Cingular Pink-Slips Customers Who Travel Too Much

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:00:13
-0500, "Iopsy" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>Right, Cingular admits less than 1% have breached their contract by
>violating the 50% clause.

Citation?

>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.

P&L.

>The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk
>scaring off potential new customers and making existing ones nervious.
>...

There will always be a certain amount of bad press no matter how a business is
run, and some of the most successful businesses have a relatively high level
of bad press. Think WalMart.

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

---

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

Per Iopsy:
>The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk
>scaring off potential new customers

It seems to be working on me...
--
PeteCresswell

Iopsy wrote:

> 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.

Wireless companies are used to getting away with very little bad press
in most media because they spend so much on advertising. It has to be
either a very big story, or one with a very good human interest angle,
in order to be published. You can bet that Cingular never dreamed that
such a story would be published, and that the newspaper responsible for
publishing it will not see any Cingular advertising dollars for a while.

"mc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newsu%[email protected]...
>>>>>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.
>
>

They have a monopoly. It is the same few companies, and their terms are
about the same.

Harry wrote:
> 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 recently ran into a simular issue. I was offshore in the Gulf of
Mexico. I was showing a strong "Cingular Extend" signal. My question
was: am I roaming (paying extra) or not? I called 611 on my cell phone
to find out. I asked the person who answered, and he said he didn't
know, but he could transfer me to Cingular. I asked: who is this? He
replied: Petrocom. I ended the call there. I later called 611 when I
had "Cingular" on my display, but since it was the weekend, I could not
reach a real person. While searching on the internet for an answer, I
found the following post in this forum:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...14bdb69256696f

Scott Thompson wrote:
> Why do the new Cingular contracts exclude Petrocom (Gulf of Mexico) in their
> nationwide "no roaming" plans? The old contracts did not charge roaming
> when using a Petrocom tower, now the new contracts exclude Petrocom and
> Cingular charges a $0.79 per minute roaming charge even though your phone
> does not indicate you are roaming. All that is displayed is "Cingular
> Extended".

Today I called 611 again and spoke with a customer service
representative to verify if I would be paying roaming charges in the
above scenerio. The customer service rep could not answer! She said I
could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular
would treat the call. Yeah right.

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

In <gnjUf.8668$vy.7274@trnddc01> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:31:56 GMT, "Jeremy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"mc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>newsu%[email protected]...
>>>>>>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.
>
>They have a monopoly. It is the same few companies, and their terms are
>about the same.

There is no monopoly in cellular, which is intensely competitive.

--
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 <[email protected]> on 22 Mar 2006
17:19:13 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Harry wrote:
>> 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 recently ran into a simular issue. I was offshore in the Gulf of
>Mexico. I was showing a strong "Cingular Extend" signal. My question
>was: am I roaming (paying extra) or not? I called 611 on my cell phone
>to find out. I asked the person who answered, and he said he didn't
>know, but he could transfer me to Cingular. I asked: who is this? He
>replied: Petrocom. I ended the call there. I later called 611 when I
>had "Cingular" on my display, but since it was the weekend, I could not
>reach a real person. While searching on the internet for an answer, I
>found the following post in this forum:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...14bdb69256696f
>
>Scott Thompson wrote:
>> Why do the new Cingular contracts exclude Petrocom (Gulf of Mexico) in their
>> nationwide "no roaming" plans? The old contracts did not charge roaming
>> when using a Petrocom tower, now the new contracts exclude Petrocom and
>> Cingular charges a $0.79 per minute roaming charge even though your phone
>> does not indicate you are roaming. All that is displayed is "Cingular
>> Extended".
>
>Today I called 611 again and spoke with a customer service
>representative to verify if I would be paying roaming charges in the
>above scenerio. The customer service rep could not answer! She said I
>could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular
>would treat the call. Yeah right.

Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage?

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

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>
>
>>Right, Cingular admits that only 1% have breached their contract by
>>violating the 50% clause.
>
> Citation?

John, if you had read the article all the way through you wouldn't be asking
that.
--
Cordially, Iopsy

why dont they just try to run an honest business...

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:26:43 -0500,
"Iopsy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Right, Cingular admits that only 1% have breached their contract by
>>>violating the 50% clause.
>>
>> Citation?
>
>John, if you had read the article all the way through you wouldn't be asking
>that.

Nasty comment -- how nice.

What that article actually says:

A company spokeswoman also said customers like Pat, who use mainly other
networks, make up about 1% of Cingular’s 54 million customers.

Nothing there about "breach" or "violate".

In other words, your interpretation, not what it actually says.

--
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 <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006
22:43:46 -0600, [email protected] (Paula Thomson) wrote:

> why dont they just try to run an honest business...

What actual evidence of dishonesty do you have?

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> One day you'll learn to read, Navas. Until then, you'll keep
> entertaining us with your sad attempts at sticking your head in the sand
> and making that the real world.

Careful, that might win you the Lord Vaders "hard on for Navas" award.

John Navas wrote:
> Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage?

Unlike airplanes, you can use a cellphone on a boat. Lot of Gulf Coast
oil rigs use cellular.

John Navas wrote:
> Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage?

I didn't really. Why do you think I called 611 first? To make sure I
wouldn't see any roaming charges on my bill. I have been caught by
Petrocom in the past, when I had AT&T wireless (TDMA and AMPS). I
have even incurred Petrocom charges with AT&T while making calls from
places like Galveston; where you might get a land signal or an offshore
signal. In addition, my coworkers have incurred Petrocom charges with
other carriers. Hence my caution. BTW, none of my coworkers currently
use Cingular.

The other thing is that the display shows "Cingular Extend". What does
this mean? If it showed "Roaming", I would have no doubt. In the
other areas I have been, I have not seen "Cingular Extend" or "Roaming"
on my display.

"GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Harry wrote:
>> 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 recently ran into a simular issue. I was offshore in the Gulf of
> Mexico. I was showing a strong "Cingular Extend" signal. My question
> was: am I roaming (paying extra) or not? I called 611 on my cell phone
> to find out. I asked the person who answered, and he said he didn't
> know, but he could transfer me to Cingular. I asked: who is this? He
> replied: Petrocom. I ended the call there. I later called 611 when I
> had "Cingular" on my display, but since it was the weekend, I could not
> reach a real person. While searching on the internet for an answer, I
> found the following post in this forum:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...14bdb69256696f
>
> Scott Thompson wrote:
>> Why do the new Cingular contracts exclude Petrocom (Gulf of Mexico) in
>> their
>> nationwide "no roaming" plans? The old contracts did not charge roaming
>> when using a Petrocom tower, now the new contracts exclude Petrocom and
>> Cingular charges a $0.79 per minute roaming charge even though your phone
>> does not indicate you are roaming. All that is displayed is "Cingular
>> Extended".
>
> Today I called 611 again and spoke with a customer service
> representative to verify if I would be paying roaming charges in the
> above scenerio. The customer service rep could not answer! She said I
> could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular
> would treat the call. Yeah right.
>

Transfer over to Sprint. You can set your phone not to roam off the Sprint
PCS Network, anytime you want.