (ENS GSM on two networks), albeit with an extended term in return
> for equipment subsidy.

For one, there are cases where TDMA is the only signal in the area. The OP
seemed willing to give that up. He merely asked for a GSM plan with
comparable terms to his GAIT contract -- which, IIRC, only had an extra 150
or 200 minutes on it anyway.

> My own experience is that Cingular will generally make the subscriber
whole
> *if* the consumer is (a) sufficiently persistent to get through to someone
> with the necessary authority and (b) reasonable in the request.

This is also my experience -- and the resolution to my GAIT switch issue.
If the OP's letter is accurate, however, Cingular seems to be digging in
their heels with him.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:28:15 -0700, "[
a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
>> >
>> >Actually, no judge will uphold a contract that isn't fair. If you agreed --
>> >even on paper -- to sell your car to someone for $5 and then backed out, the
>> >judge wouldn't hold you to it. The rest is a matter of "slippery slope."
>>
>> You are badly misinformed. I suggest you consult a qualified attorney.
>
>Contract Law 101.

Did you actually take such a class, or did you read that in USA Today?

>If Cingular can void a contract "because they just wanna,"

There is no voiding of a contract.

>but won't let the
>customer do the same, then there is no performance obligation or penalty on
>their end and it could be viewed as an "unconscionable contract" -- one that
>is unfair, unjust, one-sided, etc. ...

Not if you signed the contract voluntarily.

As I wrote in a previous, more extensive post to this thread, there is no real
issue here of "Breach of Contract."

--
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, 30 Aug 2005 15:09:07 -0700, "[
a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote
>> "[ a m z ]" wrote:

Still no sign of any specific language in the Contract (Service Agreement)
that has been breached, just vague hand waving about service not being as good
as it was before. Hence the "Breach of Contract" claim (the Subject of this
thread) cannot be taken seriously.

>> If the contract has been breached by the carrier, then of course the
>> subscriber would be entitled to damages, but I think it would be hard to show
>> actual damages in excess of the ETF (Early Termination Fee).
>
>John, you need to read from the start of the thread. The OP isn't asking
>for damages -- merely specific performance in a comparable manner.

As I wrote, there is no real "specific performance in a comparable manner"
issue. The contract is only a general service agreement, not a guarantee of
specific coverage, call quality, type of service, features (e.g., GAIT), etc.

>He just
>wants the same minutes-to-dollars plan on GSM as he had on GAIT.

He can stay on his existing plan. He just doesn't want to. Or he can
terminate without penalty. Or he can switch to a new and different plan. Or
he can ask for a bucket of rollover minutes on the new plan to make up any
real difference.

>> No judge is going to order a carrier to maintain a particular kind of
>> service for an individual subscriber.
>
>The OP merely wanted comparable minutes -- which they CAN do with relative
>ease and almost no cost to themselves.

Except it's not apples (blues) and oranges. See above options.

>> 1. The customer can continue on the same service agreement, albeit without
>> GAIT, which is no longer offered.
>
>NOT TRUE. The customer is being FORCED off of the contract plan on 9/3 and
>onto one with fewer minutes for more dollars. I got the same letter.

That's not how I understand the letter. Citation?

>> 2. The customer can discontinue service without penalty, compensated by
>> waiving of the ETF.
>
>How magnanimous of them! The ETF is a PENALTY for non-performance on the
>part of the consumer.

The ETF is actually compensation for equipment subsidy and other costs
incurred by the carrier, in effect stipulated damages.

>Since the consumer was willing to complete the
>contract, the ETF is moot.

The consumer wants a new contract, not to complete the old contract.
Regardless, the ETF is a legal obligation of the subscriber, so waiving it is
in fact a benefit to the subscriber.

>> 3. The customer can switch to a different type of service agreement
>> (ENS GSM on two networks), albeit with an extended term in return
>> for equipment subsidy.
>
>For one, there are cases where TDMA is the only signal in the area.

That's tough -- type of coverage isn't guaranteed.

>The OP
>seemed willing to give that up. He merely asked for a GSM plan with
>comparable terms to his GAIT contract -- which, IIRC, only had an extra 150
>or 200 minutes on it anyway.

In other words, he wants a new deal, but doesn't like the price. His options
are to keep his old deal, or switch to a different carrier without penalty.

>> My own experience is that Cingular will generally make the subscriber whole
>> *if* the consumer is (a) sufficiently persistent to get through to someone
>> with the necessary authority and (b) reasonable in the request.
>
>This is also my experience -- and the resolution to my GAIT switch issue.
>If the OP's letter is accurate, however, Cingular seems to be digging in
>their heels with him.

It may simply be a matter of not trying hard enough.

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

"John Navas" wrote
> [ a m z ]" wrote:
>
> > He just wants the same minutes-to-dollars plan on GSM as he
> > had on GAIT.
>
> He can stay on his existing plan. He just doesn't want to... Or he can
> ask for a bucket of rollover minutes on the new plan to make up any
> real difference.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Effective September 3, 2005, all recipients of the
"GAIT letter" will be FORCIBLY migrated to the Cingular GSM America Plan
with 450 minutes for $39.95 -- a worse plan than he already has.
Apparently, he asked for something to make up for the difference and was
denied on more than one occasion.

> >> 1. The customer can continue on the same service agreement, albeit
without
> >> GAIT, which is no longer offered.
> >
> >NOT TRUE. The customer is being FORCED off of the contract plan on 9/3
and
> >onto one with fewer minutes for more dollars. I got the same letter.
>
> That's not how I understand the letter. Citation?

"... you will need to reprogram [your existing phone] to operate on GSM only
before September 3, 2005. After that date your phone will no longer operate
on the TDMA system, and your rate plan will change to Cingular's GSM America
National $39.95 plan."

I went through the same deal as he did -- including asking if I can just
deprogram the TDMA, but keep my phone and plan. I was given an unequivocal
"no" and told that if I didn't voluntarily switch, I'd be automatically
migrated to the Cingular plan. I was fortunate to finally reach someone
smart, friendly and helpful that was able to tweak a few things and
approximate my originally contracted service plan.


> The consumer wants a new contract, not to complete the old contract.

Again, not true. Read the original post. He just wanted to have comparable
(though understandably non-GAIT) service for the amount of time left on his
contract.

> Regardless, the ETF is a legal obligation of the subscriber, so waiving it
is
> in fact a benefit to the subscriber.

The ETF is not an obligation. It is an early termination PENALTY. It is
moot if you don't terminate your plan early.


> >> My own experience is that Cingular will generally make the subscriber
whole
> >> *if* the consumer is (a) sufficiently persistent to get through to
someone
> >> with the necessary authority and (b) reasonable in the request.
> >
> >This is also my experience -- and the resolution to my GAIT switch issue.
> >If the OP's letter is accurate, however, Cingular seems to be digging in
> >their heels with him.
>
> It may simply be a matter of not trying hard enough.

He was up to the Office of the President and was supposedly told "tough."

"John Navas" wrote:
> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
>
> >Contract Law 101.
>
> Did you actually take such a class, or did you read that in USA Today?

Didn't take that exact class, but I did take a number of law courses (and
not just 101's) in college to broaden my background in business.


> >If Cingular can void a contract "because they just wanna,"
>
> There is no voiding of a contract.

Forcing a consumer into far worse terms in order to force him to quit is the
same as voiding the deal. It would be like your boss making your life hell
so that you'd quit instead of him firing you.


> >but won't let the
> >customer do the same, then there is no performance obligation or penalty
on
> >their end and it could be viewed as an "unconscionable contract" -- one
that
> >is unfair, unjust, one-sided, etc. ...
>
> Not if you signed the contract voluntarily.

You can sign whatever you want -- voluntarily or not -- but if it is
"unconscionable," a judge will throw it out and/or order specific
performance.

> As I wrote in a previous, more extensive post to this thread, there is no
real
> issue here of "Breach of Contract."

Ehhhh... Call it what you want, but... Cingular is trying to unilaterally
renegotiate terms more favorable to itself or weasel out of the deal. I'm
surprised that the OP didn't get satisfaction when escalating, though. If
you're persistent but polite, you'll eventually get something to level
things out. As I've said before, minutes (especially unused ones) have
little to no marginal cost, so Cingular would be best served by just giving
the guy 200 extra per month or a bucket of 2,000 or whatever.

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:19:33 -0700, "[
a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" wrote:
>> "[ a m z ]" wrote:

>> There is no voiding of a contract.
>
>Forcing a consumer into far worse terms in order to force him to quit is the
>same as voiding the deal. It would be like your boss making your life hell
>so that you'd quit instead of him firing you.

That's not the case here.

>> Not if you signed the contract voluntarily.
>
>You can sign whatever you want -- voluntarily or not -- but if it is
>"unconscionable," a judge will throw it out and/or order specific
>performance.

It's not and it won't be.

>> As I wrote in a previous, more extensive post to this thread, there is no real
>> issue here of "Breach of Contract."
>
>Ehhhh... Call it what you want, but... Cingular is trying to unilaterally
>renegotiate terms more favorable to itself or weasel out of the deal.

I disagree.

--
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, 31 Aug 2005 21:08:22 -0700, "[
a m z ]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" wrote

>> He can stay on his existing plan. He just doesn't want to... Or he can
>> ask for a bucket of rollover minutes on the new plan to make up any
>> real difference.
>
>WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Effective September 3, 2005, all recipients of the
>"GAIT letter" will be FORCIBLY migrated to the Cingular GSM America Plan
>with 450 minutes for $39.95 -- a worse plan than he already has.

The OP has a Siemens S46, which is *not* a GAIT phone -- it's a hybrid D-AMPS
(TDMA) + GSM phone that doesn't support GSM 850 -- so this *isn't* a GAIT
issue.

>Apparently, he asked for something to make up for the difference and was
>denied on more than one occasion.

Assuming his request is reasonable, for which we only have his word, he needs
to get to someone with sufficient authority to do what he's asking -- standard
phone reps don't have that kind of authority.

>> That's not how I understand the letter. Citation?
>
>"... you will need to reprogram [your existing phone] to operate on GSM only
>before September 3, 2005. After that date your phone will no longer operate
>on the TDMA system, and your rate plan will change to Cingular's GSM America
>National $39.95 plan."

Sorry, but I'm not going to take your incomplete fragment to be representative
of his letter. Post your entire letter if you want to be taken seriously.

>I went through the same deal as he did -- including asking if I can just
>deprogram the TDMA, but keep my phone and plan. ...

Not unless you had a Siemens S46.

>> The consumer wants a new contract, not to complete the old contract.
>
>Again, not true. Read the original post. ...

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>> Regardless, the ETF is a legal obligation of the subscriber, so waiving it is
>> in fact a benefit to the subscriber.
>
>The ETF is not an obligation. It is an early termination PENALTY. It is
>moot if you don't terminate your plan early.

You're trying to split hairs.

>> It may simply be a matter of not trying hard enough.
>
>He was up to the Office of the President and was supposedly told "tough."

Which strongly suggests that we aren't being told the whole story.

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

> >"John Navas" wrote:
> >> "[ a m z ]" wrote:
> >
> >Ehhhh... Call it what you want, but... Cingular is trying to
unilaterally
> >renegotiate terms more favorable to itself or weasel out of the deal.
>
> I disagree.

What part don't you agree with?

Unilateral? Check. Cingular wants this and customer doesn't.

Terms more favorable to [Cingular]? Check. Fewer minutes for
more money is clearly not in the CUSTOMER'S favor.

Weasel out? Check. If customer won't take the newer,
costlier plan, Cingular will graciously "let him out" of a
deal he doesn't want out of.