Customers file deception suit against Cingular

james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,

> Ernie & Eythl <ernie&eythl@mountain> wrote:

>> You're so full of ****. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
>> and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
>> pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your ass.
>
> yes, he does.

I wonder where he got the idea that Cingular was letting AT&T Wireless
subscribers out of their contracts?

I think what he might be trying to say is that AT&T customers that were
already out of contract had the choice of migrating to Cingular, or
termination without penalty (duh, they were out of contract), but did
_not_ have the option of continuing on a month to month basis on AT&T
Wireless. Actually this is also false as well, since you could continue
on the same rate plan on AT&T, on the AT&T network, whether it was TDMA
or GSM, but the degradation of service made this an unappealing choice.

What you couldn't do, was to migrate to Cingular, with no contract
extension, at the same rate plan that you has with AT&T Wireless. This
would have been fair enough, had Cingular not begun to dismantle the
AT&T wireless network while millions of AT&T wireless customers were
still under contract.

Cingular should have said something like, "Look, you have a sweetheart
rate with AT&T, but we're dismantling the AT&T TDMA network so you need
to finish out your contract on our GSM network, and BTW here's a
complimentary handset comparable to what you're using now (or we'll give
you a good deal on a more featured handset). When your contract expires,
you'll have to choose a currently available rate plan, but we want you
to stay so we'll give you a 20% discount on that plan for the 12 months,
and then a 10% discount on that plan 12 months after that. Or you can
leave with no termination fee and no hard feelings."

This would have slowly weaned the AT&T Wireless customers off of their
low-rate plans, and would have helped lower churn. Sure you'd have had
some customers walk away with their old TDMA handset, whose subsidy
wasn't yet paid for, but geez, after paying $41 billion for AT&T
wireless, it wouldn't be a big deal.

---

› See More: Customers file deception suit against Cingular

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> You're so full of ****. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was
>> >> filed,
>> >> and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
>> >> pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your ass.
>> >
>> > yes, he does.
>>
>> I wonder where he got the idea that Cingular was letting AT&T Wireless
>> subscribers out of their contracts?
>
> Out of his ass.

That would explain how he was able to make room for his head.


>

"james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote in news:jgkeegan-
[email protected]:

> cingular will, of course, settle and not risk the court case.
>

The trade organization wouldn't want any of it in front of a jury full of
cellular contractees, either. They'll make sure Cingular never gets in
court. Imagine the repercussions to all their sleazy asses if the jury
nullified the law they bribed the FCC bureaucrats to make and decided
differently that what is being done to everyone, now. Juries can do that,
you know. OJ is walking free because of it..."Jury Nullification".

Scott wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You're so full of ****. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was
>>>>> filed,
>>>>> and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
>>>>> pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your ass.
>>>> yes, he does.
>>> I wonder where he got the idea that Cingular was letting AT&T Wireless
>>> subscribers out of their contracts?
>> Out of his ass.
>
> That would explain how he was able to make room for his head.

Please try to rise above the kind of thing that JN posts. It's bad
enough dealing with all of his mis-statements, but these personal
attacks are uncalled for.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> They'd
> have to choose jurors that were never an AT&T Wireless or Cingular
> customer.
>

If I were Cingular's lawyers, I'd reject anyone who ever had a cellphone
contract. Most everyone had a bad experience with the contracts and would
still be a big, shall we say, "vindictive"?..(c;

Nope...I doubt the company could win in America in 2006.....too many
screwed people from all the companies.

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

>
> It's be a jury of Verizon customers, which might be good, as they tend to
> be the smartest people.
>


Based on what?

Larry wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> They'd
>> have to choose jurors that were never an AT&T Wireless or Cingular
>> customer.
>>
>
> If I were Cingular's lawyers, I'd reject anyone who ever had a cellphone
> contract. Most everyone had a bad experience with the contracts and would
> still be a big, shall we say, "vindictive"?..(c;
>
> Nope...I doubt the company could win in America in 2006.....too many
> screwed people from all the companies.

You only get to reject a certain number of jurors. There is no way you
could seat a jury if you excluded post-paid cellular users.

Scott wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> It's be a jury of Verizon customers, which might be good, as they tend to
>> be the smartest people.
>>
>
>
> Based on what?

They understand that the most important issue in choosing a carrier is
coverage. They read the surveys from entities like Consumer Reports and
JD Power, and don't try to invent fantastic theories as to why they must
have screwed up somehow because the survey results don't match the
company that someone is shilling for. They understand what evidence is
(it's not their own personal experience). Most important, they are able
to think critically, and are very fair.

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

> Please try to rise above the kind of thing that JN posts.

We're already there- we post substantiated facts and are not blind to the
truth.

> It's bad enough dealing with all of his mis-statements, but these personal
> attacks are uncalled for.

Actually, the personal attacks are very much called for. Anybody who is so
incapable of carrying on a rational discussion, makes up 'facts' and is so
allergic to the truth deserves no better. He is a dinosaur who proves day
after day that his useful life is long over in this group.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:44b07562$0$96196
[email protected]:

> They understand that the most important issue in choosing a carrier is
> coverage.

They do? Geez, most of the ones I see look like teenage girls or huge
black women with blue lights blinking away in their hobbled up bluetooth
headsets in the mall to me. Do you think they can identify Consumer's
Reports or JD Power on a magazine rack?

I thought all VZW, like the rest of the carriers, was selling her the
glitzy little phones. Isn't that why they advertise with a stupid little
drug addict in a grey work jacket walking around in July asking, "Can you
hear me now?" He doesn't seem interested in pandering to the academic
elite consumer to me....(c;

Too funny......thanks.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott wrote:
>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> It's be a jury of Verizon customers, which might be good, as they tend
>>> to be the smartest people.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Based on what?
>
> They understand that the most important issue in choosing a carrier is
> coverage. They read the surveys from entities like Consumer Reports and JD
> Power, and don't try to invent fantastic theories as to why they must have
> screwed up somehow because the survey results don't match the company that
> someone is shilling for. They understand what evidence is (it's not their
> own personal experience). Most important, they are able to think
> critically, and are very fair.

So, based on what you just posted, any customer on another carrier is an
uneducated idiot, unable to show critical thinking skills when choosing a
phone? Sounds like something Navas would say. You might also explain why
Verizon is far from the most popular choice for large business and
government agencies.

Larry wrote:
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:44b07562$0$96196 [email protected]:
>
>> They understand that the most important issue in
>> choosing a carrier is coverage.
>
> They do? Geez, most of the ones I see look like teenage
> girls or huge black women with blue lights blinking away
> in their hobbled up bluetooth headsets in the mall to me.
> Do you think they can identify Consumer's Reports or JD
> Power on a magazine rack?

Larry, that's because all you do anymore is hang
out at the mall trying to impress the clerks.

-Quick

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 08:29:00 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>By now, most AT&T customers that were coerced into a Cingular contract ...

No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way.

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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:21:35 -0700, Ernie & Eythl <ernie&eythl@mountain>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Navas answered:
>>
>> That's not what's alleged in the lawsuit, and isn't what actually
>> happened -- ATTWS customers, if not free to continue their ATTWS
>> contracts, had the choice of migration to Cingular GSM or termination
>> without penalty.
>
>You're so full of ****. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
>and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
>pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your ass.

1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.

2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
or given a choice of:

(a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or

(b) Termination without penalty.

In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
free to cancel service without penalty.

This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."

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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:10:29 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>> Ernie & Eythl <ernie&eythl@mountain> wrote:
>
>>> You're so full of ****. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
>>> and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
>>> pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your ass.
>>
>> yes, he does.
>
>I wonder where he got the idea that Cingular was letting AT&T Wireless
>subscribers out of their contracts?
>
>I think what he might be trying to say is that AT&T customers that were
>already out of contract had the choice of migrating to Cingular, or
>termination without penalty (duh, they were out of contract), but did
>_not_ have the option of continuing on a month to month basis on AT&T
>Wireless. Actually this is also false as well, since you could continue
>on the same rate plan on AT&T, on the AT&T network, whether it was TDMA
>or GSM, but the degradation of service made this an unappealing choice.

What I'm actually saying:

1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.

2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
or given a choice of:

(a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or

(b) Termination without penalty.

In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
free to cancel service without penalty.

This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."

>What you couldn't do, was to migrate to Cingular, with no contract
>extension, at the same rate plan that you has with AT&T Wireless. This
>would have been fair enough, had Cingular not begun to dismantle the
>AT&T wireless network while millions of AT&T wireless customers were
>still under contract.

Unrealistic and inaccurate: The new contract was to cover the subsidy
(discount) on new equipment, the standard industry practice. They could
avoid a long contract by paying more for the new hardware.

>Cingular should have said something like, "Look, you have a sweetheart
>rate with AT&T, but we're dismantling the AT&T TDMA network so you need
>to finish out your contract on our GSM network, and BTW here's a
>complimentary handset comparable to what you're using now (or we'll give
>you a good deal on a more featured handset). When your contract expires,
>you'll have to choose a currently available rate plan, but we want you
>to stay so we'll give you a 20% discount on that plan for the 12 months,
>and then a 10% discount on that plan 12 months after that. Or you can
>leave with no termination fee and no hard feelings."
>
>This would have slowly weaned the AT&T Wireless customers off of their
>low-rate plans, and would have helped lower churn. Sure you'd have had
>some customers walk away with their old TDMA handset, whose subsidy
>wasn't yet paid for, but geez, after paying $41 billion for AT&T
>wireless, it wouldn't be a big deal.

They should obviously hire you to run the company.

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