Can someone help me! Cingular not living up to deal!

The link below may help; you probably just have to make sure the call
center you get to is a "blue" one, and the rep remembers the deal
you're talking about. Was it a matter of not extending your agreement
by another two years?

http://forums.attwireless.com/attws/...essage.id=9128


Ben wrote:
> Last January I signed up with an ATTws plan that stated if I
continued to be
> a customer in good standing, concurrent to my two year plan. I would
get a
> 'free phone' every year on the anniversary, January 5. I signed up
all four
> phones, I figured even if they are the cheapest phones going I could
resell
> them and buy what I wanted.
>
> Called (611), ATTws, Cingular answered and wouldn't honor the plan,
even
> though she acknowledged its existents, but asking if I could prove
it! When
> I said it had been on the website under my account and it wasn't
there
> anymore!
>
> Is there somewhere to go to get square treatment?

---

› See More: Can someone help me! Cingular not living up to deal!

"Ben" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Last January I signed up with an ATTws plan that stated if I continued to
> be a customer in good standing, concurrent to my two year plan. I would
> get a 'free phone' every year on the anniversary, January 5. I signed up
> all four phones, I figured even if they are the cheapest phones going I
> could resell them and buy what I wanted.
>
> Called (611), ATTws, Cingular answered and wouldn't honor the plan, even
> though she acknowledged its existents, but asking if I could prove it!
> When I said it had been on the website under my account and it wasn't
> there anymore!
>
> Is there somewhere to go to get square treatment?

Be prepared to fight. The BBS just brings it to the attention of "the
Office of the President." Don't give up find another place besides the O
of the P to register your complaint. Don't let them get away with it.

T
>
>
>
>
>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:50:00 -0600,
> "Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Not true -- the merged company (called Cingular) acquired both the
assets and
> >> the liabilities of the two separate companies, and is thus obligated to
honor
> >> promises made by ATTWS.
> >
> >Again. You really need to KNOW what you are talking about before posting.
> >Your reply is total and complete nonsense.
>
> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
>
> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
> goes out of business, what can I do?
>
> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
> usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
> obligations of the old company. ...
>
> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
>
>
<http://www.abanet.org/publiced/pract...uide/chapter_9
..pdf>



Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.



>
> >How do you function in life being this stupid.
>
> How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.



By being right.

--
SS

In article <[email protected]>,
"Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:50:00 -0600,
> > "Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >> Not true -- the merged company (called Cingular) acquired both the
> assets and
> > >> the liabilities of the two separate companies, and is thus obligated to
> honor
> > >> promises made by ATTWS.
> > >
> > >Again. You really need to KNOW what you are talking about before posting.
> > >Your reply is total and complete nonsense.
> >
> > You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
> >
> > Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
> > goes out of business, what can I do?
> >
> > A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
> > usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
> > obligations of the old company. ...
> >
> > The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
> >
> >
> <http://www.abanet.org/publiced/pract...uide/chapter_9
> .pdf>
>
>
>
> Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
>
>
>
> >
> > >How do you function in life being this stupid.
> >
> > How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.
>
>
>
> By being right.
>
> --
> SS
If Cingular is not honoring AT&TWS contracts, write a straightforward
nonjudgemental letter to your State's Attorney General, with a certified
copy to Cingular HQ in Atlanta.

With the link to the ATT free phone site, I now have my "proof", so Cingular
will honor the deal, now that I have paper proof.

Thanks to all that were helpful,
Ben

For me this thread is complete.

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>> >
>> > In <[email protected]> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:50:00 -0600,
>> > "Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > >> Not true -- the merged company (called Cingular) acquired both the
>> assets and
>> > >> the liabilities of the two separate companies, and is thus obligated
>> > >> to
>> honor
>> > >> promises made by ATTWS.
>> > >
>> > >Again. You really need to KNOW what you are talking about before
>> > >posting.
>> > >Your reply is total and complete nonsense.
>> >
>> > You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
>> >
>> > Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
>> > goes out of business, what can I do?
>> >
>> > A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
>> > usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
>> > obligations of the old company. ...
>> >
>> > The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
>> >
>> >
>> <http://www.abanet.org/publiced/pract...uide/chapter_9
>> .pdf>
>>
>>
>>
>> Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >How do you function in life being this stupid.
>> >
>> > How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.
>>
>>
>>
>> By being right.
>>
>> --
>> SS
> If Cingular is not honoring AT&TWS contracts, write a straightforward
> nonjudgemental letter to your State's Attorney General, with a certified
> copy to Cingular HQ in Atlanta.

Ben wrote:
> Last January I signed up with an ATTws plan that stated if I continued to be
> a customer in good standing, concurrent to my two year plan. I would get a
> 'free phone' every year on the anniversary, January 5. I signed up all four
> phones, I figured even if they are the cheapest phones going I could resell
> them and buy what I wanted.
>
> Called (611), ATTws, Cingular answered and wouldn't honor the plan, even
> though she acknowledged its existents, but asking if I could prove it! When
> I said it had been on the website under my account and it wasn't there
> anymore!
>
> Is there somewhere to go to get square treatment?

In case there are any future issues, docuement EVERYTHING, including but
not limited to:

- Number Called
- Start Time of Call
- Operator who answered (and any subsequent operators you may have been
transfered to)
- Any pertinent information
- End Time of Call
- Duration of Call

This will all help should anybody question you about information from
operators.

TH

In article <[email protected]>,
Tropical Haven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ben wrote:
> > Last January I signed up with an ATTws plan that stated if I continued to
> > be
> > a customer in good standing, concurrent to my two year plan. I would get a
> > 'free phone' every year on the anniversary, January 5. I signed up all four
> > phones, I figured even if they are the cheapest phones going I could resell
> > them and buy what I wanted.
> >
> > Called (611), ATTws, Cingular answered and wouldn't honor the plan, even
> > though she acknowledged its existents, but asking if I could prove it! When
> > I said it had been on the website under my account and it wasn't there
> > anymore!
> >
> > Is there somewhere to go to get square treatment?
>
> In case there are any future issues, docuement EVERYTHING, including but
> not limited to:
>
> - Number Called
> - Start Time of Call
> - Operator who answered (and any subsequent operators you may have been
> transfered to)

Operators sometimes must be FORCED to uniquely identify themselves.
(John in Tulsa is inadequate), they are required to uniquely identify
themselves upon request.

> - Any pertinent information
> - End Time of Call
> - Duration of Call
>
> This will all help should anybody question you about information from
> operators.
>
> TH

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tropical Haven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Operators sometimes must be FORCED to uniquely identify themselves.
> (John in Tulsa is inadequate), they are required to uniquely identify
> themselves upon request.

Where does this requirement come from? Who enforces it?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tsheer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tropical Haven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Operators sometimes must be FORCED to uniquely identify themselves.
> > (John in Tulsa is inadequate), they are required to uniquely identify
> > themselves upon request.
>
> Where does this requirement come from? Who enforces it?

Their employer

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:30:30 -0600,
"Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
>>
>> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
>> goes out of business, what can I do?
>>
>> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
>> usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
>> obligations of the old company. ...
>>
>> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
>>
><http://www.abanet.org/publiced/pract...uide/chapter_9
>.pdf>
>
>Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.

It actually is a merger, but even a complete buyout would be the same -- read
the citation more carefully.

>> >How do you function in life being this stupid.
>>
>> How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.
>
>By being right.

Since you've been shown to be wrong, the question remains.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:30:30 -0600,
> "Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
> >>
> >> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
> >> goes out of business, what can I do?
> >>
> >> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
> >> usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
> >> obligations of the old company. ...
> >>
> >> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
> >>
>
><http://www.abanet.org/publiced/pract...guide/chapter_
9
> >.pdf>
> >
> >Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
>
> It actually is a merger, but even a complete buyout would be the same --
read
> the citation more carefully.


That citation had nothing to do with the ATTWS buyout by Cingular. Just
because the networks are being merged doesn't mean the companies are.

You can do better right? Otherwise this just isn't any fun!


>
> >> >How do you function in life being this stupid.
> >>
> >> How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.
> >
> >By being right.
>
> Since you've been shown to be wrong, the question remains.
>

And when did YOU prove me wrong?

--
JJS

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jiu JitSuperfly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:30:30 -0600,
> > "Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
> > >>
> > >> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
> > >> goes out of business, what can I do?
> > >>
> > >> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
> > >> usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
> > >> obligations of the old company. ...
> > >>
> > >> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
> > >>
> >
> ><http://www.abanet.org/publiced/pract...guide/chapter_
> 9
> > >.pdf>
> > >
> > >Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
> >
> > It actually is a merger, but even a complete buyout would be the same --
> read
> > the citation more carefully.
>
>
> That citation had nothing to do with the ATTWS buyout by Cingular. Just
> because the networks are being merged doesn't mean the companies are.


duh - what do you think a buyout is.

>
> You can do better right? Otherwise this just isn't any fun!
>
>
> >
> > >> >How do you function in life being this stupid.
> > >>
> > >> How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.
> > >
> > >By being right.
> >
> > Since you've been shown to be wrong, the question remains.
> >
>
> And when did YOU prove me wrong?
>
> --
> JJS

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jiu JitSuperfly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> > >
> > > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005
09:30:30 -0600,
> > > "Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > >> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
> > > >>
> > > >> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company
that
> > > >> goes out of business, what can I do?
> > > >>
> > > >> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
> > > >> usually the new company must take responsibility for the
contract
> > > >> obligations of the old company. ...
> > > >>
> > > >> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
> > > >>
> > >
> >
><http://www.abanet.org/publiced/pract...guide/chapter_
> > 9
> > > >.pdf>
> > > >
> > > >Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
> > >
> > > It actually is a merger, but even a complete buyout would be the
same --
> > read
> > > the citation more carefully.
> >
> >
> > That citation had nothing to do with the ATTWS buyout by Cingular. Just
> > because the networks are being merged doesn't mean the companies are.
>
>
> duh - what do you think a buyout is.


Well it's not a merger, dumbass.

You really should think before you post.

--
JJS

>>>That citation had nothing to do with the ATTWS buyout by Cingular. Just
>>>because the networks are being merged doesn't mean the companies are.
>>
>>
>>duh - what do you think a buyout is.
>
>
>
> Well it's not a merger, dumbass.
>
> You really should think before you post.


I know it's been covered a little bit already in this thread, but it is
not a merger of companies. Cingular paid cash outright for AT&T
Wireless. Now, Cingular is going through a merger of physical assets
and operations it gained from the purchase of AT&T Wireless, with its
own already established network and operations. For most consumers who
may not understand what happened, it's just easier to call it a merger
of companies. But we know better.

TH

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:46:41 -0600, "Jiu
JitSuperfly" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:30:30 -0600,
>> "Shaolin Superfly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> You obviously don't understand mergers. Here's a start:
>> >>
>> >> Q. If I have a contract for services or goods with a company that
>> >> goes out of business, what can I do?
>> >>
>> >> A. If another firm bought the company, as in a corporate merger,
>> >> usually the new company must take responsibility for the contract
>> >> obligations of the old company. ...
>> >>
>> >> The American Bar Association Family Legal Guide
>> >>
>>
>><http://www.abanet.org/publiced/pract...guide/chapter_
>9
>> >.pdf>
>> >
>> >Because it wasn't a merger. It was a buyout. BIG difference.
>>
>> It actually is a merger, but even a complete buyout would be the same --
>read
>> the citation more carefully.
>
>
>That citation had nothing to do with the ATTWS buyout by Cingular. Just
>because the networks are being merged doesn't mean the companies are.
>
>You can do better right? Otherwise this just isn't any fun!

I don't have to do better, because this was a merger.

>> >> >How do you function in life being this stupid.
>> >>
>> >> How do you function in life being this ignorant, rude and nasty.
>> >
>> >By being right.
>>
>> Since you've been shown to be wrong, the question remains.
>>
>
>And when did YOU prove me wrong?

In all of these posts.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]