Roaming Charge Dispute While in St. George Utah - Anyone Else?

I just got my Cingular bill which included $158 in roaming charges
while I was in St. George, Utah for a week last month. Problem is
that I called Cingular before I left Southern California to verify
that I would be not subject to roaming charges on my cell phone plan.
I was told by their customer representative that as far as she could
tell I wouldn't be subject to roaming charges while in St. George.
She referred me to their web site to check the coverage map. The map:
http://onlinestoree.cingular.com/htm.../region_ca.htm
clearly shows St. George as part of my coverage area. Anyway, my bill
shows roaming charges incurred for the following areas: Interstate 15,
UT, Richfield, UT, and Salt Lake City. Granted, my hotel was less a
mile from I-15 in St. George (I shouldn't have been charged for those
anyway), but Richfield is 167 miles from St. George while Salt Lake
City is more that 300 miles. Problem is that I didn't venture
anywhere close to Richfield let alone Salt Lake City Another problem
with my bill is that it doesn't show any roaming changes in St. George
even though all but one of my calls were either made or received while
I was in the city limits of St. George.

I've just spend an hour and a half trying to explain the problem to a
Cingular customer service rep and an "Escalation Specialist". They
first told me that my plan didn't cover St. George. When I told them
of my call to Cingular before leaving to verify coverage, and gave
them the URL above, they backed off on my coverage area. The
Escalation Specialist then said that my bill should have shown roaming
changes from St. George if what I am claiming is true. From his
tone, it sounded like he didn't believe me as to where I made and
received the calls. I then asked him if it was possible that there
could have been a problem with Cingular's bill system and/or how and
where the roaming charges were incurred. The length of time it took
him to respond said more than his words. I then pointed out two
specific calls made within two minutes of each other; one using a
tower somewhere along I-15 and the other using a tower near Salt Lake.
It would have been a physical impossibility for me to make those calls
using those towers within the span of two minutes. He said he didn't
know specifically where each of those towers were located, but I'd
give odds that they are at least 300 miles apart. I have hotel and
other receipts, witnesses and even photos to backup my claim but that
didn't make any difference to them.

I could probably go back to them and take them up on their offer to
reduce the roaming changes by 50% but to me that just in not right.
At this point I plan to file a written formal complaint with Cingular,
the FCC and the state regulatory authorities here in California. But
before I do --

QUESTON - Has anyone else experienced similar problems with Cingular
roaming charges, especially in St. George, Utah?

---

› See More: Roaming Charge Dispute While in St. George Utah - Anyone Else?

I'm seeing less & less roaming areas with Cingular, so I'm surprised you got
charged so close to I-15. The only help I can offer is that if you were
roaming on Cellular One, most of their sites in S. UT would show as being
through Richfield, regardless of where the call was made.

But your problem isn't where the roaming charges occurred, but Cingular's
reaction to the problem, after you were told you won't get roaming charges
there. Try a few more calls, but don't spend as much time, just see if you
can get a more knowledgable or sympathetic ear. Normal agents can't issue
more than a certain amount of credit, so they weren't offering 50%, they
were offering the maximum they could.

If you get no further, ask for a number at executive services. If not, get
the address. In the days of email, a real LETTER has a big impact. I would
not pay the roaming charges. You could involve small claims courts, but I
would just drop Cingular. Don't pay the charges, don't pay the ETF, and if
they threaten you with a bad credit report, you'll counter that you get to
explain your side of the story there, too, and no one will care. But let's
hope it doesn't get to that.

This is like a theft and you need to pursue all avenues before you get your
money back. Squeaky wheels that write the newspaper, call all the numbers
on Cingular's 'About us' page, the consumer reporters and the attorney
general will also get attention. Sometimes it's not worth it. if you want
to keep Cingular, you may just pay the half charges and chalk it up to
experience. But I always get satisfaction by being persistant...but don't
just try one avenue.


Bill Radio
Click for Western U.S. Wireless Reviews at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com





"C5Ya" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I just got my Cingular bill which included $158 in roaming charges
> while I was in St. George, Utah for a week last month. Problem is
> that I called Cingular before I left Southern California to verify
> that I would be not subject to roaming charges on my cell phone plan.
> I was told by their customer representative that as far as she could
> tell I wouldn't be subject to roaming charges while in St. George.
> She referred me to their web site to check the coverage map. The map:
>
http://onlinestoree.cingular.com/htm.../region_ca.htm
> clearly shows St. George as part of my coverage area. Anyway, my bill
> shows roaming charges incurred for the following areas: Interstate 15,
> UT, Richfield, UT, and Salt Lake City. Granted, my hotel was less a
> mile from I-15 in St. George (I shouldn't have been charged for those
> anyway), but Richfield is 167 miles from St. George while Salt Lake
> City is more that 300 miles. Problem is that I didn't venture
> anywhere close to Richfield let alone Salt Lake City Another problem
> with my bill is that it doesn't show any roaming changes in St. George
> even though all but one of my calls were either made or received while
> I was in the city limits of St. George.
>
> I've just spend an hour and a half trying to explain the problem to a
> Cingular customer service rep and an "Escalation Specialist". They
> first told me that my plan didn't cover St. George. When I told them
> of my call to Cingular before leaving to verify coverage, and gave
> them the URL above, they backed off on my coverage area. The
> Escalation Specialist then said that my bill should have shown roaming
> changes from St. George if what I am claiming is true. From his
> tone, it sounded like he didn't believe me as to where I made and
> received the calls. I then asked him if it was possible that there
> could have been a problem with Cingular's bill system and/or how and
> where the roaming charges were incurred. The length of time it took
> him to respond said more than his words. I then pointed out two
> specific calls made within two minutes of each other; one using a
> tower somewhere along I-15 and the other using a tower near Salt Lake.
> It would have been a physical impossibility for me to make those calls
> using those towers within the span of two minutes. He said he didn't
> know specifically where each of those towers were located, but I'd
> give odds that they are at least 300 miles apart. I have hotel and
> other receipts, witnesses and even photos to backup my claim but that
> didn't make any difference to them.
>
> I could probably go back to them and take them up on their offer to
> reduce the roaming changes by 50% but to me that just in not right.
> At this point I plan to file a written formal complaint with Cingular,
> the FCC and the state regulatory authorities here in California. But
> before I do --
>
> QUESTON - Has anyone else experienced similar problems with Cingular
> roaming charges, especially in St. George, Utah?
>

C5Ya wrote:

>I just got my Cingular bill which included $158 in roaming charges
>while I was in St. George, Utah for a week last month. Problem is
>that I called Cingular before I left Southern California to verify
>that I would be not subject to roaming charges on my cell phone plan.
>I was told by their customer representative that as far as she could
>tell I wouldn't be subject to roaming charges while in St. George.
>She referred me to their web site to check the coverage map. The map:
>http://onlinestoree.cingular.com/htm.../region_ca.htm
>clearly shows St. George as part of my coverage area. Anyway, my bill
>shows roaming charges incurred for the following areas: Interstate 15,
>UT, Richfield, UT, and Salt Lake City. Granted, my hotel was less a
>mile from I-15 in St. George (I shouldn't have been charged for those
>anyway), but Richfield is 167 miles from St. George while Salt Lake
>City is more that 300 miles. Problem is that I didn't venture
>anywhere close to Richfield let alone Salt Lake City Another problem
>with my bill is that it doesn't show any roaming changes in St. George
>even though all but one of my calls were either made or received while
>I was in the city limits of St. George.
>
>I've just spend an hour and a half trying to explain the problem to a
>Cingular customer service rep and an "Escalation Specialist". They
>first told me that my plan didn't cover St. George. When I told them
>of my call to Cingular before leaving to verify coverage, and gave
>them the URL above, they backed off on my coverage area. The
>Escalation Specialist then said that my bill should have shown roaming
>changes from St. George if what I am claiming is true. From his
>tone, it sounded like he didn't believe me as to where I made and
>received the calls. I then asked him if it was possible that there
>could have been a problem with Cingular's bill system and/or how and
>where the roaming charges were incurred. The length of time it took
>him to respond said more than his words. I then pointed out two
>specific calls made within two minutes of each other; one using a
>tower somewhere along I-15 and the other using a tower near Salt Lake.
>It would have been a physical impossibility for me to make those calls
>using those towers within the span of two minutes. He said he didn't
>know specifically where each of those towers were located, but I'd
>give odds that they are at least 300 miles apart. I have hotel and
>other receipts, witnesses and even photos to backup my claim but that
>didn't make any difference to them.
>
>I could probably go back to them and take them up on their offer to
>reduce the roaming changes by 50% but to me that just in not right.
>At this point I plan to file a written formal complaint with Cingular,
>the FCC and the state regulatory authorities here in California. But
>before I do --
>
>QUESTON - Has anyone else experienced similar problems with Cingular
>roaming charges, especially in St. George, Utah?
>
>
>
I had some roaming problems in North Dakota. I was normally roaming on
Western Wireless Cellular One TDMA, but when they switched on GSM, my
phone picked that up. Western Wireless (now a part of Alltel) does not
sell GSM services directly to consumers, but only roaming services to
other providers. When my bill came, it was close to $400 when it was
normally about $50. I called them, and told them where I was, they did
some research and found that they were in fact covered by my plan. The
problem was that the WW Cellular One system wasn't linked to a preferred
roaming list, so the charges automatically came up as "roaming". The
rep tried to follow the roaming system link to see that the roaming
system no longer existed, but more research found the GSM roaming
partner in North Dakota to be WW C1. I think it may have been a problem
with WWC1, as they were registering thier system for the first time.
That was in 2003. If you were in fact roaming on the same company, it
may be possible that the same thing happened. In my situation, Cingular
promptly removed the roaming charges.

As for showing where the towers are located, it doesn't show the
location of tower, but the area of the system. So, if you picked up
something registered to Salt Lake City with a preferred roamer, it
would not register as part of your regional plan, however, that system
may still have coverage in a particular area.

TH

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:09:27 -0400, Tropical Haven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>C5Ya wrote:
>
>>I just got my Cingular bill which included $158 in roaming charges
>>while I was in St. George, Utah for a week last month. Problem is
>>that I called Cingular before I left Southern California to verify
>>that I would be not subject to roaming charges on my cell phone plan.
>>I was told by their customer representative that as far as she could
>>tell I wouldn't be subject to roaming charges while in St. George.
>>She referred me to their web site to check the coverage map. The map:
>>http://onlinestoree.cingular.com/htm.../region_ca.htm
>>clearly shows St. George as part of my coverage area. Anyway, my bill
>>shows roaming charges incurred for the following areas: Interstate 15,
>>UT, Richfield, UT, and Salt Lake City. Granted, my hotel was less a
>>mile from I-15 in St. George (I shouldn't have been charged for those
>>anyway), but Richfield is 167 miles from St. George while Salt Lake
>>City is more that 300 miles. Problem is that I didn't venture
>>anywhere close to Richfield let alone Salt Lake City Another problem
>>with my bill is that it doesn't show any roaming changes in St. George
>>even though all but one of my calls were either made or received while
>>I was in the city limits of St. George.
>>
>>I've just spend an hour and a half trying to explain the problem to a
>>Cingular customer service rep and an "Escalation Specialist". They
>>first told me that my plan didn't cover St. George. When I told them
>>of my call to Cingular before leaving to verify coverage, and gave
>>them the URL above, they backed off on my coverage area. The
>>Escalation Specialist then said that my bill should have shown roaming
>>changes from St. George if what I am claiming is true. From his
>>tone, it sounded like he didn't believe me as to where I made and
>>received the calls. I then asked him if it was possible that there
>>could have been a problem with Cingular's bill system and/or how and
>>where the roaming charges were incurred. The length of time it took
>>him to respond said more than his words. I then pointed out two
>>specific calls made within two minutes of each other; one using a
>>tower somewhere along I-15 and the other using a tower near Salt Lake.
>>It would have been a physical impossibility for me to make those calls
>>using those towers within the span of two minutes. He said he didn't
>>know specifically where each of those towers were located, but I'd
>>give odds that they are at least 300 miles apart. I have hotel and
>>other receipts, witnesses and even photos to backup my claim but that
>>didn't make any difference to them.
>>
>>I could probably go back to them and take them up on their offer to
>>reduce the roaming changes by 50% but to me that just in not right.
>>At this point I plan to file a written formal complaint with Cingular,
>>the FCC and the state regulatory authorities here in California. But
>>before I do --
>>
>>QUESTON - Has anyone else experienced similar problems with Cingular
>>roaming charges, especially in St. George, Utah?
>>
>>
>>
>I had some roaming problems in North Dakota. I was normally roaming on
>Western Wireless Cellular One TDMA, but when they switched on GSM, my
>phone picked that up. Western Wireless (now a part of Alltel) does not
>sell GSM services directly to consumers, but only roaming services to
>other providers. When my bill came, it was close to $400 when it was
>normally about $50. I called them, and told them where I was, they did
>some research and found that they were in fact covered by my plan. The
>problem was that the WW Cellular One system wasn't linked to a preferred
>roaming list, so the charges automatically came up as "roaming". The
>rep tried to follow the roaming system link to see that the roaming
>system no longer existed, but more research found the GSM roaming
>partner in North Dakota to be WW C1. I think it may have been a problem
>with WWC1, as they were registering thier system for the first time.
>That was in 2003. If you were in fact roaming on the same company, it
>may be possible that the same thing happened. In my situation, Cingular
>promptly removed the roaming charges.
>
>As for showing where the towers are located, it doesn't show the
>location of tower, but the area of the system. So, if you picked up
>something registered to Salt Lake City with a preferred roamer, it
>would not register as part of your regional plan, however, that system
>may still have coverage in a particular area.
>
>TH

This is only a regional plan issue right?

Are there any possible roaming charges on national gsm plans?

I'm not counting international roaming.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:34:51 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:09:27 -0400, Tropical Haven <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>C5Ya wrote:
>>
>>>I just got my Cingular bill which included $158 in roaming charges
>>>while I was in St. George, Utah for a week last month. Problem is
>>>that I called Cingular before I left Southern California to verify
>>>that I would be not subject to roaming charges on my cell phone plan.
>>>I was told by their customer representative that as far as she could
>>>tell I wouldn't be subject to roaming charges while in St. George.
>>>She referred me to their web site to check the coverage map. The map:
>>>http://onlinestoree.cingular.com/htm.../region_ca.htm
>>>clearly shows St. George as part of my coverage area. Anyway, my bill
>>>shows roaming charges incurred for the following areas: Interstate 15,
>>>UT, Richfield, UT, and Salt Lake City. Granted, my hotel was less a
>>>mile from I-15 in St. George (I shouldn't have been charged for those
>>>anyway), but Richfield is 167 miles from St. George while Salt Lake
>>>City is more that 300 miles. Problem is that I didn't venture
>>>anywhere close to Richfield let alone Salt Lake City Another problem
>>>with my bill is that it doesn't show any roaming changes in St. George
>>>even though all but one of my calls were either made or received while
>>>I was in the city limits of St. George.
>>>
>>>I've just spend an hour and a half trying to explain the problem to a
>>>Cingular customer service rep and an "Escalation Specialist". They
>>>first told me that my plan didn't cover St. George. When I told them
>>>of my call to Cingular before leaving to verify coverage, and gave
>>>them the URL above, they backed off on my coverage area. The
>>>Escalation Specialist then said that my bill should have shown roaming
>>>changes from St. George if what I am claiming is true. From his
>>>tone, it sounded like he didn't believe me as to where I made and
>>>received the calls. I then asked him if it was possible that there
>>>could have been a problem with Cingular's bill system and/or how and
>>>where the roaming charges were incurred. The length of time it took
>>>him to respond said more than his words. I then pointed out two
>>>specific calls made within two minutes of each other; one using a
>>>tower somewhere along I-15 and the other using a tower near Salt Lake.
>>>It would have been a physical impossibility for me to make those calls
>>>using those towers within the span of two minutes. He said he didn't
>>>know specifically where each of those towers were located, but I'd
>>>give odds that they are at least 300 miles apart. I have hotel and
>>>other receipts, witnesses and even photos to backup my claim but that
>>>didn't make any difference to them.
>>>
>>>I could probably go back to them and take them up on their offer to
>>>reduce the roaming changes by 50% but to me that just in not right.
>>>At this point I plan to file a written formal complaint with Cingular,
>>>the FCC and the state regulatory authorities here in California. But
>>>before I do --
>>>
>>>QUESTON - Has anyone else experienced similar problems with Cingular
>>>roaming charges, especially in St. George, Utah?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I had some roaming problems in North Dakota. I was normally roaming on
>>Western Wireless Cellular One TDMA, but when they switched on GSM, my
>>phone picked that up. Western Wireless (now a part of Alltel) does not
>>sell GSM services directly to consumers, but only roaming services to
>>other providers. When my bill came, it was close to $400 when it was
>>normally about $50. I called them, and told them where I was, they did
>>some research and found that they were in fact covered by my plan. The
>>problem was that the WW Cellular One system wasn't linked to a preferred
>>roaming list, so the charges automatically came up as "roaming". The
>>rep tried to follow the roaming system link to see that the roaming
>>system no longer existed, but more research found the GSM roaming
>>partner in North Dakota to be WW C1. I think it may have been a problem
>>with WWC1, as they were registering thier system for the first time.
>>That was in 2003. If you were in fact roaming on the same company, it
>>may be possible that the same thing happened. In my situation, Cingular
>>promptly removed the roaming charges.
>>
>>As for showing where the towers are located, it doesn't show the
>>location of tower, but the area of the system. So, if you picked up
>>something registered to Salt Lake City with a preferred roamer, it
>>would not register as part of your regional plan, however, that system
>>may still have coverage in a particular area.
>>
>>TH
>
>This is only a regional plan issue right?
>
>Are there any possible roaming charges on national gsm plans?
>
>I'm not counting international roaming.

It is a regional plan.

I called Cingular again today about another problem I've had accessing
their website. Anyway, after I attempting to fix this problem I told
the service rep about my problem with the roaming charges. I was able
to talk her into telling me what comments the esclatation specialist
had made regarding my conversation with them last night. It looks like
they are circling their wagons because the esclatation specialist
conclude that the roaming charges very "valid" and that my plan only
included California as my regional calling area. However, they also
had a record of a my contact with Cingular the week before I left for
Utah. Unfortunatley, it looks like that customer rep only recorded
that the conversation was about "equipment" and apparently didn't put
down anything about my questions about roaming charges in Utah, trying
to confirm my service area, nor the service area map on their website
I was directed to. It looks like the person I origionally talked to
before leaving for Utah screwed up and now they want me to pay for
their mistake. The whole purpose of my origional call was to avoid
and/or minimize roaming charges in the first place. Unfortunatley,
its looking more and more like I'm getting screwed.

>
>
>>I had some roaming problems in North Dakota. I was normally roaming on
>>Western Wireless Cellular One TDMA, but when they switched on GSM, my
>>phone picked that up. Western Wireless (now a part of Alltel) does not
>>sell GSM services directly to consumers, but only roaming services to
>>other providers. When my bill came, it was close to $400 when it was
>>normally about $50. I called them, and told them where I was, they did
>>some research and found that they were in fact covered by my plan. The
>>problem was that the WW Cellular One system wasn't linked to a preferred
>>roaming list, so the charges automatically came up as "roaming". The
>>rep tried to follow the roaming system link to see that the roaming
>>system no longer existed, but more research found the GSM roaming
>>partner in North Dakota to be WW C1. I think it may have been a problem
>>with WWC1, as they were registering thier system for the first time.
>>That was in 2003. If you were in fact roaming on the same company, it
>>may be possible that the same thing happened. In my situation, Cingular
>>promptly removed the roaming charges.
>>
>>As for showing where the towers are located, it doesn't show the
>>location of tower, but the area of the system. So, if you picked up
>>something registered to Salt Lake City with a preferred roamer, it
>>would not register as part of your regional plan, however, that system
>>may still have coverage in a particular area.
>>
>>TH
>>
>>
>
>This is only a regional plan issue right?
>
>Are there any possible roaming charges on national gsm plans?
>
>I'm not counting international roaming.
>
>
>
My plan was a Cingular Preferred Nation TDMA plan, but I had a GAIT
phone, and it needed a SIM to function, and they gave me the coverage of
Cingular Nation GSM along with it. I remember driving in a US roaming
area, and my phone picked up the Canadian systems instead of Verizon
Wireless, and my bill contained roaming charges for unanswered call sent
to voicemail, but those charges were credited as well.

TH

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:41:20 -0400, Tropical Haven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My plan was a Cingular Preferred Nation TDMA plan, but I had a GAIT
>phone, and it needed a SIM to function, and they gave me the coverage of
>Cingular Nation GSM along with it. I remember driving in a US roaming
>area, and my phone picked up the Canadian systems instead of Verizon
>Wireless, and my bill contained roaming charges for unanswered call sent
>to voicemail, but those charges were credited as well.
>
>TH

What kind of phone uses both TDMA and GSM? I didn't know there was
such an animal. Our Cellular phones are strictly GSM, and we have
never had a roaming charge anywhere in the U.S. Looks like a good
reason to dump TDMA if you are going to be on Cingular.

Dick

In article <[email protected]>, Dick
<LeadWinger> says...
>
> What kind of phone uses both TDMA and GSM? I didn't know there was
> such an animal. Our Cellular phones are strictly GSM, and we have
> never had a roaming charge anywhere in the U.S. Looks like a good
> reason to dump TDMA if you are going to be on Cingular.
>
> Dick
>
GAIT phones have/had it all--GSM, TDMA and AMPS. All two of them--the
Nokia 6340i and the Sony Ericsson T62U--neither are currently being
offered. Originally on a GAIT plan made for them and later as a GAIT
"feature" on a normal GSM plan. Still the ONLY way to actually get true
National (or Regional) coverage on Cingular since there are still
large--and I do mean LARGE--areas away from the metroplexes that have
NOT converted to GSM (or are GSM only for testing). If they turn off
GAIT support before those areas in Texas are converted I'm going to be
forced to have two phones--one for the big cities and another from one
of the TDMA rural carriers--not something I'm looking forward to.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:08:33 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Dick
><LeadWinger> says...
>>
>> What kind of phone uses both TDMA and GSM? I didn't know there was
>> such an animal. Our Cellular phones are strictly GSM, and we have
>> never had a roaming charge anywhere in the U.S. Looks like a good
>> reason to dump TDMA if you are going to be on Cingular.
>>
>> Dick
>>
>GAIT phones have/had it all--GSM, TDMA and AMPS. All two of them--the
>Nokia 6340i and the Sony Ericsson T62U--neither are currently being
>offered. Originally on a GAIT plan made for them and later as a GAIT
>"feature" on a normal GSM plan. Still the ONLY way to actually get true
>National (or Regional) coverage on Cingular since there are still
>large--and I do mean LARGE--areas away from the metroplexes that have
>NOT converted to GSM (or are GSM only for testing). If they turn off
>GAIT support before those areas in Texas are converted I'm going to be
>forced to have two phones--one for the big cities and another from one
>of the TDMA rural carriers--not something I'm looking forward to.

Thanks for the clarification. That's one reason I was very reluctant
to give up my Verizon plan which covered the entire U.S. using
anyone's towers without any roaming charges. They don't offer that
plan anymore. I have had pretty good luck with Cingular GSM, at least
in the western states and Canada. They could use better coverage in
the wide-open spaces.

Dick

I would not be too quick to buy a tdma phone. You may soon find there
is no tdma anywhere.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I would not be too quick to buy a tdma phone. You may soon find there
> is no tdma anywhere.
>
"When" there's no TDMA "anywhere" then we won't have the problem will
we? Reality is that many rural carriers won't be GSM "soon" enough to
avoid lack of service for Cingular users if they drop GAIT support.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

[email protected] wrote:

> This is only a regional plan issue right?
>
> Are there any possible roaming charges on national gsm plans?


In theory, no. However, when asking about the details about my plan
while I was trying Cingular, I was told (without prompting): "and if
ever roaming charges show up on your bill, just call up customer care
and they'll take the charges right off."

Hearing this wasn't very encouraging to me, and one of the reasons why I
didn't continue service with Cingular. You're not SUPPOSED to get
charged for roaming on a National plan, but evidently is does happen
from time to time anyway. And past experience has taught me that it's a
lot harder to get a charge removed once applied, than a salesperson will
claim it to be.

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

Dick wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:41:20 -0400, Tropical Haven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>My plan was a Cingular Preferred Nation TDMA plan, but I had a GAIT
>>phone, and it needed a SIM to function, and they gave me the coverage of
>>Cingular Nation GSM along with it. I remember driving in a US roaming
>>area, and my phone picked up the Canadian systems instead of Verizon
>>Wireless, and my bill contained roaming charges for unanswered call sent
>>to voicemail, but those charges were credited as well.
>>
>>TH
>
>
> What kind of phone uses both TDMA and GSM?

A GAIT phone. It can do TDMA, GSM and AMPS. GAIT phones were a stopgap
measure that AT&T and Cingular used while building out the GSM network.


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

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 25 Aug 2005 03:55:14
GMT, C5Ya <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>http://onlinestoree.cingular.com/htm.../region_ca.htm

>>>>At this point I plan to file a written formal complaint with Cingular,
>>>>the FCC and the state regulatory authorities here in California. But
>>>>before I do --

>It is a regional plan.
>
>I called Cingular again today about another problem I've had accessing
>their website. Anyway, after I attempting to fix this problem I told
>the service rep about my problem with the roaming charges. I was able
>to talk her into telling me what comments the esclatation specialist
>had made regarding my conversation with them last night. It looks like
>they are circling their wagons because the esclatation specialist
>conclude that the roaming charges very "valid" and that my plan only
>included California as my regional calling area. However, they also
>had a record of a my contact with Cingular the week before I left for
>Utah. Unfortunatley, it looks like that customer rep only recorded
>that the conversation was about "equipment" and apparently didn't put
>down anything about my questions about roaming charges in Utah, trying
>to confirm my service area, nor the service area map on their website
>I was directed to. It looks like the person I origionally talked to
>before leaving for Utah screwed up and now they want me to pay for
>their mistake. The whole purpose of my origional call was to avoid
>and/or minimize roaming charges in the first place. Unfortunatley,
>its looking more and more like I'm getting screwed.

I'd say the map is quite clear. I'd refuse to pay any roaming charges, and
also back that up with a complaint to the BBB. The key with Cingular Customer
Care is getting to someone with sufficient authority to help you, which the
standard phone reps just don't have. Ask for "Escalation" or (better yet) the
"Office of the President."

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