NYT article on customer service centers for wireless carriers

"http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060304/ZNYT05/603040359/1011"

---

› See More: NYT article on customer service centers for wireless carriers

subdude wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:35:14 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> graced us with:
>
>> "http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060304/ZNYT05/603040359/1011"
>
> Thanks Steve, this backs up your earlier posting that they "all suck
> in their own unique ways"...I had to laugh at that one!
>
> subdude

I had to laugh when I first read that article, and read the line "Ms.
Ferrari, 41, a saleswoman for a home security company in the San
Francisco Bay Area, dropped Cingular in 2002 after having a problem
first with dropped calls and then with customer service."

I could just picture Navas screaming, "rubbish, baloney, not true, etc."

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060304/ZNYT05/603040359/1011"

I noted that the CSRs are required to keep call times down--apparently that
is Cingular's first priority, not that of satisfying their customers.

Judging from the tone of the article, it appears that Cingular is more
oriented toward going through the motions rather than really keeping the
customers satisfied. I read not long ago that Cingular's #1 complaint made
by customers to the FCC is their tactic of strong-arming customers into
accepting more expensive rate plans. That certainly was my experience.

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbc...ZNYT05/6030403
> 59/1011

ineresting.

Tinman wrote:

> Forget about Ms. Ferrari (though it was good for a laugh), look at what
> Cingular themselves said! Good God, didn't they realize they should have
> run that by Navas first?!

Yes, I was also surprised at the frankness of Mr. Carter.

Jeremy wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060304/ZNYT05/603040359/1011"
>
> I noted that the CSRs are required to keep call times down--apparently that
> is Cingular's first priority, not that of satisfying their customers.
>
> Judging from the tone of the article, it appears that Cingular is more
> oriented toward going through the motions rather than really keeping the
> customers satisfied. I read not long ago that Cingular's #1 complaint made
> by customers to the FCC is their tactic of strong-arming customers into
> accepting more expensive rate plans. That certainly was my experience.

I was surprised when I got a letter from Verizon one day, that stated
"your plan is too big for you." They had noticed that I never used 400
minutes, and 300 minutes would be sufficient, they switched me with no
contract extension. Now I understand that they'll switch you, but you
get your contract restarted from the time of the switch.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:440c8fda$0$95952
>
> I was surprised when I got a letter from Verizon one day, that stated
> "your plan is too big for you." They had noticed that I never used 400
> minutes, and 300 minutes would be sufficient, they switched me with no
> contract extension. Now I understand that they'll switch you, but you get
> your contract restarted from the time of the switch.

Do they give their customers the option of switching, or do they just take
it upon themselves to "assume" that the contract extension is OK?

Jeremy wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:440c8fda$0$95952
>> I was surprised when I got a letter from Verizon one day, that stated
>> "your plan is too big for you." They had noticed that I never used 400
>> minutes, and 300 minutes would be sufficient, they switched me with no
>> contract extension. Now I understand that they'll switch you, but you get
>> your contract restarted from the time of the switch.
>
> Do they give their customers the option of switching, or do they just take
> it upon themselves to "assume" that the contract extension is OK?

They suggest it, they don't just do it.

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

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:39:08
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeremy wrote:
>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060304/ZNYT05/603040359/1011"
>>
>> I noted that the CSRs are required to keep call times down--apparently that
>> is Cingular's first priority, not that of satisfying their customers.
>>
>> Judging from the tone of the article, it appears that Cingular is more
>> oriented toward going through the motions rather than really keeping the
>> customers satisfied. I read not long ago that Cingular's #1 complaint made
>> by customers to the FCC is their tactic of strong-arming customers into
>> accepting more expensive rate plans. That certainly was my experience.
>
>I was surprised when I got a letter from Verizon one day, that stated
>"your plan is too big for you." They had noticed that I never used 400
>minutes, and 300 minutes would be sufficient, they switched me with no
>contract extension. Now I understand that they'll switch you, but you
>get your contract restarted from the time of the switch.

In other words, it isn't at all altruistic, and is less beneficial to the
customer than Cingular, which allows you to switch rate plans without a
contract extension.

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

VZW allows customers to downgrade (as do most carriers) without a
contract extension.


> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 06 Mar 2006
> 11:39:08 -0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jeremy wrote:
>>> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060304/ZNYT05/603040359/1011"
>>>
>>> I noted that the CSRs are required to keep call times
>>> down--apparently that is Cingular's first priority, not that of
>>> satisfying their customers.
>>>
>>> Judging from the tone of the article, it appears that Cingular is
>>> more oriented toward going through the motions rather than really
>>> keeping the customers satisfied. I read not long ago that
>>> Cingular's #1 complaint made by customers to the FCC is their
>>> tactic of strong-arming customers into accepting more expensive
>>> rate plans. That certainly was my experience.
>>
>> I was surprised when I got a letter from Verizon one day, that stated
>> "your plan is too big for you." They had noticed that I never used
>> 400 minutes, and 300 minutes would be sufficient, they switched me
>> with no contract extension. Now I understand that they'll switch
>> you, but you get your contract restarted from the time of the switch.
>
> In other words, it isn't at all altruistic, and is less beneficial to
> the customer than Cingular, which allows you to switch rate plans
> without a contract extension.

BruceR wrote:
> VZW allows customers to downgrade (as do most carriers) without a
> contract extension.

I thought that I just recently saw some change in terms which changed
that policy, so that a change in the number of minutes reset the
contract time.

Somewhere around Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:03:54 GMT, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "BruceR"
<[email protected]>:

>VZW allows customers to downgrade (as do most carriers) without a
>contract extension.
>
Cingular allow you to make any changes that don't require a new, subsidized
phone without a contract extension.
--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Somewhere around Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:53:25 GMT, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "Jeremy"
<[email protected]>:

>
>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "http://www.gadsdentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060304/ZNYT05/603040359/1011"
>
>I noted that the CSRs are required to keep call times down--apparently that
>is Cingular's first priority, not that of satisfying their customers.
>
There was certainly nothing in that article that implied that.

I've never gotten the feeling that the CSRs at Cingular were trying to get
rid of me when I've called. They always ask if there are any other
questions or problems before ending the call. And if there are, they ask
again after answering that one.

Also, I wouldn't take this article as gospel - Gadsden is a very small town
in Alabama, not exactly the epitome of bigtime journalism.

--
Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Marty wrote:

> Also, I wouldn't take this article as gospel - Gadsden is a very small town
> in Alabama, not exactly the epitome of bigtime journalism.

It was a NYT article, reprinted in that paper. I used that link, because
the NYT site requires registration.

SMS wrote:
> I could just picture Navas screaming, "rubbish, baloney, not true, etc."

And "I have seen no credible evidence.."