Customers file deception suit against Cingular

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

Actually, his professed experience is as an "expert witness" some years back
and that this experience gave him a much higher understanding of the legal
system than the rest of us.

---

› See More: Customers file deception suit against Cingular

Scott wrote:
> "DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
> Actually, his professed experience is as an "expert witness" some years back
> and that this experience gave him a much higher understanding of the legal
> system than the rest of us.

Ah, just like my experience as a patient in my general practitioner's office
gives me a much higher understanding of medicine than most people who aren't
doctors?

"Expert witness" means "expert in your field" where "your field" is something
other than law.

--
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott wrote:
>> "DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> 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.
>>
>> Actually, his professed experience is as an "expert witness" some years
>> back
>> and that this experience gave him a much higher understanding of the
>> legal
>> system than the rest of us.
>
> Ah, just like my experience as a patient in my general practitioner's
> office
> gives me a much higher understanding of medicine than most people who
> aren't
> doctors?

Exactly.

>
> "Expert witness" means "expert in your field" where "your field" is
> something
> other than law.
>

For the entire population of the planet, except JN.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way

While not being "coerced", I was put over a barrel. Been a customer since
Cellular one days and was very happy with my ATT account with my Samsung
426x. All of a sudden the internet stopped working on the phone. It was fine
on 3 other different phones. After 3 months of trying through customer
service and way too many phone calls, it was found there was an "issue" in
the ENTIRE north east with that phone model connecting to the Cingular
towers and the issue in my case was the dismantling of the ATT tower that
served the area since Cingular was here too. I told CIngular I had to have
internet for business purposes and was told the only way to get it was to
switch to Cingular. The phone was 15 months into a two year ATT contract and
I was basically told I was screwed. No new phones would be activated to ATT
and switching to Cingular would cost $80 per line, I have 4 and would have
to do them all, ) AND I was gonna get hit with the $200 ATT early
termination fee. It took more calls than necessary, several from a lawyer,
to convince Cingular that I paid for mMode service, They removed it from me
and was not giving me any recourse and CINGULAR was breaking the contract.
Wasn't "coerced" but was told pay the fees or do with out.

Cingular, Verizon Wireless face class-action lawsuits
<http://rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=26776>

Verizon Wireless, meantime, faces a new class action suit that moved
to federal court in Detroit late last month.

The suit--technically filed against parent Verizon Communications Inc.
but directed at its wireless unit--alleges Verizon Wireless charged a
monthly $2 roadside assistance fee since January 2004 without prior
consent and later refused to offer refunds for the charge. The suit
accuses Verizon Wireless of violating Michigan’s consumer protection
act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

A Verizon Wireless spokeswoman declined to comment, noting the No. 2
mobile carrier has yet to file a response with the court.

Verizon Bias Suit Deal Sets Record
<http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13672>

Verizon Communications Inc. will pay almost $49 million to 12,326
current and former female employees as part of a landmark class-action
lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement
in 2002 against Verizon predecessors Nynex Corp. and Bell Atlantic
Corp. But the total amount of the settlement was not made public until
yesterday, when the EEOC completed its projections of how much would
be paid in future benefits.

The final figure makes the case the largest pregnancy discrimination
settlement in EEOC history. It covers women in 13 states and the
District.

Verizon Implements New Policies In Face Of Defense Of California Class
Action Regarding Cancellation Fees
<http://classactiondefense.jmbm.com/2006/06/verizon_implements_new_policie.html>

Both the Los Angeles Times and Yuki Noguchi of the Washington Post
report today on yesterday's announcement by Verizon that it will soon
implement a fundamental change in its cancellation fee policy for
cellular telephone subscribers. In the face of a California class
action that the Times reports seeks "to recover early cancellation
fees from Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel," the company will
calculate the early termination fee based on the proportional amount
of time remaining on the subscription agreement.

Verizon's defense against this California class action is not a lone
event. Similar class actions are pending in several states, the
Washington Post reports. ...

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

In article <o2lsg.13966$Wh7.4095@trnddc07>,
"Rudy Reckel" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way
>
> While not being "coerced", I was put over a barrel. Been a customer since
> Cellular one days and was very happy with my ATT account with my Samsung
> 426x. All of a sudden the internet stopped working on the phone. It was fine
> on 3 other different phones. After 3 months of trying through customer
> service and way too many phone calls, it was found there was an "issue" in
> the ENTIRE north east with that phone model connecting to the Cingular
> towers and the issue in my case was the dismantling of the ATT tower that
> served the area since Cingular was here too. I told CIngular I had to have
> internet for business purposes and was told the only way to get it was to
> switch to Cingular. The phone was 15 months into a two year ATT contract and
> I was basically told I was screwed. No new phones would be activated to ATT
> and switching to Cingular would cost $80 per line, I have 4 and would have
> to do them all, ) AND I was gonna get hit with the $200 ATT early
> termination fee. It took more calls than necessary, several from a lawyer,
> to convince Cingular that I paid for mMode service, They removed it from me
> and was not giving me any recourse and CINGULAR was breaking the contract.
> Wasn't "coerced" but was told pay the fees or do with out.


just think of how many others were pressured in the same manner,
illegally of course.

james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article <o2lsg.13966$Wh7.4095@trnddc07>,
> "Rudy Reckel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> No ATTWS (not AT&T) customers were "coerced" in any way
>> While not being "coerced", I was put over a barrel. Been a customer since
>> Cellular one days and was very happy with my ATT account with my Samsung
>> 426x. All of a sudden the internet stopped working on the phone. It was fine
>> on 3 other different phones. After 3 months of trying through customer
>> service and way too many phone calls, it was found there was an "issue" in
>> the ENTIRE north east with that phone model connecting to the Cingular
>> towers and the issue in my case was the dismantling of the ATT tower that
>> served the area since Cingular was here too. I told CIngular I had to have
>> internet for business purposes and was told the only way to get it was to
>> switch to Cingular. The phone was 15 months into a two year ATT contract and
>> I was basically told I was screwed. No new phones would be activated to ATT
>> and switching to Cingular would cost $80 per line, I have 4 and would have
>> to do them all, ) AND I was gonna get hit with the $200 ATT early
>> termination fee. It took more calls than necessary, several from a lawyer,
>> to convince Cingular that I paid for mMode service, They removed it from me
>> and was not giving me any recourse and CINGULAR was breaking the contract.
>> Wasn't "coerced" but was told pay the fees or do with out.
>
>
> just think of how many others were pressured in the same manner,
> illegally of course.

Well that's what's going to be interesting. As deceptive as it was, it
may not have been illegal. Cingular could argue that AT&T Wireless
customers had no guarantee of coverage where they previously had
coverage. Cingular may claim that what some people call coercion and
deception, was merely encouragement. Of course they can't say any of
that in open court, which is why this will most likely be settled out of
court.

The plaintiffs are not suing for enough. The percentage of customers
under contract was almost certainly around 75-80% (of around 20
million). I don't know how many AT&T Wireless customers had problems,
but all of the ones I know who were on AT&T Wireless, had the deception
practiced on them (a sample of three).

SMS wrote:
> 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.


And don't forget the costs of changing back to the AT&T name sometime in
the near future.

In article <[email protected]>,
Steve Sobol <[email protected]> writes:
> 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.
[snip]

What Steve said. Some of us, tho never having been AT&T or Cingular
customers, would not be good for Cingular on a jury because we
basically distrust and dislike anything even remotely associated with
SBC.

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
[email protected] | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> writes:
> Cingular, Verizon Wireless face class-action lawsuits
> <http://rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=26776>
>
> Verizon Wireless, meantime, faces a new class action suit that moved
> to federal court in Detroit late last month.
[snip]

Yeah, okay, so? VZ is an ILEC, just like SBC. You expect something
different? *shrug* We're almost back to the "bad old days" of Ma
Bell (aka: "The Phone Company"), but without the regulatory
protections that existed back then. These old-school TelCom people
will continue to stonewall on modern, advanced telecommunications as
long as they can, gouging their customers all the while, whenever
they can get away with it. There's nothing much to stop them and
they've little incentive to improve their products. The paltry little
fines that some state regulators occasionally impose are regarded by
the TelCom monopolies as nothing more than a cost of doing business.

--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
[email protected] | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison

Jim Seymour wrote:
> will continue to stonewall on modern, advanced telecommunications as
> long as they can, gouging their customers all the while, whenever
> they can get away with it. There's nothing much to stop them and
> they've little incentive to improve their products.

The "Preservation of Innovation of Telecom Act" that we see many states
passing to prohibit free municipal WiFi to protect cellular wireless
broadband comes to mind.

[email protected] (Jim Seymour) wrote in news:12bs8sniodt5u57
@corp.supernews.com:

> basically distrust and dislike anything even remotely associated with
> SBC.
>

....or cellular phone companies.....(c;

DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in news:%Bsvg.132323$dW3.120014
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

> Preservation of Innovation of Telecom Act

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org...echnology%20-%
20SBM%20Platform.pdf

-or-

http://tinyurl.com/mho6x

IT'S A GOOGLEWHACK!

ONE and only one reference to it on ALL OF GOOGLE!

It's also "Preserving", not Preservation.

Thanks for the info.....Boy, the bastards been keepin' THIS one quiet, even
on the net!

DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in news:%Bsvg.132323$dW3.120014
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

> Preservation of Innovation of Telecom Act

EVERYONE needs to read this document!

"Big-business telecom interests (the successors of the Bells) have
lobbied for legislation protecting their incumbency as exclusive
broadband providers. This legislation seeks to prohibit communities from
threatening their position as exclusive providers of broadband access,
even where private interests have not taken steps to provide service.

The federal government must ensure that the private interests of a few
telecom companies do not crush innovative community efforts to provide
high-quality broadband access to citizens at affordable prices. In that
spirit, SBM endorses the Community Broadband Act of 2005, a bipartisan
bill that would preserve the ability of local governments to provide
broadband capability and services. SBM also endorses the Wireless
Innovation Act of 2006,19 an important bi-partisan initiative that would
direct the FCC to move quickly to free up currently unused broadcast
airwaves for wireless broadband use. With more unlicensed spectrum
available, community broadband efforts will provide faster and more
reliable wireless broadband to rural and smalltown users. By the same
token, SBM opposes a bill sponsored by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), a
former employee of telecom giant SBC Communications, which would prevent
municipalities, including those who are underserved or not served by
private sector, from getting into the wireless game without “checking
in” with the same companies that have not served the community.20 The
federal government must not further subsidize the Bells and Baby Bells
at the expense of American competition and innovation."

Dirty bastards.....more monopolies......
George Orwell had the DATE wrong....

Larry wrote:
> DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote in news:%Bsvg.132323$dW3.120014
> @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> Preservation of Innovation of Telecom Act
>
> EVERYONE needs to read this document!
>
> "Big-business telecom interests (the successors of the Bells) have
> lobbied for legislation protecting their incumbency as exclusive
> broadband providers. This legislation seeks to prohibit communities from
> threatening their position as exclusive providers of broadband access,
> even where private interests have not taken steps to provide service.
>
> The federal government must ensure that the private interests of a few
> telecom companies do not crush innovative community efforts to provide
> high-quality broadband access to citizens at affordable prices. In that
> spirit, SBM endorses the Community Broadband Act of 2005, a bipartisan
> bill that would preserve the ability of local governments to provide
> broadband capability and services. SBM also endorses the Wireless
> Innovation Act of 2006,19 an important bi-partisan initiative that would
> direct the FCC to move quickly to free up currently unused broadcast
> airwaves for wireless broadband use. With more unlicensed spectrum
> available, community broadband efforts will provide faster and more
> reliable wireless broadband to rural and smalltown users. By the same
> token, SBM opposes a bill sponsored by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), a
> former employee of telecom giant SBC Communications, which would prevent
> municipalities, including those who are underserved or not served by
> private sector, from getting into the wireless game without “checking
> in” with the same companies that have not served the community.20 The
> federal government must not further subsidize the Bells and Baby Bells
> at the expense of American competition and innovation."
>
> Dirty bastards.....more monopolies......
> George Orwell had the DATE wrong....

Very old news. But yes, you gotta love the title of the act, very
Orwellian as in fact it's the exact opposite of what the title says.

Typical Republican.