How do I get out of an ATTWS/Cingular contract with no fee?

Anyone know a way? I'm sick and tired of CIngular's BS.

---

› See More: How do I get out of an ATTWS/Cingular contract with no fee?

Sean Wrote:
> Anyone know a way? I'm sick and tired of CIngular's BS.
contact the head of customer service [email protected]


--
cingsux

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:24:53
GMT, Sean <[email protected]> wrote:

>Anyone know a way? I'm sick and tired of CIngular's BS.

You'll need more than that; e.g., a material breach by Cingular.

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

Letter from a lawyer on their letterhead. Lawyers have their assistants
write these all the time for $50 to $75. Really gets cheap if you have a
lawyer in the family. Chances are Cingular will drop the matter in light of
possible legal action since it's not worth the trouble.

"Sean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Anyone know a way? I'm sick and tired of CIngular's BS.

Cingular service here in Sarasota, FL is BAD - drop-outs, failed calls, POOR
quality (scratchy-noisey), you name it, their GSM here is Sarasota is not
what their sales reps say it is. Changed, "upgraded" from V180 to V551 > no
change.

SIMs were upgraded (firmware upgraded). No change for the better.
Currently a 1000/mth client - rollover time is stacking up. Downgrading
(lower level), their Chairman, Sigman, decided to increases his profits by
disallowing movement of all rollover to lower level. Does he respect his
own, original 2 yr contract? His customer base? No.

Thanks for the "get-out" advice!

Wayne

"Sean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyone know a way? I'm sick and tired of CIngular's BS.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005
08:30:05 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <Ie38f.8342$Yn4.6319@trnddc03>,
> "Wayne G. Dengel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Cingular service here in Sarasota, FL is BAD - drop-outs, failed calls, POOR
>> quality (scratchy-noisey), you name it, their GSM here is Sarasota is not
>> what their sales reps say it is. Changed, "upgraded" from V180 to V551 > no
>> change.
>
>I made the same phone change because I was suddenly experiencing the
>same kinds of problems around here. No change.
>
>A kind rep who takes care of the old blue foundation accounts took pity
>on me, acknowledged that the network was undergoing pretty drastic
>changes, and otherwise acknowledged my problems.
>
>She then offered that the Nokia phones are much better than the Motorola
>phones, and promptly sent me--at no charge--two Nokia 3120 phones.
>
>Hey, what do you know--problem solved. The Nokias are MUCH, MUCH better
>under current conditions than either the V180 or V551 could hope to be.

As I've previously explained in some detail, something else is going on -- the
Motorola V551 performs as well as comparable Nokias.

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

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

In <Ie38f.8342$Yn4.6319@trnddc03> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:55:20 GMT, "Wayne G.
Dengel" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Currently a 1000/mth client - rollover time is stacking up. Downgrading
>(lower level), their Chairman, Sigman, decided to increases his profits by
>disallowing movement of all rollover to lower level. Does he respect his
>own, original 2 yr contract? His customer base? No.

Rollover minutes don't expire if you switch to a different Rollover plan.
Here is the actual contract language on Rollover
<http://onlinestored.cingular.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ES_AUX_PLAN_TERMS.jsp>

Rollover Minutes: Rollover Minutes accumulate and expire through 12
rolling bill periods. Bill Period 1 (activation) unused Anytime
Minutes will not carry over. Bill Period 2 unused Anytime Minutes
will begin to carry over. Rollover Minutes accumulated starting with
Bill Period 2 will expire each bill period as they reach a 12 bill
period age. ROLLOVER MINUTES WILL ALSO EXPIRE IMMEDIATELY UPON
DEFAULT OR IF CUSTOMER CHANGES TO A NON-ROLLOVER PLAN. Rollover
Minutes are not redeemable for cash or credit and are not
transferable. Night and Weekend and Mobile to Mobile minutes do not
carry over. [emphasis added]

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005
12:45:58 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Hey, what do you know--problem solved. The Nokias are MUCH, MUCH better
>> >under current conditions than either the V180 or V551 could hope to be.
>>
>> As I've previously explained in some detail, something else is going on -- the
>> Motorola V551 performs as well as comparable Nokias.
>
>Well, let's see. V180--worked fine, and then SUDDENLY had all sorts of
>problems starting in early May of this year. And if you go to
>http://forums.cingular.com you'll see all sorts of stories from other
>people all over the nation regarding their blue service going to hell in
>a handbasket all of a sudden in early May--regardless of equipment.
>
>Switched to a blue V551, because a colleague had one on the orange side
>and had great luck with it--but the blue V551 was every bit as bad as
>the blue V180.
>
>[SNIP rest of repetitive and rude remarks]

Repeat of my earlier response:

---cut-here----------------------------------------------------------------

To be clear, I'm not questioning your experience -- I'm questioning your
conclusions. I'm doing so because you didn't run controlled tests, and
because your conclusions are contradicted in part by what you've reported.

That your trial V551 didn't work while the V551 of your colleague did work,
assuming your colleague was on Cingular (not T-Mobile), should tell you (a)
that the V551 isn't at fault and (b) that your V551 was probably Homed
differently. Since the V551 is ENS-capable, it can be Homed OTA (over the
air) to either "blue" or "orange". Had you asked that it be Homed to the
other network (e.g., from "blue" to "orange"), then it might well have
performed better.

The bit about internal antennas performing better than external antennas is
nonsense -- it's actually just the opposite (all other things being equal).

What you're actually getting is demonstrably better service from the
*combination* of Nokia *and* its programming than from the *combination* of
Motorola *and* its programming. So if for example Nokia is Homed to "orange"
and Motorola was Homed to "blue", then you really can't compare the phones.

Valid comparisons between two products (independent of service factors) can
only be drawn when both are tested under the same conditions. In the case of
Cingular handsets, that currently means that both must be Homed on the same
network. Otherwise, one may give better results than the other simply because
it's Homed on the better network in that particular location, which may well
mean that it would get worse results in certain other locations. Thus it's
best to test both handsets with the same SIM at the same place at the same
time, although even then the results can be different if one handset supports
ENS and the other doesn't.

I've run carefully controlled tests of handsets by several different
manufacturers, including both Motorola and Nokia, and the V551 is a very good
performer as compared to other handsets >> all other things being equal <<.
PC Magazine agrees, rating signal quality of the V551 as "excellent" when
awarding it an Editors' Choice.

Bottom line: Your conclusion that Motorolas are "junk" doesn't follow either
from the material you've presented or from other available evidence.

---cut-here----------------------------------------------------------------

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

John Navas wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Switched to a blue V551, because a colleague had one on the orange side
>>and had great luck with it--but the blue V551 was every bit as bad as
>>the blue V180.
>
> That your trial V551 didn't work while the V551 of your colleague did work,
> assuming your colleague was on Cingular (not T-Mobile), should tell you (a)
> that the V551 isn't at fault and (b) that your V551 was probably Homed
> differently.

To all appearances, that is exactly what he was saying to you.

He strongly implied that his colleague was on Cingular when he said "a
colleague had one on the orange side".

He strongly implied that he blames the network, not the V551, or for that
matter the V180 or any of the other phones owned by any of the other people
he cites as co-complainants since early May 2005.

He just about came out and said that his V551 was homed differently
when he said, "a colleague had one on the orange side and had great
luck with it--but the blue V551 was every bit as bad as the blue V180."
i.e. he was comparing (his) blue V551 to his colleague's orange V551.

I just don't believe he's dissing the V551, or any phone model.

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

Wayne G. Dengel wrote:
> Cingular service here in Sarasota, FL is BAD - drop-outs, failed calls, POOR
> quality (scratchy-noisey), you name it, their GSM here is Sarasota is not
> what their sales reps say it is. Changed, "upgraded" from V180 to V551 > no
> change.

Same problem in South Florida and Atlanta. Their TDMA was fine, but
their GSM is poor. In Northern California, it's improved since the
merger, because they got AT&T's sweet 800 Mhz spectrum.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Hey, what do you know--problem solved. The Nokias are MUCH, MUCH better
> under current conditions than either the V180 or V551 could hope to be.
>

I've found the same thing with the newer GSM Motorola phones, they
aren't nearly as good as the newer GSM Nokia phones. I also have an
older GSM Motorola, tri-band, that is fine, but it lacks 800 Mhz, so it
isn't much good in the U.S. anymore.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:50:36 -0500,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Switched to a blue V551, because a colleague had one on the orange side
>>>and had great luck with it--but the blue V551 was every bit as bad as
>>>the blue V180.
>>
>> That your trial V551 didn't work while the V551 of your colleague did work,
>> assuming your colleague was on Cingular (not T-Mobile), should tell you (a)
>> that the V551 isn't at fault and (b) that your V551 was probably Homed
>> differently.
>
>To all appearances, that is exactly what he was saying to you.
>
>He strongly implied that his colleague was on Cingular when he said "a
>colleague had one on the orange side".
>
>He strongly implied that he blames the network, not the V551, or for that
>matter the V180 or any of the other phones owned by any of the other people
>he cites as co-complainants since early May 2005.
>
>He just about came out and said that his V551 was homed differently
>when he said, "a colleague had one on the orange side and had great
>luck with it--but the blue V551 was every bit as bad as the blue V180."
>i.e. he was comparing (his) blue V551 to his colleague's orange V551.
>
>I just don't believe he's dissing the V551, or any phone model.

His own words: "I am convinced that the Moto stuff is junk..."
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/msg/ae17bcd901159d10>

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:58:48 GMT,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> Hey, what do you know--problem solved. The Nokias are MUCH, MUCH better
>> under current conditions than either the V180 or V551 could hope to be.
>
>I've found the same thing with the newer GSM Motorola phones, they
>aren't nearly as good as the newer GSM Nokia phones. I also have an
>older GSM Motorola, tri-band, that is fine, but it lacks 800 Mhz, so it
>isn't much good in the U.S. anymore.

In fact the newer Motorola GSM phones (e.g., V551) are very good, as good or
better than Nokia, as confirmed by independent testing.

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

Sean wrote:
> Anyone know a way? I'm sick and tired of CIngular's BS.
If you have a very specific issue, such as service was not provided
(they check usage)or multiple phone replacements etc. then go to FCC.GOV
and file a formal complaint online. Cingular is required to respond to
those and if it has merit, then they may release you from your contract.
If you do that you need to know that Cingular headquarters is Atlanta,
GA.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 28 Oct 2005
05:08:28 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >I've found the same thing with the newer GSM Motorola phones, they
>> >aren't nearly as good as the newer GSM Nokia phones. I also have an
>> >older GSM Motorola, tri-band, that is fine, but it lacks 800 Mhz, so it
>> >isn't much good in the U.S. anymore.
>>
>> In fact the newer Motorola GSM phones (e.g., V551) are very good, as good or
>> better than Nokia, as confirmed by independent testing.
>
>John, face it: I'm doing independent REAL WORLD testing, and have found
>that not to be the case.

Repeat of my earlier response:

---cut-here----------------------------------------------------------------

To be clear, I'm not questioning your experience -- I'm questioning your
conclusions. I'm doing so because you didn't run controlled tests, and
because your conclusions are contradicted in part by what you've reported.

That your trial V551 didn't work while the V551 of your colleague did work,
assuming your colleague was on Cingular (not T-Mobile), should tell you (a)
that the V551 isn't at fault and (b) that your V551 was probably Homed
differently. Since the V551 is ENS-capable, it can be Homed OTA (over the
air) to either "blue" or "orange". Had you asked that it be Homed to the
other network (e.g., from "blue" to "orange"), then it might well have
performed better.

The bit about internal antennas performing better than external antennas is
nonsense -- it's actually just the opposite (all other things being equal).

What you're actually getting is demonstrably better service from the
*combination* of Nokia *and* its programming than from the *combination* of
Motorola *and* its programming. So if for example Nokia is Homed to "orange"
and Motorola was Homed to "blue", then you really can't compare the phones.

Valid comparisons between two products (independent of service factors) can
only be drawn when both are tested under the same conditions. In the case of
Cingular handsets, that currently means that both must be Homed on the same
network. Otherwise, one may give better results than the other simply because
it's Homed on the better network in that particular location, which may well
mean that it would get worse results in certain other locations. Thus it's
best to test both handsets with the same SIM at the same place at the same
time, although even then the results can be different if one handset supports
ENS and the other doesn't.

I've run carefully controlled tests of handsets by several different
manufacturers, including both Motorola and Nokia, and the V551 is a very good
performer as compared to other handsets >> all other things being equal <<.
PC Magazine agrees, rating signal quality of the V551 as "excellent" when
awarding it an Editors' Choice.

Bottom line: Your conclusion that Motorolas are "junk" doesn't follow either
from the material you've presented or from other available evidence.

---cut-here----------------------------------------------------------------

>I know you're being paid by Motorola to sell their products; isn't
>coming in here and hawking them against your precious charter?

Wrong on both counts. I have no connection to Motorola. My posts conform to
the newsgroup charter. All your wild charges do is further diminish your own
credibility.

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