Article: Cell firms keep tight hold on users

Old news but with a new, WLNP angle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGE73RJCN1.DTL

Cell firms keep tight hold on users
Critics say tactics keep millions from switching carriers
Todd Wallack, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, December 22, 2003

The nation's largest wireless phone companies are employing
controversial tactics to prevent customers from changing carriers,
despite new federal rules designed to make it easier for people to
switch, contend consumer groups and class-action lawyers.

Starting last month, the Federal Communications Commission ordered
carriers to let customers keep their phone number when they switch
providers. So far, hundreds of thousands of customers have switched, but
critics say phone companies are using other tricks to deter millions
more customers from switching, such as:

-- Locking customers into increasingly lengthy contracts and forcing
customers to pay hundreds of dollars in "early termination fees" if they
cancel early.

-- Rigging customers' handsets so they can't be used with another
carrier. That forces customers who want to switch to buy a new phone and
painstakingly re-enter all their phone contacts.

<snip>

--
Frank Harris in San Francisco with an A620

Frank Harris <frankbhX@xcompuservex.com> wrote:

> The nation's largest wireless phone companies are employing
> controversial tactics to prevent customers from changing carriers,
> despite new federal rules designed to make it easier for people to
> switch, contend consumer groups and class-action lawyers.
>
> -- Locking customers into increasingly lengthy contracts and forcing
> customers to pay hundreds of dollars in "early termination fees" if they
> cancel early.
>
> -- Rigging customers' handsets so they can't be used with another
> carrier. That forces customers who want to switch to buy a new phone and
> painstakingly re-enter all their phone contacts.

What a piece of crap this article is: This stuff wasn't just started to
prevent people from switching due to WLNP, it has been around for years.

The author is, at best, ill-informed and/or ignorant.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Geek In Charge * 888.480.4NET (4638) * sjsobol@JustThe.net

"Frank Harris" <frankbhX@XcompuserveX.com> wrote in message
news:bs6v40$osu$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> Old news but with a new, WLNP angle:
>
>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGE73RJCN1.DTL
>
> Cell firms keep tight hold on users
> Critics say tactics keep millions from switching carriers
> Todd Wallack, Chronicle Staff Writer
> Monday, December 22, 2003
>
> The nation's largest wireless phone companies are employing
> controversial tactics to prevent customers from changing carriers,
> despite new federal rules designed to make it easier for people to
> switch, contend consumer groups and class-action lawyers.
>
> Starting last month, the Federal Communications Commission ordered
> carriers to let customers keep their phone number when they switch
> providers. So far, hundreds of thousands of customers have switched, but
> critics say phone companies are using other tricks to deter millions
> more customers from switching, such as:
>
> -- Locking customers into increasingly lengthy contracts and forcing
> customers to pay hundreds of dollars in "early termination fees" if they
> cancel early.
>
> -- Rigging customers' handsets so they can't be used with another
> carrier. That forces customers who want to switch to buy a new phone and
> painstakingly re-enter all their phone contacts.
>
> <snip>

This article is so tainted, it's just plain silly. Using words like trick,
rigging, captive, hush hush and so on. Customers a bit more informed than
what the article's author would allow ... It just may be that the reporter
is the clueless one here.

He doesn't breakout which carriers offer plans with no contracts, or
differences on what those carriers offer to their customers.

It's very generalized and barely mentions the differences in protocols
(CDMA, TDMA, GSM, Analog), and doesn't even mention IDEN, even though he
mentions NEXTEL as one of the defendants. Also doesn't mention how carriers
are suppose to activate phone models which aren't carried or serviced by
other carriers, or that the phones operate with different software ...

Bob

Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
>> carrier. That forces customers who want to switch to buy a new phone and
>> painstakingly re-enter all their phone contacts.
>
> What a piece of crap this article is: This stuff wasn't just started to
> prevent people from switching due to WLNP, it has been around for years.
>
> The author is, at best, ill-informed and/or ignorant.

Well, I e-mailed the author and got the reply back that he didn't mean
to imply that the policies were due to WLNP, so I'm willing to chalk it up
to him not being quite clear enough in the article, rather than him not knowing
what he's talking about. Happens to everyone once in a while.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Geek In Charge * 888.480.4NET (4638) * sjsobol@JustThe.net

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:L9mdnbzLKvPlj3qiRVn-uA@lmi.net...
> Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
> >> carrier. That forces customers who want to switch to buy a new phone
and
> >> painstakingly re-enter all their phone contacts.
> >
> > What a piece of crap this article is: This stuff wasn't just started to
> > prevent people from switching due to WLNP, it has been around for years.
> >
> > The author is, at best, ill-informed and/or ignorant.
>
> Well, I e-mailed the author and got the reply back that he didn't mean
> to imply that the policies were due to WLNP, so I'm willing to chalk it up
> to him not being quite clear enough in the article, rather than him not
knowing
> what he's talking about. Happens to everyone once in a while.

Yea, I copied Todd on the post I had on this thread. Seems like it may be a
Letter to the Editor candidate ... .

Bob

Steven J Sobol wrote:

>>The author is, at best, ill-informed and/or ignorant.
>
>
> Well, I e-mailed the author and got the reply back that he didn't mean
> to imply that the policies were due to WLNP, so I'm willing to chalk it up
> to him not being quite clear enough in the article, rather than him not knowing
> what he's talking about. Happens to everyone once in a while.


No, I've seen this happen before. And considering the article is pretty
clear that it tries to portray these tactics as "controversial," it's
more likely that this guy wanted a zinger of a story, and purposefully
made some "errors" of omission to make it so. When people e-mail him,
he's more than willing to backpedal in order to save face.

Must've been a slow news day.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:3ff6f24a$1@rutgers.edu...
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
>
> >>The author is, at best, ill-informed and/or ignorant.
> >
> >
> > Well, I e-mailed the author and got the reply back that he didn't mean
> > to imply that the policies were due to WLNP, so I'm willing to chalk it
up
> > to him not being quite clear enough in the article, rather than him not
knowing
> > what he's talking about. Happens to everyone once in a while.
>
>
> No, I've seen this happen before. And considering the article is pretty
> clear that it tries to portray these tactics as "controversial," it's
> more likely that this guy wanted a zinger of a story, and purposefully
> made some "errors" of omission to make it so. When people e-mail him,
> he's more than willing to backpedal in order to save face.
>
> Must've been a slow news day.

I guess it must have been ... I cc'ed him on the post I sent to the
newsgroup and he emailed me back within a few hours ...

"Thanks for the note. I thought the lawsuits and complaints were worth
reporting, especially since many consumers do not know that handsets are
locked so that they cannot be used with another carrier, even one that
markets the exact same phone. And, to my knowledge, the lawsuits in Alameda
County Superior Court had not been reported anywhere before. But of course,
there is debate about whether the tactics are legal or not. That's why I
quoted both both the carriers and the critics on the issue."

"I'm sorry if I didn't include as much technical detail as you would like.
Given that there are seven major national carriers, and I had limited time
and space, I tried to keep it simple. But I appreciate your thoughts.(By the
way, as you surely know, Nextel also uses GSM.)
In any case, I'd be happy to submit your letter for publication. I just need
your city."

"Thanks again for the thoughtful comments.
Best,
Todd"


Bob

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sACJb.22080$IM3.6163@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
> news:3ff6f24a$1@rutgers.edu...
> > Steven J Sobol wrote:
> >
> > >>The author is, at best, ill-informed and/or ignorant.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I e-mailed the author and got the reply back that he didn't mean
> > > to imply that the policies were due to WLNP, so I'm willing to chalk
it
> up
> > > to him not being quite clear enough in the article, rather than him
not
> knowing
> > > what he's talking about. Happens to everyone once in a while.
> >
> >
> > No, I've seen this happen before. And considering the article is pretty
> > clear that it tries to portray these tactics as "controversial," it's
> > more likely that this guy wanted a zinger of a story, and purposefully
> > made some "errors" of omission to make it so. When people e-mail him,
> > he's more than willing to backpedal in order to save face.
> >
> > Must've been a slow news day.
>
> I guess it must have been ... I cc'ed him on the post I sent to the
> newsgroup and he emailed me back within a few hours ...
>
> "Thanks for the note. I thought the lawsuits and complaints were worth
> reporting, especially since many consumers do not know that handsets are
> locked so that they cannot be used with another carrier, even one that
> markets the exact same phone. And, to my knowledge, the lawsuits in
Alameda
> County Superior Court had not been reported anywhere before. But of
course,
> there is debate about whether the tactics are legal or not. That's why I
> quoted both both the carriers and the critics on the issue."
>
> "I'm sorry if I didn't include as much technical detail as you would like.
> Given that there are seven major national carriers, and I had limited time
> and space, I tried to keep it simple. But I appreciate your thoughts.(By
the
> way, as you surely know, Nextel also uses GSM.)
> In any case, I'd be happy to submit your letter for publication. I just
need
> your city."


Um, what is this author smoking? Nextel uses GSM? I'd love to see that.

In article <1MOJb.5814$MQ7.1998
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, Terry=20
Knabtk@nospam4meknab.org says...
> Um, what is this author smoking? Nextel uses GSM? I'd love to see that.
>=20
>=20

LOL. But it *is* a form of TDMA, isn't it?

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.