Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / February 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Cingular is Becoming Arrogant

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Scott en Aztlán - 12 Feb 2006 20:25 GMT
There used to be a time when you could buy an un-subsidized phone at a
Cingular store, pay full price, and get a phone that was unlocked. I
have three Sony-Ericsson T6XX phones that I purchased this way and
which were never subsidy-locked. This was before the merger with AT&T.

The other day, I stopped by a Cingular store to inquire about a RAZR
V3 (a Valentine's Day present for the wife - she travels abroad
frequently, and could use a quad-band world phone, plus she likes the
size and the way it looks). Cingular wants $330 for this phone, and
the clerk told me that even if I pay full price it is STILL
subsidy-locked! WTF?!?!?!!? Now, I understand the purpose of a subsidy
lock: if you subsidize (discount) the cost of my phone, you hope to
recoup that cost by having me continue to be a customer; if I can
simply take my subsidized phone to another carrier before you have
recovered your subsidy, you're screwed. But if I'm paying full price,
you're not subsidizing my hardware purchase, so why do you still
insist on the lock? Has your merger with AT&T somehow lowered your
corporate IQ so far that you think you can get away with this kind of
crap?

Well guess what, Cingular - I just bought an UNlocked RAZR online for
$60 less than you wanted to charge me. Your arrogance has cost you at
least one $330 sale. Congratulations - I'm sure this strategy will do
wonders for your bottom line. :rolleyes:
Anonymous - 12 Feb 2006 22:07 GMT
>There used to be a time when you could buy an un-subsidized phone at a
>Cingular store, pay full price, and get a phone that was unlocked. I
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>the clerk told me that even if I pay full price it is STILL
>subsidy-locked! WTF?!?!?!!?

That is bullshit, I agree.  Other similar crap is when Cingular
installs a custom firmware that DISabled features -- one example is
how the Cingular Nokia 6620 firmware disables people from using MP3
ringtones.

I think the problem is the vast majority of people purchase the phone
under a contract, so unclocking a phone is not routine.  IIRC, you can
call Cingular and have them unlock it for you for free.

>Now, I understand the purpose of a subsidylock: if you subsidize
>(discount) the cost of my phone, you hope to recoup that cost by
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>lock? Has your merger with AT&T somehow lowered your corporate IQ so
>far that you think you can get away with this kind of crap?

I think they get away with it because most people don't care if there
phone is locked.

>Well guess what, Cingular - I just bought an UNlocked RAZR online for
>$60 less than you wanted to charge me. Your arrogance has cost you at
>least one $330 sale.

Well then, there you go.  You saved money.  Be grateful.
SMS - 13 Feb 2006 00:58 GMT
> There used to be a time when you could buy an un-subsidized phone at a
> Cingular store, pay full price, and get a phone that was unlocked. I
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> simply take my subsidized phone to another carrier before you have
> recovered your subsidy, you're screwed.

Hardly. The subsidized phone comes with a contract that obligates you to
remain a customer. The subsidy lock is not necessary for them to recoup
the cost.
Scott en Aztlán - 13 Feb 2006 14:53 GMT
>> lock: if you subsidize (discount) the cost of my phone, you hope to
>> recoup that cost by having me continue to be a customer; if I can
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>remain a customer. The subsidy lock is not necessary for them to recoup
>the cost.

Good point.
John Navas - 14 Feb 2006 06:08 GMT
>>> lock: if you subsidize (discount) the cost of my phone, you hope to
>>> recoup that cost by having me continue to be a customer; if I can
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Good point.

On the contrary -- whether it's necessary or not (a matter of opinion), it's
still a reasonable way to ensure that your obligation is fulfilled.  Don't
want the lock?  Don't get a subsidized phone.  Simple.

Signature

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

Your Name Here - 14 Feb 2006 13:13 GMT
John works for Cingular so he knows everything about Cingular and
practices.   He just comes to the newsgroups to aggravate everyone and
show how much he knows or doesn't know.

I will give him credit though from time to time he does answer or post
some useful and truthful information

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> still a reasonable way to ensure that your obligation is fulfilled.  Don't
> want the lock?  Don't get a subsidized phone.  Simple.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 14 Feb 2006 13:56 GMT
> John works for Cingular so he knows everything about Cingular and
> practices.

Except for the differences among the various customer types--contract,
non-contract monthly, and non-contract by-the-minute.

In other words, he CLAIMS to know so much, but then opens his mouth and
proves that he doesn't know anything.
John Navas - 14 Feb 2006 17:18 GMT
>John works for Cingular ...

I have no connection to Cingular other than as a regular paying customer.

>>>>> lock: if you subsidize (discount) the cost of my phone, you hope to
>>>>> recoup that cost by having me continue to be a customer; if I can
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> still a reasonable way to ensure that your obligation is fulfilled.  Don't
>> want the lock?  Don't get a subsidized phone.  Simple.

Signature

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

Scott en Aztlán - 14 Feb 2006 14:38 GMT
>Don't want the lock?  Don't get a subsidized phone.  Simple.

Except at Cingular it's not so simple, as even the unsubsidized phones
are locked.
John Navas - 14 Feb 2006 17:19 GMT
>>Don't want the lock?  Don't get a subsidized phone.  Simple.
>
>Except at Cingular it's not so simple, as even the unsubsidized phones
>are locked.

They will be unlocked on request.  As I wrote, simple.

Signature

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

Scott en Aztlán - 15 Feb 2006 04:06 GMT
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>They will be unlocked on request.  As I wrote, simple.

A Cingular employee has told me otherwise.

Who am I to believe?
John Navas - 15 Feb 2006 04:58 GMT
>>>>Don't want the lock?  Don't get a subsidized phone.  Simple.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Who am I to believe?

Customer Care (611).

If you believe everything salespeople tell you, then you're going to be in for
a lot of disappointment.

Signature

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

DecaturTxCowboy - 15 Feb 2006 06:14 GMT
> If you believe everything salespeople tell you, then you're going to be in for
> a lot of disappointment.

More like...

If you believe everything John Navas tells you, then you're going to be
in for a lot of disappointment.
Isaiah Beard - 15 Feb 2006 16:12 GMT
>>>>> Don't want the lock?  Don't get a subsidized phone.  Simple.
>>>> Except at Cingular it's not so simple, as even the unsubsidized phones
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> If you believe everything salespeople tell you, then you're going to be in for
> a lot of disappointment.

So in one breath, you're telling people to contact Cingular employees to
assist in unlocking a phone, and then in the next breath you're
informing people that they are not to be trusted.  Interesting.

Signature

E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Jeremy - 15 Feb 2006 20:17 GMT
>> If you believe everything salespeople tell you, then you're going to be
>> in for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> assist in unlocking a phone, and then in the next breath you're informing
> people that they are not to be trusted.  Interesting.

Welcome to the new world of wireless!  It isn't the way it used to be when
the Bell System was in place.  Back then, the reps were well trained and
they would check with management prior to saying something that was
inaccurate.

Nowadays one can receive different answers to the same question, depending
upon who is asked.

I don't know if that is because the wireless carriers train their reps that
way, or just because the reps are low-level drones, who don't know--and who
don't WANT to know--how to properly respond to customer inquiries.

It certainly is frustrating when all a customer wants is a straight answer.
SMS - 15 Feb 2006 23:48 GMT
> Nowadays one can receive different answers to the same question, depending
> upon who is asked.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> It certainly is frustrating when all a customer wants is a straight answer.

Always call five times, and take the answer that is the same the most
times. Cingular is not unique in this regard. The telephone reps simply
aren't trained to answer complex questions.
John Navas - 17 Feb 2006 02:18 GMT
>Welcome to the new world of wireless!  It isn't the way it used to be when
>the Bell System was in place.  Back then, the reps were well trained and
>they would check with management prior to saying something that was
>inaccurate.

That was expen$ive.

>Nowadays one can receive different answers to the same question, depending
>upon who is asked.
>
>I don't know if that is because the wireless carriers train their reps that
>way, or just because the reps are low-level drones, who don't know--and who
>don't WANT to know--how to properly respond to customer inquiries.

It's because we consumers are buying on price alone, which has slashed margins
to the point that something has to give.

Signature

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty - 17 Feb 2006 04:00 GMT
In article
<AnaJf.410958$qk4.146309@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

> >Welcome to the new world of wireless!  It isn't the way it used to be when
> >the Bell System was in place.  Back then, the reps were well trained and
> >they would check with management prior to saying something that was
> >inaccurate.
>
> That was expen$ive.

Rubbish.
Jeremy - 17 Feb 2006 14:07 GMT
> In article
> <AnaJf.410958$qk4.146309@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Rubbish.

I should have noted in my original post that one major reason for competence
on the part of the reps was that they typically had employment for life
within the Bell Operating Companies.  They was no churning of jobs, and the
BOCs were good at training, so the training paid off in terms of employees
that remained with the company.

I'm waiting to find out that customer service reps have been outsourced to
China.

Already my Verizon VoIP service reps are in Canada . . .  My HP Computer
reps are in India . . .
Marty - 17 Feb 2006 21:54 GMT
Somewhere around Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:18:08 GMT, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com>:

>>Nowadays one can receive different answers to the same question, depending
>>upon who is asked.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>It's because we consumers are buying on price alone, which has slashed margins
>to the point that something has to give.

I think that hits the nail on the head.  Consumers often insist on great
service from sales people, but then when it's time to part with the money,
they go to the cheapest source.  This happens in almost all sectors.

A friend who is a realtor spends lots of time with potential buyers who then
go off to a cutrate realtor to actually do the buying, so he loses lots of
time, and the cutrate realtor gets the quick money.

Lots of us go to the stores to see the goods before buying it online. Most
people these days want a free phone, and don't understand about companies
needing to make a profit.

Signature

Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others."   - Groucho Marx

Anonymous - 18 Feb 2006 00:10 GMT
[snip]

>A friend who is a realtor spends lots of time with potential buyers who then
>go off to a cutrate realtor to actually do the buying, so he loses lots of
>time, and the cutrate realtor gets the quick money.

Gotta get the clients to sign a contract or pay up front/by the hour
then.
Marty - 21 Feb 2006 18:06 GMT
Somewhere around Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:10:59 -0800, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Anonymous
<anonymous@example.net>:

>[snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Gotta get the clients to sign a contract or pay up front/by the hour
>then.
And would you use such an agent? :)

I don't think I would, unless I personally knew the agent; in that case, I
probably wouldn't be asked to do it.

Signature

Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others."   - Groucho Marx

Anonymous - 22 Feb 2006 06:03 GMT
>Somewhere around Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:10:59 -0800, while reading
>alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Anonymous
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>then.
>And would you use such an agent? :)

Not if I planed to "go off to a cutrate realtor to actually do the
buying".

I actually have never used a real estate agent.  With the average
house in my area going for around $600K, and with real estate agents
getting from 3-6% commission, I can't see myself ever using one.
SMS - 22 Feb 2006 13:35 GMT
> I actually have never used a real estate agent.  With the average
> house in my area going for around $600K, and with real estate agents
> getting from 3-6% commission, I can't see myself ever using one.

In my area, commissions are falling rapidly as more real estate
companies are being established that are willing to take 3-4%. Only a
completely naive seller signs a contract for a 6% commission on a
property that is more than $200K.
John Navas - 22 Feb 2006 14:42 GMT
>> I actually have never used a real estate agent.  With the average
>> house in my area going for around $600K, and with real estate agents
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>completely naive seller signs a contract for a 6% commission on a
>property that is more than $200K.

You are obviously as unfamiliar with the Bay Area real estate market as you
are with Bay Area cellular.

Signature

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

Scott - 23 Feb 2006 00:50 GMT
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> you
> are with Bay Area cellular.

And you are obviously unfamiliar with the reality of cellular.  I notice
that Sprint released 4Q numbers today- 2 miilion adds, data ARPU of $6, 2.1%
churn, net income of $1.79B.  I guess that would make the quarter
spectacular by your measures- after all, I believe they beat Congular in all
of these areas.
John Navas - 23 Feb 2006 01:14 GMT
>>>In my area, commissions are falling rapidly as more real estate
>>>companies are being established that are willing to take 3-4%. Only a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>And you are obviously unfamiliar with the reality of cellular.  I notice
>that Sprint released 4Q numbers today-

<sarcasm>  Thanks for the link.  </sarcasm>

For those interested: <http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=10420>

>2 miilion adds,

Only 746,000 were postpaid.

>data ARPU of $6,

Direct postpaid ARPU was down.

>2.1%
>churn, net income of $1.79B.

Actually Adjusted Operating Income of $515M.

>I guess that would make the quarter
>spectacular by your measures- after all, I believe they beat Congular in all
>of these areas.

It was indeed a pretty good quarter, but then most of its merger and
transition issues are still ahead of Sprint Nextel, where as they are mostly
behind Cingular.  Time will of course tell.

Signature

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

Scott - 23 Feb 2006 01:37 GMT
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Only 746,000 were postpaid.

Actually more than that- the affiliate adds are not included in that
746,000.

And all 2 million still generate revenue for Sprint, regardless of how they
are billed.

>>data ARPU of $6,
>
> Direct postpaid ARPU was down.

Wait a minute- a couple of weeks ago you were touting the Cingular data ARPU
of $4 as being the best part of their financials.  Now somebody comes in 50%
higher and you point to something else.  If you read the entire press
release, you see that the loss in voice ARPU was more than made up by the
gain in data.

>>2.1%
>>churn, net income of $1.79B.
>
> Actually Adjusted Operating Income of $515M.

Actually I was pointing out net income.  You seem to have a problem
admitting you were wrong.

>>I guess that would make the quarter
>>spectacular by your measures- after all, I believe they beat Congular in
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> mostly
> behind Cingular.  Time will of course tell.

Then why is Cingular having such a poor go of performing better?  Sprint
bought 3(?) affiliates during 4Q and still beat Cingular with fewer
subscribers in most of the key metrics for the industry.  And Sprint is
actually way ahead og CIngualr in the merger game- a unified billing and CS
platform has been chosen with migration expected to begin by the end ofthe
year, Sprint has made migrating to CDMA much more attractive to their
customers than anything Cingular has offered their former ATTW customers,
the spinoff of the local woreline business is near, which only pad the
coffers of Sprint, and deployment of their high speed data network will
surpass that of both VZ and Cingular some time by the end of 3Q.  The
billing platform alone will save them more in synergy than everything
Cingular has done to date.  You say that Cingular has all of the pain behind
them- the facts seem to indicate otherwise.  That shouldn't surprise anyone.
John Navas - 23 Feb 2006 03:28 GMT
>>>churn, net income of $1.79B.
>>
>> Actually Adjusted Operating Income of $515M.
>
>Actually I was pointing out net income.

Nope.  Try again.

>You seem to have a problem
>admitting you were wrong.

Be right yourself before making a silly statement like that.  ;)

>> It was indeed a pretty good quarter, but then most of its merger and
>> transition issues are still ahead of Sprint Nextel, where as they are
>> mostly
>> behind Cingular.  Time will of course tell.
>
>Then why is Cingular having such a poor go of performing better?  ...

Cingular is actually doing well.

Signature

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

Scott - 23 Feb 2006 03:52 GMT
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Nope.  Try again.

Are you saying that I didn't specifically mention net income?  You are an
idiot.

>>You seem to have a problem
>>admitting you were wrong.
>
> Be right yourself before making a silly statement like that.  ;)

My statement was 100% correct.  I can't help it that you can't see that.
The number came directly from the press release, moron.

>>> It was indeed a pretty good quarter, but then most of its merger and
>>> transition issues are still ahead of Sprint Nextel, where as they are
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Cingular is actually doing well.

Wrong. Try again.
Rudy Reckel - 23 Feb 2006 04:25 GMT
Arguing in a newsgroup is like running on the Special Olympics. Even if you
win your still a retarded...........
bamp - 23 Feb 2006 16:45 GMT
> Arguing in a newsgroup is like running on the Special Olympics. Even if
> you win your still a retarded...........

You got that right!
..
bamp
Scott - 24 Feb 2006 02:01 GMT
> Arguing in a newsgroup is like running on the Special Olympics. Even if
> you win your still a retarded...........

....which would put them two steps above those who feel the need to point it
out.
John Navas - 15 Feb 2006 20:57 GMT
>>>>>> Don't want the lock?  Don't get a subsidized phone.  Simple.
>>>>> Except at Cingular it's not so simple, as even the unsubsidized phones
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>assist in unlocking a phone, and then in the next breath you're
>informing people that they are not to be trusted.  Interesting.

That's not what I said (as I'm sure you know).  But to be even clearer, I'm
telling them to (1) always check at everything at least twice [or even three
times], and (2) consider Customer Care to be a better source than a random
store salesperson that might not even be a Cingular employee.  Even better to
ask for a Supervisor when you want to be sure.  I use that same practice with
all companies, which has saved me considerable grief over the years.

Signature

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

Scott - 16 Feb 2006 04:37 GMT
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> with
> all companies, which has saved me considerable grief over the years.

Gee, John- if we took that same approach here, most of your posts would be
classified as inaccurate.  Oh wait- they already are.
Your Name Here - 13 Feb 2006 01:15 GMT
Go to eBay or else where buy the phone that you want, if its cingulars
phone there going to honor the swap out for one year and get it unlocked
and your done with the contract

> There used to be a time when you could buy an un-subsidized phone at a
> Cingular store, pay full price, and get a phone that was unlocked. I
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> least one $330 sale. Congratulations - I'm sure this strategy will do
> wonders for your bottom line. :rolleyes:
Marty - 13 Feb 2006 18:44 GMT
Somewhere around Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:25:39 -0800, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Scott en
Aztlán <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com>:

>There used to be a time when you could buy an un-subsidized phone at a
>Cingular store, pay full price, and get a phone that was unlocked. I
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>least one $330 sale. Congratulations - I'm sure this strategy will do
>wonders for your bottom line. :rolleyes:

I'm sure it will.  They aren't in the business of selling phones, they're in
the business of selling service.  It probably would cost them more to have
dual inventory, or have to rely on a salesman to do the locking, with the
possibility of mistakes being made.  Since they've tried it both ways,
there's no real reason to think their decision is made in ignorance, whether
they are right or wrong.

Signature

Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others."   - Groucho Marx

Chris Sweeney - 14 Feb 2006 00:33 GMT
If you pay full price for a phone Cingular will unlock it, you just have
to get ahold of a someone who knows what they are doing.

> There used to be a time when you could buy an un-subsidized phone at a
> Cingular store, pay full price, and get a phone that was unlocked. I
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> least one $330 sale. Congratulations - I'm sure this strategy will do
> wonders for your bottom line. :rolleyes:
John Navas - 14 Feb 2006 06:06 GMT
>There used to be a time when you could buy an un-subsidized phone at a
>Cingular store, pay full price, and get a phone that was unlocked. I
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>corporate IQ so far that you think you can get away with this kind of
>crap?

Probably because it doesn't make sense to stock more than one SKU.  Ask to
have it unlocked.

Signature

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

Scott en Aztlán - 14 Feb 2006 14:42 GMT
>Probably because it doesn't make sense to stock more than one SKU.  

I have three unlocked Cingular phones that prove it used to make
sense. Why would it change?

>Ask to have it unlocked.

I asked. The clerk told me that Cingular would not unlock it and, if I
wanted it unlocked, I would have to "go online and pay $15."
John Navas - 14 Feb 2006 17:27 GMT
>>Probably because it doesn't make sense to stock more than one SKU.  
>
>I have three unlocked Cingular phones that prove it used to make
>sense. Why would it change?

That probably was still a single SKU; i.e., unlocked phones even with a
subsidy, as I know Cingular has done from time to time.  I suspect this was
simply a matter of expediency or oversight.

>>Ask to have it unlocked.
>
>I asked. The clerk told me that Cingular would not unlock it and, if I
>wanted it unlocked, I would have to "go online and pay $15."

Many store clerks are badly misinformed, especially in dealer (as opposed to
company) stores (which are often hard to distinguish from company stores).
Better to call Cingular Customer Care.

Signature

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

Scott en Aztlán - 15 Feb 2006 04:08 GMT
>>>Ask to have it unlocked.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Many store clerks are badly misinformed, especially in dealer (as opposed to
>company) stores (which are often hard to distinguish from company stores).

That's a shame for Cingular - their misinformed employees are
undoubtedly losing lots of sales for them.
John Navas - 15 Feb 2006 04:59 GMT
>>>>Ask to have it unlocked.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>That's a shame for Cingular - their misinformed employees are
>undoubtedly losing lots of sales for them.

Just like other companies.

Signature

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty - 16 Feb 2006 00:05 GMT
In article
<tyyIf.398454$qk4.109188@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

> >That's a shame for Cingular - their misinformed employees are
> >undoubtedly losing lots of sales for them.
>
> Just like other companies.

And that was John Navas's sole contribution to that particular
discussion.

The question is, why did John feel it necessary to add that?  It added
nothing to the discussion; its sole purpose was to make John feel
better.  He felt the need to let the world know that even if Cingular
sucks, "so do others!"

John feels a strong, strong need to defend Cingular at any cost.

And one might ask why.  One might even answer that.

And one might even be correct.

So John, tell us:  how does the fact that other companies suck make
Cingular suck less?  So what if other companies have misinformed
employees?  Does that make Cingular better in your mind, even though
Cingular has misinformed employees?

One might add, you're one of those misinformed Cingular employees.
Your Name Here - 16 Feb 2006 00:14 GMT
> In article
> <tyyIf.398454$qk4.109188@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> And one might ask why.  One might even answer that.

I keep on saying that John works for Cingular but NO one wants to
believe the fact, statement , theory, or opinion.

I am telling you John is either or,  a total butt head or he WORKS FOR
CINGULAR OR GETS PERKS AND KICK BACKS FROM THEM.

> And one might even be correct.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> One might add, you're one of those misinformed Cingular employees.
Cliff - 25 Feb 2006 09:25 GMT
> In article
> <tyyIf.398454$qk4.109188@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> One might add, you're one of those misinformed Cingular employees.

I don't want to start a flame war or anything here - but what kind of hard
on do you have for John?  As a regular contributor here most of his posts
are informed and to the point.  It is only when we have these discussions on
portions of portions of a discussion where he said - you said - they said
and we end up with a thread that has 50+ posts in it and the original topic
is completely lost.

If John's post annoy you so much then please just killfile him and then you
won't see his posts.  And we won't have to listen to you slam him for
answering MOST of the questions here with informative replies.
Just my opinion of course.
Marty - 27 Feb 2006 22:07 GMT
Somewhere around Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:25:06 GMT, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "Cliff"
<missingrealname@yahoo.com>:

>> In article
>> <tyyIf.398454$qk4.109188@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>answering MOST of the questions here with informative replies.
>Just my opinion of course.

John's post actually contributed more useful information than the flame; I
read it as saying, yes, misinformed employees at any company can cost that
company sales, so why harp on it.  It's pretty hard to eliminate all
employee mistakes.  I would imagine that if Cingular were to try firing
every employee that makes a mistake, people would complain a lot more than
they do now.

Elmo's post, on the other hand, contributed nothing positive, just more of
the same, tired old inflammatory posts to try, once again, to stir up the
embers and get the flame wars going again.

Mature participants would, like you said, simply killfile or otherwise
ignore a disagreeable participant.  Extremists, where ever they are, seem to
thrive on fighting, and don't care or even remember the reasons half the
time.  Reminds me of the middle east, and it'll probably also never be
solved.
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
-William G. McAdoo
Marty - 14 Feb 2006 19:45 GMT
Somewhere around Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:42:25 -0800, while reading
alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Scott en
Aztlán <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com>:

>>Probably because it doesn't make sense to stock more than one SKU.  
>
>I have three unlocked Cingular phones that prove it used to make
>sense. Why would it change?

Proves it?  Come on, that proves nothing except that they used to do it, not
that it made sense.  Perhaps they learned from experience that it wasn't
worth it.  Things change, and smart companies change when they find
problems.

Geez, people, Cingular is simply a company that provides a service, not a
religion.  There are so many assumptions introduced as facts to prove other
arguments, and accusations about conspiracies for every time an agent makes
a mistake, or gets misinterpreted, it really gets rediculous.  And then,
when all else fails, you accuse someone of working for Cingular if they
don't accept the pure BS that's flying around.  

This forum should be a place for people to share information, not have
religious arguments or vents for people who have no friends to complain to
(which is understandable, as who wants to constanly listen to someone
complain about their trivial personal problems with some company.  You
people need to learn when to put it to bed.  Lighten up, and get on with
your lives - It's only a cellphone, and life's too short to waste it on such
trivialities.

Signature

Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
well, I have others."   - Groucho Marx

bamp - 14 Feb 2006 20:54 GMT
> Somewhere around Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:42:25 -0800, while reading
> alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Scott en
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> such
> trivialities.

Aaamen brother! Tell it like it is!! I agree 100%!!
..
bamp
John Navas - 15 Feb 2006 02:43 GMT
>This forum should be a place for people to share information, not have
>religious arguments or vents for people who have no friends to complain to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>your lives - It's only a cellphone, and life's too short to waste it on such
>trivialities.

Amen.

Signature

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

Scott en Aztlán - 15 Feb 2006 04:07 GMT
>Somewhere around Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:42:25 -0800, while reading
>alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Scott en
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Proves it?  Come on, that proves nothing except that they used to do it, not
>that it made sense.

They would not have done it had it not made sense.
John Navas - 15 Feb 2006 04:59 GMT
>>Somewhere around Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:42:25 -0800, while reading
>>alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from Scott en
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>They would not have done it had it not made sense.

You're displaying great ignorance of how businesses actually work.

Signature

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

DecaturTxCowboy - 15 Feb 2006 06:18 GMT
> You're displaying great ignorance of how businesses actually work.

Why do I want to scream "you're calling the kettle..." Oh, never mind.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 16 Feb 2006 00:05 GMT
> You're displaying great ignorance of how businesses actually work.

Oh, from the mouths of babes!

I'm laughing my a.s off here!  John Navas, king of the ignorant of how
businesses work, is accusing someone else of being ignorant of how
businesses work!
DecaturTxCowboy - 16 Feb 2006 00:24 GMT
>> You're displaying great ignorance of how businesses actually work.
>
> Oh, from the mouths of babes!
>
> I'm laughing my a.s off here!  

Careful, you might get asked...

"Why make yourself look like you're 8 years old?"  <-- John Navass
Scott - 16 Feb 2006 00:47 GMT
>>> You're displaying great ignorance of how businesses actually work.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> "Why make yourself look like you're 8 years old?"  <-- John Navass

Wouldn't the answer be, "Know your audience?"
SMS - 15 Feb 2006 08:05 GMT
> They would not have done it had it not made sense.

They did it because there used to be less of a downside. They had no
real competition, Voicestream/T-Mobile was not a viable competitor in
most areas. Now T-Mobile is going gang-busters, while Cingular is
struggling with declining growth. So one way to fight that is to make it
less easy for out-of-contract customers to leave.

The carriers play a game of seeing how far they can go in pissing off
customers without having the customer get angry enough to leave. A prime
example is how Verizon removes functionality from phones, but advertised
that the phones still had that functionality. Amazingly, enough people
got pissed about that to sue the company, and the company settled. Cable
TV providers do similar things, seeing how much compression they can get
away with in order to cram in more junk channels. Some people leave for
satellite, where the quality is usually higher, but most people stay.
John Navas - 15 Feb 2006 15:18 GMT
>> They would not have done it had it not made sense.
>
>They did it because there used to be less of a downside. They had no
>real competition, Voicestream/T-Mobile was not a viable competitor in
>most areas. Now T-Mobile is going gang-busters, while Cingular is
>struggling with declining growth.

Your theory (like so many of your other claims) is patently wrong on it's
face:  "They" (Cingular) actually did it only for a short period of time --
phones were locked before and after that time.  Also, T-Mobile is actually
less of a threat now than it was before the merger (the serious competition
being Verizon and to a lesser degree Sprint-Nextel), and Cingular is actually
doing pretty well.  If you've got any real evidence of a significant number of
subsidized Cingular phones being used on T-Mobile, then let's have it --
otherwise this is just blowing smoke (as usual).

>So one way to fight that is to make it
>less easy for out-of-contract customers to leave.

The probable real difference is that there wasn't time to customize ENS phones
when they first came out, an issue that has now been addressed.

>The carriers play a game of seeing how far they can go in pissing off
>customers without having the customer get angry enough to leave.

They actually work hard to balance business needs (stable customer base) with
customer needs (flexibility).  

>A prime
>example is how Verizon removes functionality from phones, but advertised
>that the phones still had that functionality. Amazingly, enough people
>got pissed about that to sue the company, and the company settled.

Not because the case had any real merit (which it didn't).

>Cable
>TV providers do similar things, seeing how much compression they can get
>away with in order to cram in more junk channels. Some people leave for
>satellite, where the quality is usually higher, but most people stay.

You have that backwards: cable quality is actually as good or better than
satellite.  Worse, satellite doesn't offer local channels in HDTV.

Signature

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

SMS - 15 Feb 2006 07:58 GMT
>> Probably because it doesn't make sense to stock more than one SKU.  
>
> I have three unlocked Cingular phones that prove it used to make
> sense. Why would it change?

Because recouping the cost of the phone is not the reason for the
subsidy lock, it never was.

What changed is that Cingular realized that it'd be less likely for a
customer with a locked phone to leave for another GSM carrier, than one
with an unlocked phone. Remember, most people don't have any
understanding of the whole locked versus unlocked issue. If T-Mobile
tells them that a Cingular phone won't work on the T-Mobile network
because the phone is locked to Cingular, how many people do you think
will research the issue and find a way to get the phone unlocked? Some
will decide to move to T-Mobile and get a new phone, but many will
decide to stick with Cingular.

I actually have a prime example of this. My mother was on Cingular,
paying way too much for the smallest GSM plan, after being migrated to
GSM from AT&T TDMA. She was complaining about the cost, but she didn't
want a new phone because she didn't want to learn how to use a different
model, and didn't want to have to re-enter her phone numbers. At 80
years old, she's not really into researching how to unlock a phone or
transfer phone books. I walked her through unlocking her phone
(amazingly it went smoothly), and she took it into T-Mobile for
activation on a prepaid plan. She said that the salesperson was
impressed that she had unlocked her Cingular phone! Her complaint about
Cingular basically mirrored Jeremy's, though she just left Cingular
without complaining about it for weeks (of course they tried to talk her
into staying by offering more minutes, but she didn't want any more
minutes, she wanted the pricing that she had with AT&T TDMA). The
coverage with T-Mobile is fine where she lives, and not great, but not
much worse than Cingular in the areas she visits most (Atlanta and
Silicon Valley).

A post-paid, low usage plan at $25-30 per month (what AT&T was charging
for their TDMA service) would be popular with low usage customer that
still want the MTM and N&W. I suppose that the carriers fear that a lot
of people with "plans that are too big for them" would switch to lower
use, less expensive plans. But prepaid is losing its image as being only
for low-life, credit-challenged people, and will fill that niche.
John Navas - 15 Feb 2006 15:21 GMT
>>> Probably because it doesn't make sense to stock more than one SKU.  
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Because recouping the cost of the phone is not the reason for the
>subsidy lock, it never was.

Of course it is (and was).

>What changed is that Cingular realized that it'd be less likely for a
>customer with a locked phone to leave for another GSM carrier, than one
>with an unlocked phone.

Your theory is patently wrong on its face:  People get cheap or even free
phones when they move to a new carrier.  If you've got any real evidence of a
significant number of subsidized Cingular phones being used on T-Mobile, then
let's have it -- otherwise this is just blowing smoke (as usual).

>[SNIP meaningless anecdote]

Signature

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

Your Name Here - 15 Feb 2006 12:28 GMT
Thats BS,  Call Customer Care/Service they said if you do international
travel,  they unlock it takes 3 days for someone to get back to you but
I was told that they do this.  Believing that they do it is another story.

Or Goto http://forum.gsmhosting.com/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=67 and try here.

As my son is always saying Google it dad

>> Probably because it doesn't make sense to stock more than one SKU.  
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I asked. The clerk told me that Cingular would not unlock it and, if I
> wanted it unlocked, I would have to "go online and pay $15."
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.