Cingular Pink-Slips Customers Who Travel Too Much

Per John Navas:
>Trusting any company is dangerously naive.

I'll always remember the letter we got from AT&T about their long distance
service. It actually contained the word "trust". The spiel was that we, as
longtime customers, should just keep our long distance service with them and
trust them to "take care of their customers".

We fell for it for several years - then one day it dawned on me that we were
paying something like seventy-eight cents per minute for calls to Germany while
MCI was charging six or seven....

I've come to view corporations as machines. If you can get them to do
something you want, then use them. If not...
--
PeteCresswell

---

› See More: Cingular Pink-Slips Customers Who Travel Too Much

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:45:24 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:45:08
>GMT, Harry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:36:29 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:52:43
>>>GMT, Harry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I can not trust Cingular.
>>>
>>>What makes you think you can "trust" any company?
>>
>>Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not.
>
>Trusting any company is dangerously naive.

How sad it must be to be you. Most people are honest. Since people run
companies most companies are honest. Just as one has to be carefull in
choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies
they deal with.

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:21:12
GMT, Harry <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:45:24 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:45:08
>>GMT, Harry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:36:29 GMT, John Navas
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:52:43
>>>>GMT, Harry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I can not trust Cingular.
>>>>
>>>>What makes you think you can "trust" any company?
>>>
>>>Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not.
>>
>>Trusting any company is dangerously naive.
>
>How sad it must be to be you.

Not sad at all. I trust me to look after myself. I trust corporations to
look after themselves. That's simply a reflection of reality, how the world
works.

>Most people are honest. Since people run
>companies most companies are honest.

Companies act in their own self-interest, as they should, which doesn't mean
they are being dishonest.

>Just as one has to be carefull in
>choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies
>they deal with.

Do you have any real evidence of dishonesty on the part of Cingular?

The relevant language is in your service agreement. You did read it carefully
before committing -- right?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Per Harry:
>Most people are honest. Since people run
>companies most companies are honest.

Not a logical conclusion. The corporation gets to select which people run it.

To the extent that a corporation's immediate goals require something besides
honesty, the corporation will replace those who do not perform as the
corporation desires until the jobs in question are filled by people who will toe
the line.

Been there. Rode out the deregulation of a major urban utility and it's
subsequent acquisition by a larger entity and experienced it from within - all
the way from an environment where things were 98% factual/honest and 2%
political/BS to something approaching the exact opposite.

In that case, I should point out that it wasn't the larger entity behind the
change. Instead it was the CEO who took over after regulation to groom the
company for eventual sale.

Astonishing. If somebody had told me that such drastic changes could happen in
such a big corporation in such a short timeframe I would not have believed them.
--
PeteCresswell

Harry wrote:

> How sad it must be to be you. Most people are honest. Since people run
> companies most companies are honest. Just as one has to be carefull in
> choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies
> they deal with.

There are several companies that have a reputation for honesty and
trust, that I have dealt with and never been disappointed. You just need
to choose carefully.

Harry wrote:

> I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every
> call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says
> Cingular on it. Even though some calls on my bill are marked follow me
> roaming.
>
> So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or
> not.

Very good point.

I have Cingular GSM phone on a MVNO, and it does show when it's off the
Cingular network, as there are high roaming charges. TDMA phones also
show when you're roaming. Cingular should provide some indication of
roaming, and have a way to warn the user that they are roaming too much.
They could automatically send a text message to the phone anytime the
roaming total was over their threshold.

On Verizon, the phone will show whether it's on Verizon, Verizon's
Extended Network with included roaming, or just roaming, even though
AFAIK, there is no limit to the use of the Extended Network, so the only
one to worry about is the off network roaming. Their new plans do not
allow any off-extended network roaming (supposedly there are only a
couple of locations where this is a problem) and one reason is that too
many people were not paying attention to the roaming indicator, or had
out-of-date PRL's, and complained about huge roaming charges.

mc wrote:
> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_invest...556035,00.html
>
>> It has been my understanding that the "50% roaming" rule is a standard
>> component of any nationwide service contract with all wireless carriers.
>
> Reading the wxyztv.com report, it sounds like the catch is that this
> customer didn't *know* he was roaming onto another carrier's network. He
> paid for nationwide service and his phone worked, and that's all he knew.
> Roaming is not something he did voluntarily.
>
> It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand
> him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him.

The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more
revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an
alternate approach to excessive roaming.

Why don't they just alert the customer, and charge extra when the
customer exceeds the 50% limit? Are they concerned that putting this
into the contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive
as they claim?

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:50:34 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Per Harry:
>>Most people are honest. Since people run
>>companies most companies are honest.
>
>Not a logical conclusion. The corporation gets to select which people run it.
>
>To the extent that a corporation's immediate goals require something besides
>honesty, the corporation will replace those who do not perform as the
>corporation desires until the jobs in question are filled by people who will toe
>the line.
>
>Been there. Rode out the deregulation of a major urban utility and it's
>subsequent acquisition by a larger entity and experienced it from within - all
>the way from an environment where things were 98% factual/honest and 2%
>political/BS to something approaching the exact opposite.
>
>In that case, I should point out that it wasn't the larger entity behind the
>change. Instead it was the CEO who took over after regulation to groom the
>company for eventual sale.
>
>Astonishing. If somebody had told me that such drastic changes could happen in
>such a big corporation in such a short timeframe I would not have believed them.

My original comment was that since most people are honest I find most
companies to be honest also. I know there was Enron and you have this
one. However that doesn't make all companies dishonest. (By the way I
never said that Cingular was dishonest)

Furthermore I also said "Just as one has to be carefull in
choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies
they deal with."

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:12:00
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>mc wrote:
>> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_invest...556035,00.html
>>
>>> It has been my understanding that the "50% roaming" rule is a standard
>>> component of any nationwide service contract with all wireless carriers.
>>
>> Reading the wxyztv.com report, it sounds like the catch is that this
>> customer didn't *know* he was roaming onto another carrier's network. He
>> paid for nationwide service and his phone worked, and that's all he knew.
>> Roaming is not something he did voluntarily.
>>
>> It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand
>> him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him.
>
>The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more
>revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an
>alternate approach to excessive roaming.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

>Why don't they just alert the customer,

Probably worries over TMI (too much information) -- the average customer
doesn't want to have to worry about such things.

>and charge extra when the
>customer exceeds the 50% limit?

Probably because that would undercut the marketing of flat rate plans, which
have proven to be very popular.

>Are they concerned that putting this
>into the contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive
>as they claim?

Perhaps. More likely that it's confusing to most customers. The percentage
affected is probably very small.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"Harry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:22:45 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Iopsy wrote:
>>> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This
>>> article
>>> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much.
>>> What's
>>> your take?
>>>
>>> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_invest...556035,00.html
>>
>>He knew when he signed up that the roaming was limited to 50%. Sprint
>>used to have a similar clause, not sure if they still do. His best bet
>>is to sign up with Verizon, since the roaming onto their extended
>>network is not limited. He'll have more coverage than he did before, and
>>if he gets a tri-mode phone he'll have _far_ more coverage than he did
>>with Cingular.
>>
>>Companies have the right to not sell to unprofitable customers. Look at
>>what Cingular is doing to the AT&T Wireless customers that had
>>sweetheart calling plans at low rates.
>
> Cingular advertises the "all-over" network.
>
> Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which
> areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no
> such thing.
>
> I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every
> call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says
> Cingular on it. Even though some calls on my bill are marked follow me
> roaming.
>
> So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or
> not.
>
> I have had Cingular service for a year now. I have never had a call
> dropped on my end. I have never had a bad experience with customer
> service. The call quality on my phone is excellent.
>
> Never the less I may well change carriers at the end of my contract.
>
> WHY? In following discussion about Cingular I note that in every
> single case they choose the method best for them even if it hurts the
> customer. And make no pretense about doing otherwise.
>
> Although I don't think I am affected by this change of theirs why
> should I trust them in the future. Maybe I am roaming and just don't
> know it.
>
> I can not trust Cingular.
>

When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a
setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS
network--something I never could do with my old TDMA phones.

There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.

At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about
whether to roam or not.

> >Most people are honest. Since people run
> >companies most companies are honest.
>
> Companies act in their own self-interest, as they should, which doesn't mean
> they are being dishonest.
"Trust" and "honest" make for more heat than light here. How about
"act as if they plan to keep customers like me in the long term" - which
companies do and which don't.

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

In <96_Tf.3089$4N1.2252@trnddc06> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:20:05 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a
>setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS
>network--something I never could do with my old TDMA phones.
>
>There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
>Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
>calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
>situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
>user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
>inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.
>
>At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about
>whether to roam or not.

The vast majority of Cingular customers don't have any need to know.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> Do you have any real evidence of dishonesty on the part of Cingular?

Perhaps he was thinking of disengenuinous.

Jeremy wrote:
> There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
> Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
> calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
> situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
> user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
> inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.

Get the Free and Clear $5/mo option and you won't have to worry about
roaming charges. While day time minutes come out of your day time
minutes bucket, roaming nights and weekends would be free. Well worth it!

Jeremy wrote:

> When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a
> setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS
> network--something I never could do with my old TDMA phones.
>
> There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
> Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
> calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
> situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
> user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
> inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.
>
> At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about
> whether to roam or not.

Good for Sprint.

On Verizon, the roaming indicator is counter-intuitive, it's solid for
off-network paid roaming, and flashing for included extended network
roaming. To most people, flashing indicates a warning.