Customers file deception suit against Cingular

"DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SMS wrote:
>> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
>>> Free to move? Yes.
>>
>> But not free to move for free.
>
> What I meant was, they had a freedom of choice to make their own person
> decision...no one was holding a g*n to their head to stay.

NO...just a contract

---

› See More: Customers file deception suit against Cingular

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:41:09 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A fair settlement might be:
>>
>> a) refund any transfer fees paid by the subscriber.
>>
>> b) refund the cost of handsets paid by the subscriber, within reason (a
>> full refund if the handset from Cingular had roughly the same
>> capabilities as the AT&T handset, and a partial refund if the subscriber
>> upgraded to a more fully-featured handset).
>>
>> c) refund the difference between the AT&T calling plan and the Cingular
>> calling plan, if the plans had roughly the same number of minutes, or
>> were the mininum plan available. Thus refund could be limited to the
>> number of months that the subscriber was under contract.
>>
>> d) lawyer fees.
>
>How about simply letting me out of my Cingular contract with no early
>termination fees, such that I'm now free--literally--to move to another
>carrier?

You had that right during the trial period -- you weren't forced to
continue. Since you didn't exercise that right, you were presumably
satisfied, and short of a significant deterioration in service since
then, it's now too late to have a valid complaint. You're not "free" to
move to another carrier since you got a hefty discount (subsidy) on your
phone(s) in return for the term contract.

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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:33:32 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues,
>
>[Insert any defective product issue] did not affect most people, but
>that did not dilute the seriousness of the issue.
>
>> all customers were free to move to another carrier
>
>Free to move? Yes.
>
>Free as in not having to enjoy the same rate plan or
>another commitment. No.

Cingular has no obligation to indefinitely continue whatever deal they
had with ATTWS, and they were free to seek a better deal from some other
carrier. And the degradation in D-AMPS ("TDMA") was started and
substantially completed by ATTWS, not Cingular. There is no real issue
here. That's presumably why the complaint had to be based on alleged
"deception" rather than conduct.

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

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:54:14 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues,
>>
>> [Insert any defective product issue] did not affect most people, but
>> that did not dilute the seriousness of the issue.
>
>Fortunately, it isn't necessary for the "great majority" of users of a
>product or service to have issues in order to get relief, it just takes
>a sizable minority.

It actually takes a valid class, which has yet to be proven in court.

>>> all customers were free to move to another carrier
>>
>> Free to move? Yes.
>
>But not free to move for free. That's one of the major points of the
>lawsuit, the AT&T subscribers were being held to their contracts, being
>forced to change to a less capable network, having to pay both transfer
>fees and for new handsets, and having to get a new contract.

That's not what's alleged in the lawsuit, and isn't what actually
happened -- ATTWS customers, if not free to continue their ATTWS
contracts, had the choice of migration to Cingular GSM or termination
without penalty. There was no coercion, which is presumably why the
lawsuit has to rely on alleged "deception."

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

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 05:40:41 -0400, "PC Medic" <[email protected]> wrote in
<s4Lrg.6745$nK.6548@dukeread05>:

>"DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> SMS wrote:
>>> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>>
>>>> Free to move? Yes.
>>>
>>> But not free to move for free.
>>
>> What I meant was, they had a freedom of choice to make their own person
>> decision...no one was holding a g*n to their head to stay.
>
>NO...just a contract

There was no contract issue:

1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.

2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
or given a choice of:

(a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or

(b) Termination without penalty.

In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
free to cancel service without penalty.

This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."

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

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:04:02 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues, and
>> all customers were free to move to another carrier
>
>on the contrary, they were *not* free to move to another carrier,
>which is the basis for the lawsuit; the one you defended apparently
>without researching it.

Actually they were free to move to another carrier:

1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.

2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
or given a choice of:

(a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or

(b) Termination without penalty.

In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
free to cancel service without penalty.

This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."

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

In article <[email protected]>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues, and
> > > all customers were free to move to another carrier
> >
> > on the contrary, they were *not* free to move to another carrier,
> > which is the basis for the lawsuit; the one you defended apparently
> > without researching it.
>
> "...the one you defended apparently without researching it."
>
> Ah, the John Navas trademark.

cingular will, of course, settle and not risk the court case.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:04:02 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues, and
> >> all customers were free to move to another carrier
> >
> >on the contrary, they were *not* free to move to another carrier,
> >which is the basis for the lawsuit; the one you defended apparently
> >without researching it.
>
> Actually they were free to move to another carrier:
>
> 1. If not under ATTWS contract, they were free to leave without penalty.
>
> 2. If under ATTWS contract, they were either free to keep that contract,
> or given a choice of:
>
> (a) Migration to Cingular GSM, or
>
> (b) Termination without penalty.
>
> In the case of 2(a), the trial period applies, during which they were
> free to cancel service without penalty.
>
> This wasn't a case of being forced to migrate to Cingular, which is
> presumably why the lawsuit has to be based on alleged "deception."


the lawsuit which they will settle, because they know they are
guilty, despite your transparent attempt to deceive.

as you have been told by me and others, they were not free to move to
another character and many were deceived into migrating to cingular.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A fair settlement might be:
>>
>> a) refund any transfer fees paid by the subscriber.
>>
>> b) refund the cost of handsets paid by the subscriber, within reason (a
>> full refund if the handset from Cingular had roughly the same
>> capabilities as the AT&T handset, and a partial refund if the subscriber
>> upgraded to a more fully-featured handset).
>>
>> c) refund the difference between the AT&T calling plan and the Cingular
>> calling plan, if the plans had roughly the same number of minutes, or
>> were the mininum plan available. Thus refund could be limited to the
>> number of months that the subscriber was under contract.
>>
>> d) lawyer fees.
>
> How about simply letting me out of my Cingular contract with no early
> termination fees, such that I'm now free--literally--to move to another
> carrier?

By now, most AT&T customers that were coerced into a Cingular contract
should be about done with their contracts, but yes, e) Eliminating the
termination fee for former AT&T customers that wish to terminate their
contract, and refunding the cost of handsets (perhaps on a pro-rated basis).

John Navas answered:
>
> That's not what's alleged in the lawsuit, and isn't what actually
> happened -- ATTWS customers, if not free to continue their ATTWS
> contracts, had the choice of migration to Cingular GSM or termination
> without penalty.

You're so full of ****. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your ass.

--
Ernie
<The man on the hill with a mountainous load in his shorts>

Bottom line Johnny boy was I wanted to see how you'd spin this and the CA decisions.

A California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for imposing cancellation fees without an
adequate trial period to test the network AND Cingular was ORDERED refund up to $10 million to customers, some of whom
paid hundreds of dollars to cancel their contracts.

Bada bing - bada BOOM!!!

You remind me of the Black Knight in Python's Holy Grail....

[the Black Knight continues to threaten Arthur despite getting both his arms and one of his legs cut off]
Black Knight: Right, I'll do you for that!
King Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
King Arthur: ...You're a loony.

[King Arthur has just cut the Black Knight's last leg off]
Black Knight: Okay, we'll call it a draw.
King Arthur: [Preparing to leave] Come, Patsy.
[King Arthur and Patsy ride off]
Black Knight: [calling after King Arthur] Oh! Had enough, eh? Come back and take what's coming to you, you yellow
bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!

Totally defeated and helpless, he still continues to fight and flail...


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:05:11 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>RNess wrote:
>
>>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>>> Actually they were. Anyone that didn't want to migrate was let out of
>>>> contract.
>>>
>>> NO!!! They also faced a fee for terminating their AT&T contracts -- as much as $175.
>>
>>Navas is well aware that AT&T customers were not being let out of their
>>contracts without an ETF.
>
> I'm actually well aware that ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were given the
> choice of migrating to Cingular or terminating without penalty.
>
>>They weren't being forced to move to Cingular,
>>but they were strong-armed in many cases, with false claims of better
>>coverage.
>
> Coverage and performance of GSM is superior in general to D-AMPS
> ("TDMA").
>
>>You have to realize, that most cellular subscribers are not familiar
>>with the intricacies of the different network technologies, and can be
>>convinced by a Cingular salesperson, or a Cingular dealer's salesperson,
>>that they should switch phones or switch networks. Someone with a
>>TDMA/AMPS phone that switched to GSM, would definitely have noticed a
>>big decrease in coverage, especially in the time-frame covered by the
>>lawsuit.
>
> They had the right to cancel without penalty within the trial period.
> If they didn't do so, then presumably they were satisfied. Cingular
> isn't responsible for customer choices.
>
>>> Last week, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for signing up customers
>>> too
>>> fast and for imposing cancellation fees without an adequate trial period to test the network. California regulators
>>> accused the company of knowingly signing up more customers than its network could handle.
>
> It was simply a matter of not having a trial period, an issue that's
> long since been resolved, and irrelevant in this context.
>
>>I had Cingular back then. They had some very good rate plans, and were
>>signing up a lot of new customers. "Network busy, please try later" was
>>a common problem at peak times.
>
> It was actually a rare problem.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Ernie & Eythl wrote:

> You're so full of ****. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
> and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
> pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your ass.

This is correct. I had three relatives on AT&T Wireless, and none were
offered to terminate their service without the termination fee. They all
waited out their contracts and then switched to other carriers, rather
than pay the $175.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:33:32 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues,
>>
>>[Insert any defective product issue] did not affect most people, but
>>that did not dilute the seriousness of the issue.
>>
>>> all customers were free to move to another carrier
>>
>>Free to move? Yes.
>>
>>Free as in not having to enjoy the same rate plan or
>>another commitment. No.
>
> Cingular has no obligation to indefinitely continue whatever deal they
> had with ATTWS,

So John is saying that they are allowed to discriminate against these
customers and not offer the same good faith to them as legacy Cingular
customers enjoy. His pathetic support of this angle is that he never refers
to them as Cingular customers, which they have been for quite a while now.

Of course, unless they show the same unwillingness to allow legacy Cingular
customers to maintain their service after the contract period, they will
face a new action charging discrimination. There is no technological or
platform issue preventing the continuation of these services- it is simply
the decision of the Company to discontinue them. It will be interesting to
see how the Company defends this second-class approach.


> and they were free to seek a better deal from some other
> carrier.

Which they have done and will continue to do- the churn numbers are about to
go back up and they are weeks away from being recognized as the
second-largest carrier.

> And the degradation in D-AMPS ("TDMA") was started and
> substantially completed by ATTWS, not Cingular. There is no real issue
> here. That's presumably why the complaint had to be based on alleged
> "deception" rather than conduct.
>

We don't need you to "presume" anything, Novice- we would prefer that you
simply took your head out of the sand and went away.

Scott wrote:

> So John is saying that they are allowed to discriminate against these
> customers and not offer the same good faith to them as legacy Cingular
> customers enjoy. His pathetic support of this angle is that he never refers
> to them as Cingular customers, which they have been for quite a while now.

I don't think that he understands the basis of the lawsuit. The claims
by the plaintiffs are at
"http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/fs/?postId=6539"

The plaintiffs are also asking for punitive damages, which is unlikely
to happen. Cingular will likely settle, but not with punitives.

In article <[email protected]>,
Ernie & Eythl <ernie&eythl@mountain> wrote:

> John Navas answered:
> >
> > That's not what's alleged in the lawsuit, and isn't what actually
> > happened -- ATTWS customers, if not free to continue their ATTWS
> > contracts, had the choice of migration to Cingular GSM or termination
> > without penalty.
>
> You're so full of ****. I',m here IN Seattle where this suit was filed,
> and it has been reported in the news, and in the paper were FORCED to
> pay the $175 termination fee. GOD you got your head up your ass.

yes, he does.