Confirmation from Cingular on SmartPhone tethering

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:50:57 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Thus my guess is that these few reports are also the result of billing
>> system screwups, and that these people could have gotten their MEdia
>> packages restored and charges reversed if they tried hard enough.
>
>The fact that they have to "try harder" is an indication that the
>correction is not a simple billing correction, but that there is some need
>to convince customer service that what happened was wrong.

There are a number of other common reasons, including:
* The amount at issue exceeds the authority level of the person you're
dealing with.
* The feature accidentally removed can't be added back without higher
level access to the system.
* The person you are dealing with doesn't have any idea what you're
talking about.

>Do you ever have occasions where you have to "convince" them of some other
>credit, or is it only tethering situations?

It happens on other occasions as well. I use the Rule of Three -- call
back at least twice if I can't get it done the first time. Amazing how
often that works.

>With web browsing, Google Maps, and streaming audio and video, I would
>think that the data overages would be occurring on a more common basis for
>people who are not tethering, but the complaints about billing seem to come
>from those who are tethering.

I think that's because the bills are so big.

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

---

› See More: Confirmation from Cingular on SmartPhone tethering

At 15 Aug 2006 12:43:46 -0700 [email protected] wrote:
> Ok, well I can see how two people could interpret those terms
> differently. You're basically saying "no way.... It's got to be the way
> I see it", except all tangible evidence is against you.
>

Gee, fellas, while I could just listen to you guys bicker about this all
day, let me see if I can find some common ground.

Jeremy, you want to pay $20 for unlimited internet with tethering, rather
than $59.99, (and who can blame you!) so despite what all the brochures,
webpages, and T&C's say, you'll keep calling Cingular reps until you find
at least one that says it's ok. And you did- congratulations!

Is that a guarantee? Personally, I doubt it, considering, if you called
10 Cingular reps on a Tuesday and asked what day it is, I'll suspect
you'd find at least one who'd tell you it's Monday, and another one who'd
say "August"!

But, you have the plan, it's working, and unless you try to eMule the
entire 20-year run of "The Simpsons" series over your smartphone, it's
likely no one is going to bother you about it, except, perhaps, John Navas.


John, you have a $20 MediaNet plan from the year 5 B.C. that apparently
allows tethering. Good for you. Why does it bug you so much that
someone else is trying to get somthing similar now? Because someone else
on the planet Earth might get as good a deal as you? Relax. It's
cellphone service, not a religion... at least not yet.

And, while I agree with you that the T&C's do prohibit tethering on the
MEdiaNet Unlimited plans, Cingular certainly has confusing, if not
actually conflicting, terms and conditions on data plans. For example,
just yesterday I picked up one of their recent data options brochures,
and it had a grid of data plans on one side, and a ton of footnoted
explanations, terms and conditions on the reverse. Among the footnotes
were things like "5. Tethering allowed with this plan" and "12. Tethering
not allowed with this plan." While MOST of the plans had either the #5
or #12 footnote in superscript next to the plan name, the smartphone
MEdiaNet Unlimited for $19.99 had NEITHER! (As a general rule, however,
any plan with a MB limit allowed tethering, and any unlimited plan except
the $59 and $79 disallowed it.)

So, in the interest of ending this discussion before 5G data services are
deployed, can we agree that Jeremy, if not "beating the system", is at
lea t "flying under the radar" due to Cingular's ignorance or oversight,
or at least found a quasi-loophole in the T&C, again, probably due to
oversight.

Can we also agree that, other than perhaps Jeremy, none of us should care
what Jeremy is paying for his service?

On the other hand, if you guys still want to fight about it but get tired
of all the typing, you can simply go to the Google News archives, search
for "tethering with Sprint Vision data plans" threads from a couple of
years ago and just cut and paste, replacing "Sprint" with "Cingular" and
"Vision" w/"MEdiaNet"...

It'll save you loads of time!
....At the very least, I might have got you guys to stop fighting long
enough to unite in telling me to f--- off and mind my own business... See,
we CAN all just get along... ;-)


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:58:14 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John, you have a $20 MediaNet plan from the year 5 B.C. that apparently
>allows tethering. Good for you. Why does it bug you so much that
>someone else is trying to get somthing similar now? Because someone else
>on the planet Earth might get as good a deal as you? Relax. It's
>cellphone service, not a religion... at least not yet.

That actually doesn't bug me at all. Live and let live.

What does bug me is bad information that can mislead others into making
bad decisions. What bugs me even more is incivility. Unfortunately,
when I post a different perspective, some people then see me as the
enemy (if-you-ain't-with-me-then-you're-again'-me!), and go on the
attack.

>So, in the interest of ending this discussion before 5G data services are
>deployed, can we agree that Jeremy, if not "beating the system", is at
>lea t "flying under the radar" due to Cingular's ignorance or oversight,

Yep.

>or at least found a quasi-loophole in the T&C, again, probably due to
>oversight.

Nope. I personally think the T&C are clear, and that his interpretation
wouldn't stand up at all in arbitration. His risk is being terminated,
although I think the risk is very low given reasonable usage, and I
think Cingular would probably allow him to switch to a DataConnect
package instead of termination.

>Can we also agree that, other than perhaps Jeremy, none of us should care
>what Jeremy is paying for his service?

Yep.

>On the other hand, if you guys still want to fight about it ...

Nope. I've stopped responding to him some time back, just as I do with
most others that can't at least be civil.

Thank you for civil and constructive comments. Hopefully we'll all take
them to heart. Reasonable people can disagree.

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What does bug me is bad information that can mislead others into making
>> bad decisions. What bugs me even more is incivility.
>
> You mean, like you disregarding the rules of common etiquette? And then
> posting a charter to other newsgroups to which it was never intended,
> and then your blatantly not following the guidelines of that
> charter--while scolding others who don't?
>

"Hypocrisy - thy name is Usenet" <-- John Navas

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> At 15 Aug 2006 12:43:46 -0700 [email protected] wrote:
> > Ok, well I can see how two people could interpret those terms
> > differently. You're basically saying "no way.... It's got to be the way
> > I see it", except all tangible evidence is against you.
> >
>
> Gee, fellas, while I could just listen to you guys bicker about this all
> day, let me see if I can find some common ground.
>
> Jeremy, you want to pay $20 for unlimited internet with tethering, rather
> than $59.99, (and who can blame you!) so despite what all the brochures,
> webpages, and T&C's say, you'll keep calling Cingular reps until you find
> at least one that says it's ok. And you did- congratulations!
>
When I was trying to get some information about getting internet access
to my Mac iBook, they connected me to a tech in the data department who
told me that I _cannot_ use the dataconnect service with a Mac iBook
because they don't make a "PC card" for the Mac. He wasn't sure if the
Mac could interface with my Sony/Ericssson or not, but if it would, then
MEdia service would be the only service that would work.

Go figure.

--
-Ernie-

Ernie Klein wrote:

> a Mac iBook because they don't make a "PC card" for the Mac. He
> wasn't sure if the Mac could interface with my Sony/Ericssson or not,
> but if it would, then MEdia service would be the only service that
> would work.

Well, if a data tech knows nothing about computers, how is he supposed
to know anything about computer data plans? :-)

--
Bill K