Customers file deception suit against Cingular

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 13:57:21 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> 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. ...

What I'm actually saying is that they weren't discriminated against in
any way, and they weren't -- they got the same deals as legacy Cingular
customers (and new customers).

>> 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.

Churn is actually down.

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

---

› See More: Customers file deception suit against Cingular

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:44:07 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>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"

You should read it yourself. I have, which is how I know that your
posts misstate the allegations in the suit.

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

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:03:22 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Larry wrote:
>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> They'd
>>> have to choose jurors that were never an AT&T Wireless or Cingular
>>> customer.
>>
>> If I were Cingular's lawyers, I'd reject anyone who ever had a cellphone
>> contract. Most everyone had a bad experience with the contracts and would
>> still be a big, shall we say, "vindictive"?..(c;
>>
>> Nope...I doubt the company could win in America in 2006.....too many
>> screwed people from all the companies.
>
>You only get to reject a certain number of jurors. There is no way you
>could seat a jury if you excluded post-paid cellular users.

That's not how jury selection works. You obviously need to learn about
the process. Jurors can be excluded without the use of preemptory
challenges.

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

John Navas wrote:
>
> What I'm actually saying:

You're about the only person I've noticed on Usenet that regularly has
to use that phrase. Ever wonder why that is?


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

Pure genius. What's yer next revelation John? "If not for being inmates,
they were free to leave without penalty."

<snip the oft-repeated, unsubstantiated, drivel>


--
Mike

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

> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 08:29:00 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
> >By now, most AT&T customers that were coerced into a Cingular contract ...
>
> No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way.

when you post something like that i am forced to conclude that you
are willfully dishonest or obstinately ignorant.

james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 08:29:00 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> By now, most AT&T customers that were coerced into a Cingular contract ...
>> No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way.
>
> when you post something like that i am forced to conclude that you
> are willfully dishonest or obstinately ignorant.

Or both.

AT&T customers were definitely coerced (or deceived) into switching, I
personally know of three instances of this happening. Whether it was
deception or coercion is splitting hairs, the lawsuit says it was
deception, and maybe deception is actually the more correct description.

Where he got the idea that AT&T customers, that were under contract,
could leave without paying the termination fee, we'll never know.

It's actually amusing to see Cingular's PR machine in action (the real
one, not Navas's). Every time there is a lawsuit, and every time a new
independent survey comes out, the stock Cingular response is to talk
about how many billions of dollars they are spending to improve their
network, as if that makes everything they did to their customers okay.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 13:57:21 -0600, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> 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. ...
>
> What I'm actually saying is that they weren't discriminated against in
> any way, and they weren't -- they got the same deals as legacy Cingular
> customers (and new customers).

And you failed to actually respond to the post- how unusual. Try again.


>
>>> 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.
>
> Churn is actually down.
>

One quarter does not indicate a pattern.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:03:22 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Larry wrote:
>>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> They'd
>>>> have to choose jurors that were never an AT&T Wireless or Cingular
>>>> customer.
>>>
>>> If I were Cingular's lawyers, I'd reject anyone who ever had a cellphone
>>> contract. Most everyone had a bad experience with the contracts and
>>> would
>>> still be a big, shall we say, "vindictive"?..(c;
>>>
>>> Nope...I doubt the company could win in America in 2006.....too many
>>> screwed people from all the companies.
>>
>>You only get to reject a certain number of jurors. There is no way you
>>could seat a jury if you excluded post-paid cellular users.
>
> That's not how jury selection works. You obviously need to learn about
> the process. Jurors can be excluded without the use of preemptory
> challenges.

Hey John- where di you get your legal degree from?

Scott wrote:

> Hey John- where di you get your legal degree from?

What he doesn't understand is that a judge isn't going to allow a
plaintiff's or defendant's lawyer to exclude a juror for cause, when the
only "cause" is that they are a wireless customer of Cingular, or a
wireless customer in general.

So the lawyer will have to use their few peremptory challenges very
carefully.

Obviously he's not a lawyer, as he doesn't even know that it's
"peremptory" not "preemptory."

It's all immaterial, as we all know that this will be settled out of
court, the only question now is for how much.

The lawsuit is seeking $15 million (triple the alleged damages). Not
sure if this includes the legal fees or not. Since Cingular has said
that it spent nearly USD 10 billion to integrate and improve its
networks over 21 months since the merger was completed, the $15 million
is a trivial amount for them to pay out to settle this.

SMS wrote:

> Can you imagine trying to choose a jury for a case like this? They'd
> have to choose jurors that were never an AT&T Wireless or Cingular
> customer.

Here I am. But I'm way biased against AT&T/SBC anyhow, so I'd not be a good
juror.

> Given Sprint's customer service ratings, Sprint customers would probably
> be rejected by the defense as well.
>
> It's be a jury of Verizon customers, which might be good, as they tend
> to be the smartest people.

WTF?? I don't like the implications of that statement...

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

SMS wrote:

> They understand that the most important issue in choosing a carrier is
> coverage. They read the surveys from entities like Consumer Reports and
> JD Power, and don't try to invent fantastic theories as to why they must
> have screwed up somehow because the survey results don't match the
> company that someone is shilling for. They understand what evidence is
> (it's not their own personal experience). Most important, they are able
> to think critically, and are very fair.

This is an uncharacteristically obnoxious post from you, and a stupid one to
boot. It ignores the fact that all carriers DO have a certain number of
satisfied customers. So people happy with carriers other than Verizon are
morons? I guess that makes me a moron, since I got tired of VZW's network
problems a couple years ago and am currently with T-Mobile. I'll go put my
dunce cap on and sit in the corner now.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Steve Sobol wrote:

> This is an uncharacteristically obnoxious post from you, and a stupid one to
> boot.

Sarcasm doesn't come across well on Usenet. Sorry.

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

> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 08:29:00 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> >> wrote in <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >>> By now, most AT&T customers that were coerced into a Cingular contract ...
> >> No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way.
> >
> > when you post something like that i am forced to conclude that you
> > are willfully dishonest or obstinately ignorant.
>
> Or both.

or both, i agree.

> AT&T customers were definitely coerced (or deceived) into switching, I
> personally know of three instances of this happening. Whether it was
> deception or coercion is splitting hairs, the lawsuit says it was
> deception, and maybe deception is actually the more correct description.
>
> Where he got the idea that AT&T customers, that were under contract,
> could leave without paying the termination fee, we'll never know.
>
> It's actually amusing to see Cingular's PR machine in action (the real
> one, not Navas's). Every time there is a lawsuit, and every time a new
> independent survey comes out, the stock Cingular response is to talk
> about how many billions of dollars they are spending to improve their
> network, as if that makes everything they did to their customers okay.

cingular is in trouble. they had every opportunity to close the gap
with verizon. instead they were outmanaged by sprint who moved ahead
of them in many categories.

i wouldn't be surprised to see a cingular management shakeup.

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

> i wouldn't be surprised to see a cingular management shakeup.

I don't know how that would help solve their problems.

Long term, they should be able to improve their margins, once they are
able to be all-GSM, and reduce their expenditures on network
improvements (this is going to happen next year according to analysts).
Of course it remains to be seen how long it'll take to have a positive
ROI after spending $41 billion on AT&T Wireless, and all the
expenditures for HSDPA deployment. Verizon is doing so well because CDMA
and EV-DO proved to be a lot less expensive to deploy.

Scott wrote:
> Hey John- where di you get your legal degree from?


John has posted that he worked as a law clerk...or something like that.