Customers file deception suit against Cingular

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>

---

› See More: Customers file deception suit against Cingular

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>

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 13:57:21 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

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

>> Cingular has no obligation to indefinitely continue whatever deal they
>> had with ATTWS,
>
>So John is saying that they are allowed to discriminate against these
>customers and not offer the same good faith to them as legacy Cingular
>customers enjoy. ...

What I'm actually saying is that they weren't discriminated against in
any way, and they weren't -- they got the same deals as legacy Cingular
customers (and new customers).

>> and they were free to seek a better deal from some other
>> carrier.
>
>Which they have done and will continue to do- the churn numbers are about to
>go back up and they are weeks away from being recognized as the
>second-largest carrier.

Churn is actually down.

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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:44:07 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> So John is saying that they are allowed to discriminate against these
>> customers and not offer the same good faith to them as legacy Cingular
>> customers enjoy. His pathetic support of this angle is that he never refers
>> to them as Cingular customers, which they have been for quite a while now.
>
>I don't think that he understands the basis of the lawsuit. The claims
>by the plaintiffs are at
>"http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/fs/?postId=6539"

You should read it yourself. I have, which is how I know that your
posts misstate the allegations in the suit.

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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:03:22 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>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.

That's not how jury selection works. You obviously need to learn about
the process. Jurors can be excluded without the use of preemptory
challenges.

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

John Navas wrote:
>
> What I'm actually saying:

You're about the only person I've noticed on Usenet that regularly has
to use that phrase. Ever wonder why that is?


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

Pure genius. What's yer next revelation John? "If not for being inmates,
they were free to leave without penalty."

<snip the oft-repeated, unsubstantiated, drivel>


--
Mike

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

when you post something like that i am forced to conclude that you
are willfully dishonest or obstinately ignorant.

james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> when you post something like that i am forced to conclude that you
> are willfully dishonest or obstinately ignorant.

Or both.

AT&T customers were definitely coerced (or deceived) into switching, I
personally know of three instances of this happening. Whether it was
deception or coercion is splitting hairs, the lawsuit says it was
deception, and maybe deception is actually the more correct description.

Where he got the idea that AT&T customers, that were under contract,
could leave without paying the termination fee, we'll never know.

It's actually amusing to see Cingular's PR machine in action (the real
one, not Navas's). Every time there is a lawsuit, and every time a new
independent survey comes out, the stock Cingular response is to talk
about how many billions of dollars they are spending to improve their
network, as if that makes everything they did to their customers okay.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 13:57:21 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Cingular has no obligation to indefinitely continue whatever deal they
>>> had with ATTWS,
>>
>>So John is saying that they are allowed to discriminate against these
>>customers and not offer the same good faith to them as legacy Cingular
>>customers enjoy. ...
>
> What I'm actually saying is that they weren't discriminated against in
> any way, and they weren't -- they got the same deals as legacy Cingular
> customers (and new customers).

And you failed to actually respond to the post- how unusual. Try again.


>
>>> and they were free to seek a better deal from some other
>>> carrier.
>>
>>Which they have done and will continue to do- the churn numbers are about
>>to
>>go back up and they are weeks away from being recognized as the
>>second-largest carrier.
>
> Churn is actually down.
>

One quarter does not indicate a pattern.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:03:22 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>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.
>
> That's not how jury selection works. You obviously need to learn about
> the process. Jurors can be excluded without the use of preemptory
> challenges.

Hey John- where di you get your legal degree from?

Scott wrote:

> Hey John- where di you get your legal degree from?

What he doesn't understand is that a judge isn't going to allow a
plaintiff's or defendant's lawyer to exclude a juror for cause, when the
only "cause" is that they are a wireless customer of Cingular, or a
wireless customer in general.

So the lawyer will have to use their few peremptory challenges very
carefully.

Obviously he's not a lawyer, as he doesn't even know that it's
"peremptory" not "preemptory."

It's all immaterial, as we all know that this will be settled out of
court, the only question now is for how much.

The lawsuit is seeking $15 million (triple the alleged damages). Not
sure if this includes the legal fees or not. Since Cingular has said
that it spent nearly USD 10 billion to integrate and improve its
networks over 21 months since the merger was completed, the $15 million
is a trivial amount for them to pay out to settle this.

SMS wrote:

> Can you imagine trying to choose a jury for a case like this? They'd
> have to choose jurors that were never an AT&T Wireless or Cingular
> customer.

Here I am. But I'm way biased against AT&T/SBC anyhow, so I'd not be a good
juror.

> Given Sprint's customer service ratings, Sprint customers would probably
> be rejected by the defense as well.
>
> It's be a jury of Verizon customers, which might be good, as they tend
> to be the smartest people.

WTF?? I don't like the implications of that statement...

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

SMS wrote:

> 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.

This is an uncharacteristically obnoxious post from you, and a stupid one to
boot. It ignores the fact that all carriers DO have a certain number of
satisfied customers. So people happy with carriers other than Verizon are
morons? I guess that makes me a moron, since I got tired of VZW's network
problems a couple years ago and am currently with T-Mobile. I'll go put my
dunce cap on and sit in the corner now.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Steve Sobol wrote:

> This is an uncharacteristically obnoxious post from you, and a stupid one to
> boot.

Sarcasm doesn't come across well on Usenet. Sorry.