Cingular scaling back on deals for customers out of conntract

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:32:24 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote
in <[email protected]>:

>If you have a "grandfathered" contract that Cingular would just as soon
>you not have, no more discounts on phones every two years.
>
>Details here in Internal Cingular documents:


>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wire...s-giving-disco
>unts-to-worthless-customers-188422.php

Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/gz2oh>
"How Cingular Avoids Giving Discounts to Worthless Customers"


>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wire...customer-value
>-into-thermometer-form-188379.php

Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/qykr3>
"Cingular Distills Customer Value Into Thermometer Form"


This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business practice.

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

---

› See More: Cingular scaling back on deals for customers out of conntract

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:41:22 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:32:24 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote
>in <[email protected]>:
>
>>If you have a "grandfathered" contract that Cingular would just as soon
>>you not have, no more discounts on phones every two years.
>>
>>Details here in Internal Cingular documents:
>
>
>>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wire...s-giving-disco
>>unts-to-worthless-customers-188422.php
>
>Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/gz2oh>
>"How Cingular Avoids Giving Discounts to Worthless Customers"
>
>
>>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wire...customer-value
>>-into-thermometer-form-188379.php
>
>Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/qykr3>
>"Cingular Distills Customer Value Into Thermometer Form"
>
>
>This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business practice.

If Verizon did this, I would be willing to bet any amount of money you
would be singing a different tune.

Of course, you would deny this.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:01:51 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:41:22 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:32:24 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote
>>in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>If you have a "grandfathered" contract that Cingular would just as soon
>>>you not have, no more discounts on phones every two years.
>>>
>>>Details here in Internal Cingular documents:
>>
>>
>>>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wire...s-giving-disco
>>>unts-to-worthless-customers-188422.php
>>
>>Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/gz2oh>
>>"How Cingular Avoids Giving Discounts to Worthless Customers"
>>
>>
>>>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wire...customer-value
>>>-into-thermometer-form-188379.php
>>
>>Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/qykr3>
>>"Cingular Distills Customer Value Into Thermometer Form"
>>
>>
>>This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business practice.
>
>If Verizon did this, I would be willing to bet any amount of money you
>would be singing a different tune.

No.

>Of course, you would deny this.

Yes.

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

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 05:46:58 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:01:51 -0700, Anon E. Muss <[email protected]>
>wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:41:22 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:

[snip RE: Cingular not giving phone discounts to "LTV1" customers]

>>>This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business practice.
>>
>>If Verizon did this, I would be willing to bet any amount of money you
>>would be singing a different tune.
>
>No.
>
>>Of course, you would deny this.
>
>Yes.

And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.

You really need to get off your Karl Marx, pro-socialist bent. We
live in a capitalistic society here, John.

Anon E. Muss wrote:

> And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
> practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
> GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.

Are they doing this? The prepackaged GoPhones seemed to be priced at a
level where there are no subsidies taking place, because they aren't
requiring that you sign up for service when you buy one.

I've used prepaid Verizon phones on non-Verizon service, and they don't
seem to care.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:32:24 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>>If you have a "grandfathered" contract that Cingular would just as soon
>>you not have, no more discounts on phones every two years.
>>
>>Details here in Internal Cingular documents:
>
>
>>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wire...s-giving-disco
>>unts-to-worthless-customers-188422.php
>
> Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/gz2oh>
> "How Cingular Avoids Giving Discounts to Worthless Customers"
>
>
>>http://consumerist.com/consumer/wire...customer-value
>>-into-thermometer-form-188379.php
>
> Unmangled: <http://tinyurl.com/qykr3>
> "Cingular Distills Customer Value Into Thermometer Form"
>
>
> This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable and normal business practice.
>

While it may be 'normal' for the unscrupulous vendors out their, it is far
from reasonable (or ethical IMHO) business practice. I work for one of the
worlds largest computer and imaging product manufactures and we treat every
customer with equal care and respect. Perhaps if Cingular did this they
could build some customer loyalty which any one with any business sense
knows is more profitable than continuously trying to drum up new ones with
ficticious survey results.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:18:16 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
>> practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
>> GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.
>
>Are they doing this?

That's what I am hearing.

Look at the GoPhone prices.

o Nokia 6010 -- $39.99
o Pantech C300 -- $119.99

Look at the respective post-paid phone prices with *2-year contract*,
activation fee, etc.:

o Nokia 6010 -- $29.99
o Pantech C300 -- $69.99

Who would buy one of these post-paid plan phones and get locked into a
2-year contract extension?

I was also told that a few months ago, they were pricing the pre-paid
Razr a lot cheaper than the $249 they are now (somewhere around $99
IIRC); people were gobbling them up and using them for "phone
upgrades" on their post-paid plans.

Or, if someone loses their phone, they go down and buy a $30.00
GoPhone to get them by rather than having to buy a much more expensive
phone that locks them in to another additional 2-years on their
contract.

So... Now the reports are when someone purchases a GoPhone at many
places like WalMart, Radio Trash, or thru Cingular on-line, that
phone's IMEI is entered into Cingular's mainframes and if someone
tries to use it on a non pre-paid or pay-as-you-go SIM, the phone will
not work.

<Snip>
> >No.
> >
> >>Of course, you would deny this.
> >
> >Yes.
>
> And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
> practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
> GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.
>
> You really need to get off your Karl Marx, pro-socialist bent. We
> live in a capitalistic society here, John.


You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do this.
If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the customer.
Economics 101.

But the real question is "How do I become more value to Cingular?"
1. More than 50% of your usage has to be on the Cingular Network.
2. Calls into customer care must be low. Repeated calls cost money - thus
decrease your value.
3. Text Messaging, Data use Good. No Texting or data bad.

For those that think that Cingular should treat every customer the same the
fact is that not all customers are the same. Unlike a computer
manufacturing company or a car manufacturer, Cingular is a service provider.
If you use your cell phone in an area and you are connected to a T-Mobile
tower or other provider, Cingular pays a per-minute rate for you to be
connected to that tower. If there is not enough profit margin for them,
then logic would say to either start charging you for roaming again or to
just not give you as much in terms of free stuff (discounts on equipment) to
try and either make up for some of the loss or, as has been suggested, to
get you to leave and go to another carrier.

"Cliff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <Snip>
>> >No.
>> >
>> >>Of course, you would deny this.
>> >
>> >Yes.
>>
>> And I bet you think it's "perfectly reasonable and normal business
>> practice" when it's being reported that (if) Cingular disallows
>> GoPhones to be used on post-paid plans.
>>
>> You really need to get off your Karl Marx, pro-socialist bent. We
>> live in a capitalistic society here, John.
>
>
> You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do this.
> If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the customer.
> Economics 101.

But prepaid (GoPhone) customers are the cheapest channel to support and
therefore among the most profitable. High cost per minute, low fraud,
little to no collection effort required and phones sold at a much higher
price than postpaid. Disallowing the use of prepaid hardware on a post-paid
account is simply nothing more than muscle flexing by any carrier willing to
do it. It comes across as rather desperate and extremely cusotmer
unfriendly.

I also believe that the rest of the bunch (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mo, etc.) do
allow this type of movement. And when comparing margins with many of these
carriers, Cingular loses quarter after quarter.

The problem here is this assumption is that these customers are suddenly
unprofitable for the company, when in fact they are simply less profitable
than desired. With just the slightest effort, they could have retained the
customer and made them more profitable for the company. Cingular chose not
to do that. Their loss and everybody elses' gain.


>

Good points.

My opinion:

It makes good sense to continue retain customers of all levels, especially
since concentrating on having service contracts is already on flimsy footing
as a long term strategy. I predict class action suits will eventually rule
them as illegal when the cell phone is no longer deemed a luxury item.

---


"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do this.
>> If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the customer.
>> Economics 101.
>
> But prepaid (GoPhone) customers are the cheapest channel to support and
> therefore among the most profitable. High cost per minute, low fraud,
> little to no collection effort required and phones sold at a much higher
> price than postpaid. Disallowing the use of prepaid hardware on a
post-paid
> account is simply nothing more than muscle flexing by any carrier willing
to
> do it. It comes across as rather desperate and extremely cusotmer
> unfriendly.
>
> I also believe that the rest of the bunch (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mo, etc.) do
> allow this type of movement. And when comparing margins with many of
these
> carriers, Cingular loses quarter after quarter.
>
> The problem here is this assumption is that these customers are suddenly
> unprofitable for the company, when in fact they are simply less profitable
> than desired. With just the slightest effort, they could have retained
the
> customer and made them more profitable for the company. Cingular chose
not
> to do that. Their loss and everybody elses' gain.
>
>
> >
>
>

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS wrote:
> Cliff wrote:
>
>> You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do
>> this. If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the
>> customer. Economics 101.
>
> But the low ARPU customers are not causing them to lose money, they just
> make less from them than from other customers. It's a lot different than
> having a product that's in short supply where you want to sell the limited
> supply to the customers that will pay the most.

I have some evidence that Cingular is blocking RTSP, though it's hard to
pin down how, where and when it's doing this.

Has anybody had any difficulties w/ RTSP?

I've found a way to alleviate the issue, for now, and so I'm confident
that either Cingular's proxies have a bug, they're actively
blocking/filtering, or I'm a complete idiot (along w/ Apple and Real
Networks) in misreading the RTSP specification.

It would be a shame if Cingular became a walled garden like Verizon. In
the long term it will only help Sprint and T-Mobile. Things like MobiTV
are "nifty", but Cingular will never find the right formula for profiting
from 3G unless it keeps an open market place.

- Bill

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:52:52 -0700, William Ahern wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS wrote:
>> Cliff wrote:
>>
>>> You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do
>>> this. If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the
>>> customer. Economics 101.
>>
>> But the low ARPU customers are not causing them to lose money, they just
>> make less from them than from other customers. It's a lot different than
>> having a product that's in short supply where you want to sell the
>> limited supply to the customers that will pay the most.
>
> I have some evidence that Cingular is blocking RTSP, though it's hard to
> pin down how, where and when it's doing this.

Oops. I meant to start a new thread.

Scott wrote:
> I also believe that the rest of the bunch (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mo, etc.) do
> allow this type of movement. And when comparing margins with many of these
> carriers, Cingular loses quarter after quarter.

This might be old information, but a year ago Sprint did not allow
Virgin (Sprint prepaid) to migrate to Sprint. On the other hand, a
friend of mine bought a Cingular prepaid GoPhone a few weeks ago and
migrated to a $60 per month plan last week.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:52:52 -0700, William Ahern
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:10:52 -0700, SMS wrote:
>> Cliff wrote:
>>
>>> You just answered the question yourself as to why Cingular would do
>>> this. If they are losing money having a customer then get rid of the
>>> customer. Economics 101.
>>
>> But the low ARPU customers are not causing them to lose money, they just
>> make less from them than from other customers. It's a lot different than
>> having a product that's in short supply where you want to sell the limited
>> supply to the customers that will pay the most.
>
>I have some evidence that Cingular is blocking RTSP, though it's hard to
>pin down how, where and when it's doing this.
>
>Has anybody had any difficulties w/ RTSP?
>
>I've found a way to alleviate the issue, for now, and so I'm confident
>that either Cingular's proxies have a bug, they're actively
>blocking/filtering, or I'm a complete idiot (along w/ Apple and Real
>Networks) in misreading the RTSP specification.
>
>It would be a shame if Cingular became a walled garden like Verizon. In
>the long term it will only help Sprint and T-Mobile. Things like MobiTV
>are "nifty", but Cingular will never find the right formula for profiting
>from 3G unless it keeps an open market place.

What specific things won't work?

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

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:52:36 -0400, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>My opinion:
>
>It makes good sense to continue retain customers of all levels, especially
>since concentrating on having service contracts is already on flimsy footing
>as a long term strategy. I predict class action suits will eventually rule
>them as illegal when the cell phone is no longer deemed a luxury item.

I seriously doubt that -- no law makes them "illegal".

Losing money on customers is bad business.

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