Forced march of all ATTWS to Cingular?

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:37:05
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeremy wrote:
>
>> Cingular's CONTEMPTUOUS ATTITUDE toward their customers is disgusting.
>
>This much is true, and no one argues with you about that, just look at
>the surveys.

Not true.

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

---

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:37:05
> -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> Cingular's CONTEMPTUOUS ATTITUDE toward their customers is disgusting.
>>
>>This much is true, and no one argues with you about that, just look at
>>the surveys.
>
> Not true.
>

Actualy very true- the surveys all agree.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:10:18
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> And if those were the only two numbers, it would look great. But some basic
>> math shows some not-so-great performance:
>>
>> - a Net Income of $2.11 per subscriber per month
>> - gross adds (new customers) declined over previous quarters
>> - ARPU dropped to $48.48
>
>Net additions also fell from the previous quarter. I knew something was
>wrong when the churn fell significantly, but net additions also fell.

That makes no sense.

>You'd have thought that the addition of 5000 Radio Shack sales outlets,
>combined with lower churn, would have ensured an increase in both gross
>and net additions, but the opposite occurred.

Actually not, since Radio Shack has been experiencing poor wireless
performance for the past year, and just suffered an embarrassing CEO change.

>They also had a very big
>decrease in ARPU.

Actually pretty small.

>Not a good quarter for Cingular in terms of long-term
>outlook.

Actually pretty good.

>Still, even though net additions, gross additions, and ARPU were down,
>they did better than analysts expected, so Cingular did a good job of
>lowering expectations so they could appear to do better than expected.

That's a pretty silly claim.

>I read one analysts report regarding the decrease in churn, and they
>attributed it to the fact that most of the AT&T Wireless customers that
>wanted to leave Cingular, finally have finished out their contracts and
>have left. So churn should not be going back up to the high > 2% levels
>that Cingular has struggled with in the past. The analyst stated that
>the various surveys of wireless quality and satisfaction, were one of
>the causes for Cingular's falling numbers of new subscribers.

Cite? Or just another fabrication?

>People do
>pay attention to these surveys, especially the Consumer Report's annual
>survey, which is widely quoted in the media (the JD Power Survey is less
>well publicized). This is probably a big reason why Radio Shack did so
>poorly with Cingular, after having done so well with Verizon.

Radio Shack actually did poorly with Verizon, which is why it switched to
Cingular.

--
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 <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:30:41 -0500,
[email protected]lid wrote:

>SMS wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> And if those were the only two numbers, it would look great. But some
>>> basic math shows some not-so-great performance:
>>>
>>> - a Net Income of $2.11 per subscriber per month
>>> - gross adds (new customers) declined over previous quarters
>>> - ARPU dropped to $48.48
>>
>> Net additions also fell from the previous quarter. I knew something was
>> wrong when the churn fell significantly, but net additions also fell.
>
>Some data from Forbes.com. Mostly good reports about Cingular's 1Q.
>[SNIP]

In return for posting the real thing, instead of siding with the little band
of flamers here, you'll probably now be branded a Cingular apologist and Navas
sympathizer (or worse).

--
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 <wiN3g.2652$E41.980@trnddc03> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:34:36 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> 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.

Not true. What they said was that existing service agreements would be
honored, which they did.

>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.

You had "earned" nothing, and you actually could add and delete ATTWS
features.

>> 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.

In fact they were treated very well.

>Cingular paid a high
>price for 20 million+ customers and we were never characterized as having
>been orphaned by ATTWS.

That's a simple fact -- thanks to mismanagement, ATTWS was forced to seek a
buyout.

>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).

They were honored.

>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.

There is no term contract once they have expired. When you go month-to-month,
then it's patently clear that terms can change month-to-month, just like
month-to-month rental. Sheesh!

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

Not true. Churn is actually down, not up.

>> 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.

You are the one that's misinformed (and ranting endlessly).

>> 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.

Wrong. That phaseout of "TDMA" (D-AMPS) and migration to GSM was already well
along and would have proceeded much the same way under ATTWS, even if it could
have stayed independent, which of course it couldn't.

>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.

Nonsense -- there was absolutely no coercion -- you were free to change to a
Cingular plan or to migrate. You migrated freely, thus disproving your own
claim.

>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.

In other words, you whining because Cingular refused to keep giving away the
store. Do you also whine when items go off sale at the local market? Must
make you very popular.

>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?????

Godwin's Law invoked, which mean you've conceded the argument.

--
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 <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:18:38
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Cingular's poor results over the last two quarters, in terms of net
>additions, show that customers are fully capable of finding a better
>deal elsewhere, and taking it.

You've got that backwards (as usual) -- churn is actually down, not up.

--
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 <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:13:43 -0500,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>SMS wrote:
>> Sure, it would have been nice if Cingular allowed AT&T customers to
>> continue with the same rate plan after they switched to Cingular's
>> networks, but it was a business decision to not allow this. Prices
>> change, that's life.
>
>I would agree with that, had I not seen the promises Cingular made in
>writing (as transcribed in this newsgroup).

Promises were kept. What wasn't kept was the wishful thinking of those that
wanted to stay with old "TDMA" (D-AMPS) or get new GSM at bargain prices.

--
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 <[email protected]> on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:14:34
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:

>> Sell or merge and you get a chance to re-write your service agreements to
>> something more favorable.
>
>Nothing was rewritten. The slow dismantling of the AT&T TDMA network, as
>well as the intentional way that the blue GSM network users could not
>use the orange GSM network, meant that eventually the existing AT&T
>customer would have to either switch to a less favorable plan, or leave.

Baloney (as usual): ATTWS "blue" GSM subscribers actually got free roaming on
the Cingular "orange" GSM network before the reverse, and still have it to
this day. It's ATTWS "TDMA" (D-AMPS) subscribers that didn't get access to
the Cingular TDMA network, but that's hardly surprising, since Cingular was
already phasing out that network.

>> Ask yourself this: If the contracts/customers that ATTWS had were
>> profitable, why would Cingular *not* try keep them?
>
>Because they calculated that it would be even more profitable to
>eliminate the low revenue AT&T subscribers. ...

Nothing was eliminated -- those former ATTWS customers were offered the same
deals as any other customers -- they just didn't get to have a better deal
than other GSM customers, which is hardly surprising or unreasonable.

--
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 <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:16:12
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>It wouldn't have hurt Cingular to simply state "you can keep your
>existing rate plan for as long as you want, but the quality of service
>on your network is going to be declining over time."

That would have made no sense (your usual attempt at spin notwithstanding) --
the quality of service for former ATTWS GSM customers has actually increased,
and the phaseout of "TDMA" (D-AMPS) was public and already well underway.

--
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 <[email protected]> on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:27:38 -0600,
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Another apocryphal story still doesn't prove anything. This is simply
>> another
>> case of someone being unrealistic. There's no reason to expect Cingular
>> to
>> continue indefinitely the great deal he got from ATTWS, which essentially
>> went
>> out of business due to mismanagement. Does he also boycott gas stations
>> that
>> raise prices? Then he must not be driving any more.
>
>And in typical Novice fashion, you ignore the real sticking point here.
>Non-contract customers are not made whole if they decide to go with the
>Cingular GSM network.

As non-contract customers there nothing to be made whole. By going
month-to-month you expose yourself to changes month-to-month. If you want
protection from month-to-month, get a term contract.

>They will not enjoy the same month-to-month service
>they current have.

Indeed, because "TDMA" (D-AMPS) is being phased out.

>And they are the ONLY carrier to trigger a contract of
>their own actions- all other carriers require the customer to trigger the
>contract.

No carrier lets you make a major technology change while keeping the old deal.

>This, in addition to the large fees they charge their own
>customers to retain their services show the true greed of the Company and
>reflect a less than cooperative attitude when dealing with their own paying
>customers.

If it's not a good deal, then customers will leave. To me and to many others,
it is a good deal.

>They'll have to show more than one quarter of decent adds before
>they can declare themselves anything but a financially mid-tier corporation.

Time will tell.

--
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 <[email protected]> on 21 Apr 2006
18:32:53 -0700, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> 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.

The great majority of ATTWS contracts are now expired.

--
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 <[email protected]> on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:33:48
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>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."

Part of what you snipped:

We are encouraged by Cingular's 1.7 million net subscriber additions, which
we believe was driven by a lower churn rate and by reseller efforts.

Contradicts your claims. What a shock.

--
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 <[email protected]> on Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:15:20
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Radio Shack had problems with Verizon as well, a fact you consistently refuse
to admit.

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

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 Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:37:05
>> -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeremy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cingular's CONTEMPTUOUS ATTITUDE toward their customers is disgusting.
>>> This much is true, and no one argues with you about that, just look at
>>> the surveys.
>> Not true.
>>
>
> Actualy very true- the surveys all agree.

I guess not everyone believes all the surveys, or they believe them but
don't want to admit that they believe them.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:10:18
> -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> And if those were the only two numbers, it would look great. But some
>>> basic
>>> math shows some not-so-great performance:
>>>
>>> - a Net Income of $2.11 per subscriber per month
>>> - gross adds (new customers) declined over previous quarters
>>> - ARPU dropped to $48.48
>>
>>Net additions also fell from the previous quarter. I knew something was
>>wrong when the churn fell significantly, but net additions also fell.
>
> That makes no sense.


It makes perfect sense to anyone that works in the industry. It wouldn't
make sense to a novice like you.


>
>>You'd have thought that the addition of 5000 Radio Shack sales outlets,
>>combined with lower churn, would have ensured an increase in both gross
>>and net additions, but the opposite occurred.
>
> Actually not, since Radio Shack has been experiencing poor wireless
> performance for the past year, and just suffered an embarrassing CEO
> change.
>
>>They also had a very big
>>decrease in ARPU.
>
> Actually pretty small.

Big enough for them to issue separate press releases dealing with it the
very same day, making it the only number to garnish such attention from the
Company. They tried to run damage control on it.


>
>>Not a good quarter for Cingular in terms of long-term
>>outlook.
>
> Actually pretty good.

Only to the uneducated, like you.

>
>>Still, even though net additions, gross additions, and ARPU were down,
>>they did better than analysts expected, so Cingular did a good job of
>>lowering expectations so they could appear to do better than expected.
>
> That's a pretty silly claim.

Says who? You?

>
>>I read one analysts report regarding the decrease in churn, and they
>>attributed it to the fact that most of the AT&T Wireless customers that
>>wanted to leave Cingular, finally have finished out their contracts and
>>have left. So churn should not be going back up to the high > 2% levels
>>that Cingular has struggled with in the past. The analyst stated that
>>the various surveys of wireless quality and satisfaction, were one of
>>the causes for Cingular's falling numbers of new subscribers.
>
> Cite? Or just another fabrication?

It's out there- I found it in less than two minutes. Google is your friend.

>
>>People do
>>pay attention to these surveys, especially the Consumer Report's annual
>>survey, which is widely quoted in the media (the JD Power Survey is less
>>well publicized). This is probably a big reason why Radio Shack did so
>>poorly with Cingular, after having done so well with Verizon.
>
> Radio Shack actually did poorly with Verizon, which is why it switched to
> Cingular.
>

No- Verizon did poor financially with Radio Shack, which is why Radio Shack
was frced to find another carrier. Saying that RS did poorly with VZ is not
based in fact. Imagine that- Navas makingthings up again.