Forced march of all ATTWS to Cingular?

John Navas wrote:
> On the contrary -- it's clear (as evidenced by churn data) that the great
> majority of customers are happy with Cingular.

On the contrary -- the great majority of customers are stuck in
two-year contracts.

---

› See More: Forced march of all ATTWS to Cingular?

"GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Navas wrote:
>> On the contrary -- it's clear (as evidenced by churn data) that the great
>> majority of customers are happy with Cingular.
>
> On the contrary -- the great majority of customers are stuck in
> two-year contracts.
>

Ooh- good one. I hadn't considered that those now under contract will bolt
when they realize that better networks, better pricing and more robust
phones are available elsewhere

GomJabbar wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On the contrary -- it's clear (as evidenced by churn data) that the great
>> majority of customers are happy with Cingular.
>
> On the contrary -- the great majority of customers are stuck in
> two-year contracts.

LOL, Cingular's churn data is horrible compared to Verizon. 1.9% per
month, is 22.8% per year. Losing 22.8% of your customers every year is
something that most businesses couldn't deal with. Even Verizon's churn
of 1.3% (2005 4Q) is 14.6% of their customers per year, much better than
Cingular, but nothing to boast about.

Analysts were disappointed with Cingular's first quarter results, due to
lower than expected ARPU. As the analyst from Standard & Poors wrote,
""We think Cingular is making progress on its wireless integration but
remains weaker than peer Verizon Wireless."

Mark W. Oots wrote:
> "John Cummings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Scott wrote:
>>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>>
>>>> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:53:49
>>>> -0500, clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> < A whole lotta nuthin snipped>
>
>> Noting that the original poster, David Trotter, is in Charlotte,
>> North Carolina, I suspect that the part of the reason is the
>> Suncom-Cingular swap
>> and sale. Didn't Cingular get the Virginia Suncom network, and
>> Suncom got the North Carolina ATTWS network? Puerto Rico and cash
>> were also exchanged.
>>
>> The NC Cingular network has been GSM PCS since BellSouth Mobility
>> DCS put it
>> up. They can't have any TDMA customers without the ATTWS PCS
>> network. Thus the effort to switch him over.
>>
>> John C.
>>
>>
> Bravo, John!
>
> Since this is the first mention of this, I think it is the likely
> reason for the letter the OP received. The other option would be what
> Cingular is doing to others that are using over 50% of their minutes
> "off network". (as specified in the contract)
>
> Mark

The OP is using 100% of his minutes "off network", by my view. Cingular
would want to do something about it.
John C.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> LOL, Cingular's churn data is horrible compared to Verizon. 1.9% per
> month, is 22.8% per year. Losing 22.8% of your customers every year is
> something that most businesses couldn't deal with. Even Verizon's churn
> of 1.3% (2005 4Q) is 14.6% of their customers per year, much better than
> Cingular, but nothing to boast about.
>
Actually 1.9% is about 20% LOWER than it was in 2004--considering that
ATT had a worse churn rate in 2004 than Cingular did then the drop in
churn is even more significant.

Besides, churn rate doesn't tell you how many CAME BACK the very next
month after discovering the "other" carrier was worse!

NONE of the carriers are perfect--not in service and not in cust
service. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence--you
guys are beating a dead horse. (There--that should take care of my
country background for awhile :-)
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

Jud Hardcastle wrote:

> Besides, churn rate doesn't tell you how many CAME BACK the very next
> month after discovering the "other" carrier was worse!

Gross customer additions were flat at 4.7 million, the lower churn rate
is what raised the net additions from the same quarter in 2005.

So the addition of about 5000 new sales outlets (Radio Shack) either
didn't help, or it was offset by lower gross additions in other sales
outlets. Given all the reports of Radio Shack's problems since they no
longer sell Verizon and now sell Cingular, it'd be interesting to know
how many customers Radio Shack signed up for Cingular.

/delurk

I bought GSM phones with AT&T in October 2004 on a year contract. I have
been really happy with the service and coverage from day one. We are now
looking to switch over to Cingular because my teen's phone crapped out and I
don't want to buy another one.

Cingular has the best coverage in my area and my friends who have Cingular
seem to be pleased with their phones. I guess they just do well in this
area, because I have never heard of the problems that have been listed in
this thread.

With hope and heart,
Kathleen
::back to lurking::


--
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality
and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense
of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the
beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse
the true with the false and the false with the true.
~ Martin Luther King Jr.

"Kathleen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> /delurk
>
> I bought GSM phones with AT&T in October 2004 on a year contract. I have
> been really happy with the service and coverage from day one. We are now
> looking to switch over to Cingular because my teen's phone crapped out and
> I
> don't want to buy another one.
>
> Cingular has the best coverage in my area and my friends who have Cingular
> seem to be pleased with their phones. I guess they just do well in this
> area, because I have never heard of the problems that have been listed in
> this thread.
>
> With hope and heart,
> Kathleen
> ::back to lurking::
>
>
> --
> Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality
> and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense
> of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the
> beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse
> the true with the false and the false with the true.
> ~ Martin Luther King Jr.
>
>

Few of us have complained about their level of network service--just their
contemptuous attitude expressed toward customers that had cheaper rate
plans, who did not want to give them up.

Jeremy wrote:

> Few of us have complained about their level of network service--just their
> contemptuous attitude expressed toward customers that had cheaper rate
> plans, who did not want to give them up.

If you're in the urban core, the network service is good. Venture into
the suburbs, especially in some parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, and
it's hit or miss. I'm always amused when I visit my niece and nephew in
Pleasanton, who live about a mile from Cingular's Western Regional
Headquarters, because they have very marginal coverage--it'll barely
work outside, and in a room upstairs, but downstairs it's zero or one
bar. I know, it must be their handsets, LOL.

I was really surprised to find how poor the Cingular GSM coverage was in
the Sierra's around Lake Tahoe, last week. You can get a signal along
the main roads, but venture a mile or so off to the side, and forget it.
With CDMA, the coverage is much better, and of course with
battery-draining AMPS, you get a signal pretty far off the beaten path.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:52:41
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeremy wrote:
>
>> Few of us have complained about their level of network service--just their
>> contemptuous attitude expressed toward customers that had cheaper rate
>> plans, who did not want to give them up.
>
>If you're in the urban core, the network service is good. Venture into
>the suburbs, especially in some parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, and
>it's hit or miss.

Actually pretty good, arguably now the best network in the area.

>I'm always amused when I visit my niece and nephew in
>Pleasanton, who live about a mile from Cingular's Western Regional
>Headquarters, because they have very marginal coverage--it'll barely
>work outside, and in a room upstairs, but downstairs it's zero or one
>bar. I know, it must be their handsets, LOL.

It might well be. Cingular coverage in Pleasanton is very good. That said,
no carrier is perfect in all areas -- there are coverage holes with all of
them.

>I was really surprised to find how poor the Cingular GSM coverage was in
>the Sierra's around Lake Tahoe, last week. You can get a signal along
>the main roads, but venture a mile or so off to the side, and forget it.
>With CDMA, the coverage is much better, ...

Not true.

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

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

In <Qr43g.1288$yI1.451@trnddc04> on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:32:32 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Few of us have complained about their level of network service--just their
>contemptuous attitude expressed toward customers that had cheaper rate
>plans, who did not want to give them up.

Please cease this childish harping. You've more than made your point. Long
since time to move on.

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

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

> Actually pretty good, arguably now the best network in the area.

According to who? You? Hardly an authoratative source.



>
>>I was really surprised to find how poor the Cingular GSM coverage was in
>>the Sierra's around Lake Tahoe, last week. You can get a signal along
>>the main roads, but venture a mile or so off to the side, and forget it.
>>With CDMA, the coverage is much better, ...
>
> Not true.
>

According to who? You? Hardly an authoratative source.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Qr43g.1288$yI1.451@trnddc04> on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:32:32 GMT,
> "Jeremy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Few of us have complained about their level of network service--just their
>>contemptuous attitude expressed toward customers that had cheaper rate
>>plans, who did not want to give them up.
>
> Please cease this childish harping. You've more than made your point.
> Long
> since time to move on.
>
> --
Physician, heal thyself.

Are you talking about customers from another company that went
belly-up, that they managed to arrange a transition program for, that
did not just abruptly, completely discontinue their old service? It is
unreasonable for those customers to expect the transition program to be
a total continuation program instead. cingular is not the source of the
problem, the now defunct carrier caused the problem by going out of
business. I realize that it is hard to get mad at something that does
not exist anymore, or at people that do not work there anymore, but
cingular does not deserve their anger. Even for those attws customers
who might still be under contract, I don't thing there are any, cingular
said that there would not be an etf. They are not forced to march over
to cingular.

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:J%[email protected]...

> Are you talking about customers from another company that went
> belly-up, that they managed to arrange a transition program for, that did
> not just abruptly, completely discontinue their old service?

That was not the way ther merger occurred. Cingular paid billions of
dollars for ATTWS. And the deal was always represented as a MERGER, not as
a BUYOUT. There was never any talk about this being done as an accomodation
to ATTWS customers, so they could keep on receiving service.


> It is unreasonable for those customers to expect the transition program
> to be a total continuation program instead.

That argument is without merit, because both ATTWS and CIngular offered
well-documented assurances that ATTWS customers would not be forced to make
any changes to their rate plans. They failed to disclose, however, that if
we DID elect to make even the slightest change, we would be expected to sign
new contracts, give up our preferential rates, which we had earned over the
years, and in some cases have to pay for new equipment.

> Cingular is not the source of the problem, the now defunct carrier caused
> the problem by going out of business.

They companies MERGED. ATTWS customers are NOT second-rate trash, who had
to take whatever is offered and be glad to get it. Cingular paid a high
price for 20 million+ customers and we were never characterized as having
been orphaned by ATTWS.

We aere assured that all existing contracts would be honored (and the
regulatory bodies were also given the same assurance, as a condition of them
clearing the merger). ATTWS contracts reverted to month-to-month after
their initial terms, but Cingular appears to be looking for well-crafted
plans to avoid having to honor those contracts, by cutting back on service
until the customers switch to the Orange Network out of sheer frustration.

Some of us switched--not to the Orange Network--but to other carriers.
Millions of us have bailed out of Cingular.


> I realize that it is hard to get mad at something that does not exist
> anymore, or at people that do not work there anymore, but cingular does
> not deserve their anger.

Wrong. You are misinformed regarding the terms of the merger. ATTWS did
not shaft us, Cingular did.

> Even for those attws customers who might still be under contract, I don't
> thing there are any, cingular said that there would not be an etf. They
> are not forced to march over to cingular.

Cingular has slowly and progressively tightened the noose by cutting back on
TDMA towers, to the point that it takes several minutes for phones to locate
a signal, and calls in progress are routinely dropped. These conditions did
NOT exist when ATTWS operated the network, and there is NO basis to suspect
that these are network problems.

Perhaps by your strict-constructionist definition we were not "forced" to
switch, but that is a biased viewpoint. We were coerced into switching, and
now there are reports of customers being given ultimatums to switch or lose
service entirely.

If Cingular did not make demands for new contracts, or significantly higher
rate plans, none of us would have reason to complain. But the
forced/coerced requirement to abandon the ATTWS service is being used as a
"hinge," to also take away customers' perks.

I'm with Sprint, and I couldn't be happier. Millions more of us have also
found that life can go on without Cingular.

What will you argue next--that the Holocaust never took place?????