Cingular scaling back on deals for customers out of conntract

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Cliff wrote:
>
>> You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do this.
>> If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the customer.
>> Economics 101.
>
>But the low ARPU customers are not causing them to lose money, they just
>make less from them than from other customers. It's a lot different than
>having a product that's in short supply where you want to sell the
>limited supply to the customers that will pay the most.

In fact carriers can and do lose money on low revenue customers.

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

---

› See More: Cingular scaling back on deals for customers out of conntract

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:42:30 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>But prepaid (GoPhone) customers are the cheapest channel to support and
>therefore among the most profitable. High cost per minute, low fraud,
>little to no collection effort required and phones sold at a much higher
>price than postpaid. Disallowing the use of prepaid hardware on a post-paid
>account is simply nothing more than muscle flexing by any carrier willing to
>do it. It comes across as rather desperate and extremely cusotmer
>unfriendly.

There's no real evidence of this.

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

Anon E. Muss wrote:
> Now the reports are when someone purchases a GoPhone... thru Cingular
> on-line, that phone's IMEI is entered into Cingular's mainframes and
> if someone tries to use it on a non pre-paid or pay-as-you-go SIM, the
> phone will not work.

I just bought a reburbished Nokia 6061 for $35 from Cingular.com. It
arrived in 2 days in pristine condition and is working fine on it's own
SIM as well as on my Family Plan SIM. (They definitely have the IMEI
because their on-line activation forms require it.)

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:31:51 -0400, "PC Medic" <[email protected]>
wrote in <tlRyg.1498$W93.222@dukeread05>:

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

>> This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business practice.
>
>While it may be 'normal' for the unscrupulous vendors out their, it is far
>from reasonable (or ethical IMHO) business practice. I work for one of the
>worlds largest computer and imaging product manufactures and we treat every
>customer with equal care and respect.

Really? You sell below cost?

>Perhaps if Cingular did this they
>could build some customer loyalty which any one with any business sense
>knows is more profitable than continuously trying to drum up new ones with
>ficticious survey results.

Selling below cost isn't profitable.

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

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:33:27 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 05:46:58 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:41:22 GMT, John Navas
>>><[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business practice.

>And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
>practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
>GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.

Cingular refuses to switch the phone to postpaid? Really?

>You really need to get off your Karl Marx, pro-socialist bent. ...

You have that backwards.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
Jonathan Boswell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Anon E. Muss wrote:
> > Now the reports are when someone purchases a GoPhone... thru Cingular
> > on-line, that phone's IMEI is entered into Cingular's mainframes and
> > if someone tries to use it on a non pre-paid or pay-as-you-go SIM, the
> > phone will not work.
>
> I just bought a reburbished Nokia 6061 for $35 from Cingular.com. It
> arrived in 2 days in pristine condition and is working fine on it's own
> SIM as well as on my Family Plan SIM. (They definitely have the IMEI
> because their on-line activation forms require it.)

Try using it on your Family Plan SIM for 48 hours straight and you might
get a different result.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:08:02 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:33:27 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
>wrote in <[email protected]>:

[snip]

>>And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
>>practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
>>GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.
>
>Cingular refuses to switch the phone to postpaid?

Just like I wrote elsewhere in the thread.

What is reportedly happening is that when the "system" detects one is
using a post-paid SIM plan in an pre-paid phone via its IMEI, the
phone reports one is using an invalid SIM and will not make calls.
This reportedly happens within 48 hours and when one calls to
complain, CINGULAR reportedly tells people they can't use GoPhones
with post-paid SIM/plans.

People have been using GoPhones for cheap replacements of their lost,
broken or dysfunctional phones, and CINGULAR appears to be trying to
stop that now. It appears that CINGULAR wants people to only purchase
higher cost post-paid phone with a contract extension, or at the "no
commitment" price.

>Really?

Please don't tell me this surprises you.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:40:36 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:08:02 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:33:27 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
>>wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
>>>practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
>>>GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.
>>
>>Cingular refuses to switch the phone to postpaid?
>
>Just like I wrote elsewhere in the thread.
>
>What is reportedly happening is that when the "system" detects one is
>using a post-paid SIM plan in an pre-paid phone via its IMEI, the
>phone reports one is using an invalid SIM and will not make calls.
>This reportedly happens within 48 hours and when one calls to
>complain, CINGULAR reportedly tells people they can't use GoPhones
>with post-paid SIM/plans.

You know this to be true, and not just another Internet rumor?

>People have been using GoPhones for cheap replacements of their lost,
>broken or dysfunctional phones, and CINGULAR appears to be trying to
>stop that now. It appears that CINGULAR wants people to only purchase
>higher cost post-paid phone with a contract extension, or at the "no
>commitment" price.
>
>>Really?
>
>Please don't tell me this surprises you.

I'm frankly skeptical.

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >My opinion:
> >
> >It makes good sense to continue retain customers of all levels,
especially
> >since concentrating on having service contracts is already on flimsy
footing
> >as a long term strategy. I predict class action suits will eventually
rule
> >them as illegal when the cell phone is no longer deemed a luxury item.
>
> I seriously doubt that -- no law makes them "illegal".

Obviously, not today.

There are all kinds of stringent criminal, federal, state, local tax laws
associated with Luxury items. Without having to waste time to research and
confirm this for your sake, cell phone classification of luxury item
provides the a justification for service contracts to exist. In other
words, you can't fight it because cell phone is still classified as a luxury
item.

Once the luxury classification is removed, service contracts will be harder
to justify. Just consider that cell phones are now being giving to our kids
and our old folks just for the sake of security. It is fast coming a
non-luxury and necessary good and if you want to believes Ray Ozzies long
term strategy for Microsoft, Windows has come to the cell phone (or has the
cell phone come to Windows?) It would be Microsoft stragetic advantage to
make sure everyone has a WM ready PC/phone!

> Losing money on customers is bad business.

Of course and when you begin to have bad policies, typically by trying
mandate localized monopolistic policies is usually enough in creating PR
issues, PSC complaints, incite riots, terrorism and chaos and, yes, calls
for federal regulations. But I am sure, you, I and that fence post in the
corner, doubt we will see any policy change until the Dems are back in
power. Probably explaining the mad rush to consolidate now before its too
late. :-)

---

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Cliff wrote:
>>
>>> You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do
>>> this.
>>> If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the customer.
>>> Economics 101.
>>
>>But the low ARPU customers are not causing them to lose money, they just
>>make less from them than from other customers. It's a lot different than
>>having a product that's in short supply where you want to sell the
>>limited supply to the customers that will pay the most.
>
> In fact carriers can and do lose money on low revenue customers.
>

No fact there- only mindless and inaccurate speculation from someone who
admits getting all of his knowledge from the internet. No practical
eworking knowledge of anything posted here.

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

>
> You know this to be true, and not just another Internet rumor?

Holy ****- these words came form Navas? The Prince of Internet Fabrication
and Speculation?

>
>>People have been using GoPhones for cheap replacements of their lost,
>>broken or dysfunctional phones, and CINGULAR appears to be trying to
>>stop that now. It appears that CINGULAR wants people to only purchase
>>higher cost post-paid phone with a contract extension, or at the "no
>>commitment" price.
>>
>>>Really?
>>
>>Please don't tell me this surprises you.
>
> I'm frankly skeptical.
>

No- you're frankly clueless.

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:56:08 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:40:36 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
>wrote in <[email protected]>:

[snip]

>>What is reportedly happening is that when the "system" detects one is
>>using a post-paid SIM plan in an pre-paid phone via its IMEI, the
>>phone reports one is using an invalid SIM and will not make calls.
>>This reportedly happens within 48 hours and when one calls to
>>complain, CINGULAR reportedly tells people they can't use GoPhones
>>with post-paid SIM/plans.
>
>You know this to be true, and not just another Internet rumor?

No. I have not personally witnessed this, but it has been reported to
be occuring via members at HowardForums:

see <http://tinyurl.com/kn5gd>

It's pretty easy and cheap to verify for the doubters -- by getting a
cheap GoPhone. The IMEI apparently has to be entered in the system
for Cingular to disallow its use with post-paid plans/SIMs, so if you
can somehow avoid that from happening, you may be OK.

>>People have been using GoPhones for cheap replacements of their lost,
>>broken or dysfunctional phones, and CINGULAR appears to be trying to
>>stop that now. It appears that CINGULAR wants people to only purchase
>>higher cost post-paid phone with a contract extension, or at the "no
>>commitment" price.
>>
>>>Really?
>>
>>Please don't tell me this surprises you.
>
>I'm frankly skeptical.

I was too.

But after seeing how Cingular crippled the Nokia 6620's firmware so it
can't use MP3 ringtones, how Verizon crippled bluetooth features,
nothing these cellular companies should surprise me... or you.

PC Medic wrote:

> > This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business
> > practice.
> >
>
> While it may be 'normal' for the unscrupulous vendors out their, it
> is far from reasonable (or ethical IMHO) business practice. I work

Why "unsrupulous"? If you patronize a particular bar well enough, the
bartender will send a few free drinks your way. If you go to a
restaurant often, periodically you'll get a drink, desert or appetizer
for free. Airlines have frequent flyer miles. Credit card companies &
"big box" electronics stores have variations of reward systems for
faithfulness in buying there (or with a particular card). All figured
into the cost of doing business to keep the better customers loyal.

> manufactures and we treat every customer with equal care and respect.

It sounds like, at your level, you don't deal with the street level
consumer. Which makes how you do business a different model than if
you were directly dealing with the consumer. However, having been
involved in both purchasing & sales in both commercial & military
venues, I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't perks for large
quantity purchasers. But, be that as it may, let me give you an
interesting example of what you say Cingular does not do.

I have a friend who also is a Cingular customer. He's tough on phones.
Between warrantee & insurance replacements, he's gone through multiple
replacements in his last 2 year contract period. When it came time to
renew, he got the normal opportunity to upgrade his phone at a
discounted rate & insure the new one -- after costing both Cingular &
the insurance company with the number of replacements he got. Sounds
like "equal care and respect" to me.

> Perhaps if Cingular did this they could build some customer loyalty
> which any one with any business sense knows is more profitable than
> continuously trying to drum up new ones with ficticious survey
> results.

So a cell carrier should have repetitive discount pricing on phones,
even if a 2 year contract has not been fulfilled? That's like you
using your frequent flyer miles to take a free trip, then you tell the
airline that you want another free trip off those same frequent flyer
miles. Do you think the airlines are dumb enough to let you get away
with that one? Why should it be any different for a cell carrier?

--
Bill K

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:35:41 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:56:08 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:40:36 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
>>wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>What is reportedly happening is that when the "system" detects one is
>>>using a post-paid SIM plan in an pre-paid phone via its IMEI, the
>>>phone reports one is using an invalid SIM and will not make calls.
>>>This reportedly happens within 48 hours and when one calls to
>>>complain, CINGULAR reportedly tells people they can't use GoPhones
>>>with post-paid SIM/plans.
>>
>>You know this to be true, and not just another Internet rumor?
>
>No. I have not personally witnessed this, but it has been reported to
>be occuring via members at HowardForums:
>
> see <http://tinyurl.com/kn5gd>

Sorry, but I don't think that's much to go on.

>It's pretty easy and cheap to verify for the doubters -- by getting a
>cheap GoPhone. The IMEI apparently has to be entered in the system
>for Cingular to disallow its use with post-paid plans/SIMs, so if you
>can somehow avoid that from happening, you may be OK.

So what happened?

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

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:06:12 -0400, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>There are all kinds of stringent criminal, federal, state, local tax laws
>associated with Luxury items. Without having to waste time to research and
>confirm this for your sake, cell phone classification of luxury item
>provides the a justification for service contracts to exist. In other
>words, you can't fight it because cell phone is still classified as a luxury
>item.
>
>Once the luxury classification is removed, service contracts will be harder
>to justify. ...

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. For example, apartments aren't
luxuries, yet we still have apartment leases.

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