Cingular Pink-Slips Customers Who Travel Too Much

>>>>I can not trust Cingular.
>>>
>>>What makes you think you can "trust" any company?
>>
>>Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not.
>
> Trusting any company is dangerously naive.

If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy.
Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted.

---

› See More: Cingular Pink-Slips Customers Who Travel Too Much

>> It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand
>> him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him.
>
> The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more
> revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an
> alternate approach to excessive roaming.
>
> Why don't they just alert the customer, and charge extra when the customer
> exceeds the 50% limit? Are they concerned that putting this into the
> contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive as they
> claim?

A lot of companies just don't seem to know how to make money. It comes from
confusing economic competition (which means offering people a choice) with
things like athletic competition (defeating your adversary). As soon as you
view the customer as someone to be outwitted and defeated, you put yourself
into a very weak position. The customers, as a group, have all the power.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:12:00 UTC, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

> mc wrote:
> > "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_invest...556035,00.html
> >
> >> It has been my understanding that the "50% roaming" rule is a standard
> >> component of any nationwide service contract with all wireless carriers.
> >
> > Reading the wxyztv.com report, it sounds like the catch is that this
> > customer didn't *know* he was roaming onto another carrier's network. He
> > paid for nationwide service and his phone worked, and that's all he knew.
> > Roaming is not something he did voluntarily.
> >
> > It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand
> > him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him.
>
> The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more
> revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an
> alternate approach to excessive roaming.
>
> Why don't they just alert the customer, and charge extra when the
> customer exceeds the 50% limit? Are they concerned that putting this
> into the contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive
> as they claim?

It may not help if, at least every 3 months, you don't get into an
area.

But it would seem that, if you get plenty of weekend minutes, one
weekend a month using 800 or so minutes while in a Cingular area would
go a long ways towards making 50% of your time on Cingular's service.
Of course, it is by using even MORE Cingular service.

Of course, you have to be sure that you are truly in a Cingular area
if you do this.

My reading of the terms is 50% of total usage over a 3 month period.
Not going over 50% for each of 3 consecutive months.

--

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:52:43 UTC, Harry <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:22:45 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Iopsy wrote:
> >> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article
> >> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's
> >> your take?
> >>
> >> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_invest...556035,00.html
> >
> >He knew when he signed up that the roaming was limited to 50%. Sprint
> >used to have a similar clause, not sure if they still do. His best bet
> >is to sign up with Verizon, since the roaming onto their extended
> >network is not limited. He'll have more coverage than he did before, and
> >if he gets a tri-mode phone he'll have _far_ more coverage than he did
> >with Cingular.
> >
> >Companies have the right to not sell to unprofitable customers. Look at
> >what Cingular is doing to the AT&T Wireless customers that had
> >sweetheart calling plans at low rates.
>
> Cingular advertises the "all-over" network.
>
> Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which
> areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no
> such thing.
>
> I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every
> call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says
> Cingular on it. Even though some calls on my bill are marked follow me
> roaming.
>
> So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or
> not.
>
> I have had Cingular service for a year now. I have never had a call
> dropped on my end. I have never had a bad experience with customer
> service. The call quality on my phone is excellent.
>
> Never the less I may well change carriers at the end of my contract.
>
> WHY? In following discussion about Cingular I note that in every
> single case they choose the method best for them even if it hurts the
> customer. And make no pretense about doing otherwise.
>
> Although I don't think I am affected by this change of theirs why
> should I trust them in the future. Maybe I am roaming and just don't
> know it.
>
> I can not trust Cingular.
>

I admit I wasn't aware of the 50% rule until I read it on the
newsgroups. It is in the middle of a large amount of small print. I
couldn't even find it on Cingular's site until I went to google and
searched.

My year with Sprint was the first time I really had nationwide roaming
without roaming charges, and I wouldn't want to go back to paying
$.69/minute for roaming. In the past, I did only because with the
plans then, the regional plans had enough extra minutes vs the
national plans that it was still cheaper.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:20:05 UTC, "Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Harry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:22:45 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Iopsy wrote:
> >>> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This
> >>> article
> >>> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much.
> >>> What's
> >>> your take?
> >>>
> >>> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_invest...556035,00.html
> >>
> >>He knew when he signed up that the roaming was limited to 50%. Sprint
> >>used to have a similar clause, not sure if they still do. His best bet
> >>is to sign up with Verizon, since the roaming onto their extended
> >>network is not limited. He'll have more coverage than he did before, and
> >>if he gets a tri-mode phone he'll have _far_ more coverage than he did
> >>with Cingular.
> >>
> >>Companies have the right to not sell to unprofitable customers. Look at
> >>what Cingular is doing to the AT&T Wireless customers that had
> >>sweetheart calling plans at low rates.
> >
> > Cingular advertises the "all-over" network.
> >
> > Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which
> > areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no
> > such thing.
> >
> > I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every
> > call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says
> > Cingular on it. Even though some calls on my bill are marked follow me
> > roaming.
> >
> > So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or
> > not.
> >
> > I have had Cingular service for a year now. I have never had a call
> > dropped on my end. I have never had a bad experience with customer
> > service. The call quality on my phone is excellent.
> >
> > Never the less I may well change carriers at the end of my contract.
> >
> > WHY? In following discussion about Cingular I note that in every
> > single case they choose the method best for them even if it hurts the
> > customer. And make no pretense about doing otherwise.
> >
> > Although I don't think I am affected by this change of theirs why
> > should I trust them in the future. Maybe I am roaming and just don't
> > know it.
> >
> > I can not trust Cingular.
> >
>
> When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a
> setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS
> network--something I never could do with my old TDMA phones.
>
> There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call
> Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming
> calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming
> situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the
> user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to
> inform the user that this call is not an on-network call.
>
> At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about
> whether to roam or not.
>
>


When I had Sprint, the phone only had the option to enable roaming, or
not. No third option was available. When, after the first month, I
had an extra $30 in roaming charges for calls made from my home, I
just disabled roaming. If they had had better coverage where I lived,
it wouldn't have been necessary, and I would probably still have the
service.

At the time, there was an option for an extra $5/month to allow the
roaming to be free.

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

In <wx%[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:00:35
-0500, "mc" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand
>>> him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him.
>>
>> The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more
>> revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an
>> alternate approach to excessive roaming.
>>
>> Why don't they just alert the customer, and charge extra when the customer
>> exceeds the 50% limit? Are they concerned that putting this into the
>> contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive as they
>> claim?
>
>A lot of companies just don't seem to know how to make money. It comes from
>confusing economic competition (which means offering people a choice) with
>things like athletic competition (defeating your adversary). As soon as you
>view the customer as someone to be outwitted and defeated, you put yourself
>into a very weak position. The customers, as a group, have all the power.

With all due respect, that's a shortsighted view that doesn't work terribly
well in practice. There is indeed real competition between companies.

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

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

In <pu%[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:57:16
-0500, "mc" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>I can not trust Cingular.
>>>>
>>>>What makes you think you can "trust" any company?
>>>
>>>Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not.
>>
>> Trusting any company is dangerously naive.
>
>If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy.

A company can be trustworthy but still act in its own interest, which may well
not be the same as the interest of the consumer.

>Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted.

That's a big leap. The interests of the company and the customer don't always
coincide. For example, companies try to maximize profit, whereas customers
try to minimize price. That tension is an essential part of the free market
mechanism. Companies that give away the store to please customers tend to go
out of business, as in the case of AT&T Wireless.

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

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 03:36:26 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Companies that give away the store to please customers tend to go
>out of business, as in the case of AT&T Wireless.

AT&T wireless didn't go out of business because they were "giving away
the store" you ****ing idiot.

If your going to post crap to YOUR group, you should at least post
factual statements.
--
Littleguy

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:57:16 -0500, "mc"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>I can not trust Cingular.
>>>>
>>>>What makes you think you can "trust" any company?
>>>
>>>Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not.
>>
>> Trusting any company is dangerously naive.
>
>If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy.
>Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted.

Most, not all are in business and make a profit by pleasing the many.
Not the few.

It's a volume thing. Think McDonalds-
--
Littleguy

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:41:16 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Harry wrote:
>> Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which
>> areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no
>> such thing.
>
>That could present a reasonable and obvious expectation of "in network
>coverage" to the point it could dilute Cingular's effort to drop anyone
>for excessive roaming. A possible similarity to a "bait and switch" scheme

Have you or anybody you know ever signed up for NetFlex? Sign up for
there 3 at a time package and you'll get 3 alright, just not the "hot
ones".
--
Littleguy

>>A lot of companies just don't seem to know how to make money. It comes
>>from
>>confusing economic competition (which means offering people a choice) with
>>things like athletic competition (defeating your adversary). As soon as
>>you
>>view the customer as someone to be outwitted and defeated, you put
>>yourself
>>into a very weak position. The customers, as a group, have all the power.
>
> With all due respect, that's a shortsighted view that doesn't work
> terribly
> well in practice. There is indeed real competition between companies.

Well... I would think that if it doesn't work in practice, it's too
longsighted rather than too shortsighted. Anyhow, I conflated 2 points and
didn't express myself too clearly. Real competition between companies is a
good thing. Viewing the customer as an adversary is not. Real competition
between companies gives the customer more choices and more power.

You seem to view all companies as adversaries. Are you a Marxist?

Cingular is not doing anything to the ex-att customers. It is att
that went out of business on them. What good does it do a company to
charge rates too low to stay in business?

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:12:08
-0500, "mc" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>>A lot of companies just don't seem to know how to make money. It comes
>>>from
>>>confusing economic competition (which means offering people a choice) with
>>>things like athletic competition (defeating your adversary). As soon as
>>>you
>>>view the customer as someone to be outwitted and defeated, you put
>>>yourself
>>>into a very weak position. The customers, as a group, have all the power.
>>
>> With all due respect, that's a shortsighted view that doesn't work
>> terribly
>> well in practice. There is indeed real competition between companies.
>
>Well... I would think that if it doesn't work in practice, it's too
>longsighted rather than too shortsighted. Anyhow, I conflated 2 points and
>didn't express myself too clearly. Real competition between companies is a
>good thing. Viewing the customer as an adversary is not.

Agreed.

>Real competition
>between companies gives the customer more choices and more power.

Not necessarily -- competition between companies can occur in other ways. For
example, one company might compete by developing a patenting a process that it
might then refuse to license to competitors, but that it might not actually
use itself.

>You seem to view all companies as adversaries. Are you a Marxist?

No. Do you always libel those with different points of view?

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

> Perhaps. More likely that it's confusing to most customers. The
> percentage
> affected is probably very small.
> Best regards, John Navas


Right, Cingular admits less than 1% have breached their contract by
violating the 50% clause. Since only a relatively few customers are
involved, why not just let it go rather than ignominiously terminating
these people and risking the bad publicity over an issue involving nickels
and dimes. The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk
scaring off potential new customers and making existing ones nervious. Why
not try an experiment -- print out the article, blank out Cingular's name,
and show it to people and ask them how it makes feel about this nameless
carrier. Ask them if this info would make them shop all the harder for an
alternative to this carrier. Between the lot us we could quickly and
cheaply pull of a national sample survey -- albeit non-random. Even so,
it would an impressive piece of marketing research because of the geogrpahic
spread and, if lots of us join in, sample size as well. It would also be
one of few instances of newgroups engaging in empiricism rather than just
rationalism In other words, instead of trying to reason out how many teeth
are in a horses mouth, we will count them and find out once and for all.
--Iopsy .

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

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:57:26
-0800, Littleguy <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:57:16 -0500, "mc"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>>>I can not trust Cingular.
>>>>>
>>>>>What makes you think you can "trust" any company?
>>>>
>>>>Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not.
>>>
>>> Trusting any company is dangerously naive.
>>
>>If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy.
>>Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted.
>
>Most, not all are in business and make a profit by pleasing the many.
>Not the few.
>
>It's a volume thing. Think McDonalds-

True for some companies, but not for all companies -- many companies choose to
make a profit by pleasing the few. Think Rolex.

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