 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / March 2006Cingular Pink-Slips Customers Who Travel Too Much
Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's your take? http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_investigations/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15949_4556035,0 0.html > Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article > seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's > your take? > > http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_investigations/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15949_4556035,0 0.html It has been my understanding that the "50% roaming" rule is a standard component of any nationwide service contract with all wireless carriers. Failure to read and/or understand the conditions of one's contract is folly. A friend with T-Mo got dumped for "roaming too much" last year, so Cingular isn't the only carrier to enforce their side of the contract on this point. The individual mentioned in the article doesn't necessarily have to switch carriers, just choose another plan - but if they do switch carriers, they can port their phone numbers.  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' Per Jer: > A friend with T-Mo got dumped for "roaming too much" last year, >so Cingular isn't the only carrier to enforce their side of the contract >on this point. The individual mentioned in the article doesn't >necessarily have to switch carriers, just choose another plan Seems like it might get interesting if/when it turns out that carriers share lists of people who roam too much and/or "blacklist" people who have been rejected. Otherwise, with number portability, wouldn't people who roam a lot just ping-pong back-and-forth between a couple of carriers. SignaturePeteCresswell >Per Jer: >> A friend with T-Mo got dumped for "roaming too much" last year, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >lists of people who roam too much and/or "blacklist" people who have been >rejected. ... Silly Internet Conspiracy Theory #13240983245. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_investigations/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15949_4556035,0 0.html > It has been my understanding that the "50% roaming" rule is a standard > component of any nationwide service contract with all wireless carriers. Reading the wxyztv.com report, it sounds like the catch is that this customer didn't *know* he was roaming onto another carrier's network. He paid for nationwide service and his phone worked, and that's all he knew. Roaming is not something he did voluntarily. It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him. >>> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_investigations/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15949_4556035,0 0.html > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand > him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him. The bad publicity that Cingular got from this story lost them far more revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an alternate approach to excessive roaming. Why don't they just alert the customer, and charge extra when the customer exceeds the 50% limit? Are they concerned that putting this into the contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive as they claim? >>>> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_investigations/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15949_4556035,0 0.html >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >revenue from lost new additions than they would have saved by taking an >alternate approach to excessive roaming. Perhaps. Perhaps not. >Why don't they just alert the customer, Probably worries over TMI (too much information) -- the average customer doesn't want to have to worry about such things. >and charge extra when the >customer exceeds the 50% limit? Probably because that would undercut the marketing of flat rate plans, which have proven to be very popular. >Are they concerned that putting this >into the contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive >as they claim? Perhaps. More likely that it's confusing to most customers. The percentage affected is probably very small. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Perhaps. More likely that it's confusing to most customers. The > percentage > affected is probably very small. > Best regards, John Navas Right, Cingular admits less than 1% have breached their contract by violating the 50% clause. Since only a relatively few customers are involved, why not just let it go rather than ignominiously terminating these people and risking the bad publicity over an issue involving nickels and dimes. The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk scaring off potential new customers and making existing ones nervious. Why not try an experiment -- print out the article, blank out Cingular's name, and show it to people and ask them how it makes feel about this nameless carrier. Ask them if this info would make them shop all the harder for an alternative to this carrier. Between the lot us we could quickly and cheaply pull of a national sample survey -- albeit non-random. Even so, it would an impressive piece of marketing research because of the geogrpahic spread and, if lots of us join in, sample size as well. It would also be one of few instances of newgroups engaging in empiricism rather than just rationalism In other words, instead of trying to reason out how many teeth are in a horses mouth, we will count them and find out once and for all. --Iopsy . >> Perhaps. More likely that it's confusing to most customers. The >> percentage >> affected is probably very small. >Right, Cingular admits less than 1% have breached their contract by >violating the 50% clause. Citation? >Since only a relatively few customers are >involved, why not just let it go rather than ignominiously terminating >these people and risking the bad publicity over an issue involving nickels >and dimes. P&L. >The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk >scaring off potential new customers and making existing ones nervious. >... There will always be a certain amount of bad press no matter how a business is run, and some of the most successful businesses have a relatively high level of bad press. Think WalMart. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > >>Right, Cingular admits that only 1% have breached their contract by >>violating the 50% clause. > > Citation? John, if you had read the article all the way through you wouldn't be asking that. -- Cordially, Iopsy >>>Right, Cingular admits that only 1% have breached their contract by >>>violating the 50% clause. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >John, if you had read the article all the way through you wouldn't be asking >that. Nasty comment -- how nice. What that article actually says: A company spokeswoman also said customers like Pat, who use mainly other networks, make up about 1% of Cingulars 54 million customers. Nothing there about "breach" or "violate". In other words, your interpretation, not what it actually says. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> In article <P_pUf.608872$qk4.516197@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > What that article actually says: > > A company spokeswoman also said customers like Pat, who use mainly other > networks, make up about 1% of Cingular’s 54 million customers. > > Nothing there about "breach" or "violate". Fact: the contract says that more than 50% use of another company's network is a breach of contract. Fact: the article says...well, hell, you quoted it above for everyone to see. Add up A plus B. 1% of Cingular's customers use "mainly other networks". The word "mainly" is quite clear, and is obviously where you're sticking your head in the sand (again). "Mainly" other networks means "more than 50%" of the time. That is, by their definition and by that article, a breach of contract. One day you'll learn to read, Navas. Until then, you'll keep entertaining us with your sad attempts at sticking your head in the sand and making that the real world. > One day you'll learn to read, Navas. Until then, you'll keep > entertaining us with your sad attempts at sticking your head in the sand > and making that the real world. Careful, that might win you the Lord Vaders "hard on for Navas" award. > >>Right, Cingular admits that only 1% have breached their contract by > >>violating the 50% clause. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > John, if you had read the article all the way through you wouldn't be asking > that. But then, John never reads anything. Does this surprise you? Per Iopsy: >The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk >scaring off potential new customers It seems to be working on me... SignaturePeteCresswell > Right, Cingular admits less than 1% have breached their contract by > violating the 50% clause. Since only a relatively few customers are > involved, why not just let it go rather than ignominiously terminating > these people and risking the bad publicity over an issue involving nickels > and dimes. The article is unflattering and really does raise the risk > scaring off potential new customers and making existing ones nervious. Wireless companies are used to getting away with very little bad press in most media because they spend so much on advertising. It has to be either a very big story, or one with a very good human interest angle, in order to be published. You can bet that Cingular never dreamed that such a story would be published, and that the newspaper responsible for publishing it will not see any Cingular advertising dollars for a while. >> It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand >> him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive as they > claim? A lot of companies just don't seem to know how to make money. It comes from confusing economic competition (which means offering people a choice) with things like athletic competition (defeating your adversary). As soon as you view the customer as someone to be outwitted and defeated, you put yourself into a very weak position. The customers, as a group, have all the power. >>> It would be much better PR for Cingular if they would make a deal to hand >>> him over to a carrier in the desired area at no cost to him. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >view the customer as someone to be outwitted and defeated, you put yourself >into a very weak position. The customers, as a group, have all the power. With all due respect, that's a shortsighted view that doesn't work terribly well in practice. There is indeed real competition between companies. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>A lot of companies just don't seem to know how to make money. It comes >>from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > terribly > well in practice. There is indeed real competition between companies. Well... I would think that if it doesn't work in practice, it's too longsighted rather than too shortsighted. Anyhow, I conflated 2 points and didn't express myself too clearly. Real competition between companies is a good thing. Viewing the customer as an adversary is not. Real competition between companies gives the customer more choices and more power. You seem to view all companies as adversaries. Are you a Marxist? >>>A lot of companies just don't seem to know how to make money. It comes >>>from [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >didn't express myself too clearly. Real competition between companies is a >good thing. Viewing the customer as an adversary is not. Agreed. >Real competition >between companies gives the customer more choices and more power. Not necessarily -- competition between companies can occur in other ways. For example, one company might compete by developing a patenting a process that it might then refuse to license to competitors, but that it might not actually use itself. >You seem to view all companies as adversaries. Are you a Marxist? No. Do you always libel those with different points of view? SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > >>> http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_investigations/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15949_4556035,0 0.html > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > into the contract would let on that their coverage is not as extensive > as they claim? It may not help if, at least every 3 months, you don't get into an area. But it would seem that, if you get plenty of weekend minutes, one weekend a month using 800 or so minutes while in a Cingular area would go a long ways towards making 50% of your time on Cingular's service. Of course, it is by using even MORE Cingular service. Of course, you have to be sure that you are truly in a Cingular area if you do this. My reading of the terms is 50% of total usage over a 3 month period. Not going over 50% for each of 3 consecutive months. why dont they just try to run an honest business... > why dont they just try to run an honest business... What actual evidence of dishonesty do you have? SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > why dont they just try to run an honest business... They and their parent, the former SBC Communications, now trading under the name AT&T, have a reputation for arm-twisting their customers. They are in loosely-regulated businesses, and I read just the other day that AT&T is selling off unprofitable telephone lines (translation: regulated POTS) in some areas. Best thing to do if you are unhappy is to take your business elsewhere. If enough people do that, Cingular won't be so smug. >> why dont they just try to run an honest business... > >They and their parent, the former SBC Communications, now trading under the >name AT&T, have a reputation for arm-twisting their customers. Nonsense. >Best thing to do if you are unhappy is to take your business elsewhere. ... True. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > It has been my understanding that the "50% roaming" rule is a standard > component of any nationwide service contract with all wireless carriers. > Failure to read and/or understand the conditions of one's contract is > folly. I don't question the presence of the 50% clause in the contract, I am just wondering about the wisdom of Cingular enforcing it lest it instigate articles like the one in the link. Such publlicity could scare off some potentially profitable customers. As for me, I have never paid much attention to the percentage of my calls or minuites that are on or off the Cingular system. I have taken comfort in my nationwide plan and Cingular's reassurance that I will never have roaming charges in the US. While I live and work in an area served by Cingular towers, I do not have to go far (about a half hours drive) to leave the Cingular system and commence roaming. So even though I often don't travel for my work, I am sure I am roaming a fair amount of the time as I move about my local region . As I frequenty cross Cingular's boundary I wonder if I'll be the next to get a termination letter. I wonder if my ego could stand the rejection of being fired by Cingular when I don't even work there. Could I take their letter to the unemployment office and collect benefits, or will I have to undergo retraining? Oh, the possibilities! --Iopsy > Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article > seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's > your take? Sometime long ago, long before Al Gore "invented" the internet...I recall a situation that was ruled in favor of the consumer because critical clauses in the contract were exceptionally small or might have been the whole contract used different sizes of print. I'm just going from memory here. Disclaimer: Al Gore never said he invented the internet. But in all fairness, he did push for funding for the infrastructure. I'll give him credit for that. > Sometime long ago, long before Al Gore "invented" the internet...I recall > a situation that was ruled in favor of the consumer because critical > clauses in the contract were exceptionally small or might have been the > whole contract used different sizes of print. I'm just going from memory > here. Courts do indeed work that way, to the dismay of con artists everywhere :) This is also why we have an FCC. If someone could convince the FCC that these clauses degrade service for the nation as a whole, they might have to go away. > Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article > seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's > your take? > > http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_investigations/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15949_4556035,0 0.html He knew when he signed up that the roaming was limited to 50%. Sprint used to have a similar clause, not sure if they still do. His best bet is to sign up with Verizon, since the roaming onto their extended network is not limited. He'll have more coverage than he did before, and if he gets a tri-mode phone he'll have _far_ more coverage than he did with Cingular. Companies have the right to not sell to unprofitable customers. Look at what Cingular is doing to the AT&T Wireless customers that had sweetheart calling plans at low rates. >> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article >> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >what Cingular is doing to the AT&T Wireless customers that had >sweetheart calling plans at low rates. Cingular advertises the "all-over" network. Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no such thing. I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says Cingular on it. Even though some calls on my bill are marked follow me roaming. So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or not. I have had Cingular service for a year now. I have never had a call dropped on my end. I have never had a bad experience with customer service. The call quality on my phone is excellent. Never the less I may well change carriers at the end of my contract. WHY? In following discussion about Cingular I note that in every single case they choose the method best for them even if it hurts the customer. And make no pretense about doing otherwise. Although I don't think I am affected by this change of theirs why should I trust them in the future. Maybe I am roaming and just don't know it. I can not trust Cingular. >I can not trust Cingular. What makes you think you can "trust" any company? SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > >>I can not trust Cingular. > >What makes you think you can "trust" any company? Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not. >>>I can not trust Cingular. >> >>What makes you think you can "trust" any company? > >Experience tells you which companies you can trust or not. Trusting any company is dangerously naive. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Per John Navas: >Trusting any company is dangerously naive. I'll always remember the letter we got from AT&T about their long distance service. It actually contained the word "trust". The spiel was that we, as longtime customers, should just keep our long distance service with them and trust them to "take care of their customers". We fell for it for several years - then one day it dawned on me that we were paying something like seventy-eight cents per minute for calls to Germany while MCI was charging six or seven.... I've come to view corporations as machines. If you can get them to do something you want, then use them. If not... SignaturePeteCresswell >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Trusting any company is dangerously naive. How sad it must be to be you. Most people are honest. Since people run companies most companies are honest. Just as one has to be carefull in choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies they deal with. >>>>>I can not trust Cingular. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >How sad it must be to be you. Not sad at all. I trust me to look after myself. I trust corporations to look after themselves. That's simply a reflection of reality, how the world works. >Most people are honest. Since people run >companies most companies are honest. Companies act in their own self-interest, as they should, which doesn't mean they are being dishonest. >Just as one has to be carefull in >choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies >they deal with. Do you have any real evidence of dishonesty on the part of Cingular? The relevant language is in your service agreement. You did read it carefully before committing -- right? SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > >Most people are honest. Since people run > >companies most companies are honest. > > Companies act in their own self-interest, as they should, which doesn't mean > they are being dishonest. "Trust" and "honest" make for more heat than light here. How about "act as if they plan to keep customers like me in the long term" - which companies do and which don't. > Do you have any real evidence of dishonesty on the part of Cingular? Perhaps he was thinking of disengenuinous. Per Harry: >Most people are honest. Since people run >companies most companies are honest. Not a logical conclusion. The corporation gets to select which people run it. To the extent that a corporation's immediate goals require something besides honesty, the corporation will replace those who do not perform as the corporation desires until the jobs in question are filled by people who will toe the line. Been there. Rode out the deregulation of a major urban utility and it's subsequent acquisition by a larger entity and experienced it from within - all the way from an environment where things were 98% factual/honest and 2% political/BS to something approaching the exact opposite. In that case, I should point out that it wasn't the larger entity behind the change. Instead it was the CEO who took over after regulation to groom the company for eventual sale. Astonishing. If somebody had told me that such drastic changes could happen in such a big corporation in such a short timeframe I would not have believed them. SignaturePeteCresswell >Per Harry: >>Most people are honest. Since people run [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Astonishing. If somebody had told me that such drastic changes could happen in >such a big corporation in such a short timeframe I would not have believed them. My original comment was that since most people are honest I find most companies to be honest also. I know there was Enron and you have this one. However that doesn't make all companies dishonest. (By the way I never said that Cingular was dishonest) Furthermore I also said "Just as one has to be carefull in choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies they deal with." > How sad it must be to be you. Most people are honest. Since people run > companies most companies are honest. Just as one has to be carefull in > choosing their friends one must be carefull in choosing the compnaies > they deal with. There are several companies that have a reputation for honesty and trust, that I have dealt with and never been disappointed. You just need to choose carefully. >>>>I can not trust Cingular. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Trusting any company is dangerously naive. If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy. Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted. >>>>>I can not trust Cingular. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy. A company can be trustworthy but still act in its own interest, which may well not be the same as the interest of the consumer. >Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted. That's a big leap. The interests of the company and the customer don't always coincide. For example, companies try to maximize profit, whereas customers try to minimize price. That tension is an essential part of the free market mechanism. Companies that give away the store to please customers tend to go out of business, as in the case of AT&T Wireless. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Companies that give away the store to please customers tend to go >out of business, as in the case of AT&T Wireless. AT&T wireless didn't go out of business because they were "giving away the store" you f.cking idiot. If your going to post crap to YOUR group, you should at least post factual statements. SignatureLittleguy >>>>>I can not trust Cingular. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be trustworthy. >Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted. Most, not all are in business and make a profit by pleasing the many. Not the few. It's a volume thing. Think McDonalds-:) SignatureLittleguy >>>>>>I can not trust Cingular. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >It's a volume thing. Think McDonalds-:) True for some companies, but not for all companies -- many companies choose to make a profit by pleasing the few. Think Rolex. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>>>>I can not trust Cingular. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If a company is in business to make money, it should want to be > trustworthy. Viewing the customer as an adversary is shortsighted. They have a monopoly. It is the same few companies, and their terms are about the same. Harry wrote: > Cingular advertises the "all-over" network. > Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which > areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no > such thing. I recently ran into a simular issue. I was offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. I was showing a strong "Cingular Extend" signal. My question was: am I roaming (paying extra) or not? I called 611 on my cell phone to find out. I asked the person who answered, and he said he didn't know, but he could transfer me to Cingular. I asked: who is this? He replied: Petrocom. I ended the call there. I later called 611 when I had "Cingular" on my display, but since it was the weekend, I could not reach a real person. While searching on the internet for an answer, I found the following post in this forum: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/browse_thread/thread/dd2921 ceeb9a554/a214bdb69256696f?q=petrocom&rnum=1#a214bdb69256696f Scott Thompson wrote: > Why do the new Cingular contracts exclude Petrocom (Gulf of Mexico) in their > nationwide "no roaming" plans? The old contracts did not charge roaming > when using a Petrocom tower, now the new contracts exclude Petrocom and > Cingular charges a $0.79 per minute roaming charge even though your phone > does not indicate you are roaming. All that is displayed is "Cingular > Extended". Today I called 611 again and spoke with a customer service representative to verify if I would be paying roaming charges in the above scenerio. The customer service rep could not answer! She said I could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular would treat the call. Yeah right. >Harry wrote: >> Cingular advertises the "all-over" network. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular >would treat the call. Yeah right. Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage? SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage? Unlike airplanes, you can use a cellphone on a boat. Lot of Gulf Coast oil rigs use cellular. John Navas wrote: > Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage? I didn't really. Why do you think I called 611 first? To make sure I wouldn't see any roaming charges on my bill. I have been caught by Petrocom in the past, when I had AT&T wireless (TDMA and AMPS). I have even incurred Petrocom charges with AT&T while making calls from places like Galveston; where you might get a land signal or an offshore signal. In addition, my coworkers have incurred Petrocom charges with other carriers. Hence my caution. BTW, none of my coworkers currently use Cingular. The other thing is that the display shows "Cingular Extend". What does this mean? If it showed "Roaming", I would have no doubt. In the other areas I have been, I have not seen "Cingular Extend" or "Roaming" on my display. >> Why would you think that the Gulf of Mexico is included in USA coverage? > >Unlike airplanes, you can use a cellphone on a boat. Lot of Gulf Coast >oil rigs use cellular. You didn't answer my question. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Harry wrote: >> Cingular advertises the "all-over" network. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular > would treat the call. Yeah right. Transfer over to Sprint. You can set your phone not to roam off the Sprint PCS Network, anytime you want. >Transfer over to Sprint. You can set your phone not to roam off the Sprint >PCS Network, anytime you want. Depends on the phone. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Somewhere around 22 Mar 2006 17:19:13 -0800, while reading alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net>: >Today I called 611 again and spoke with a customer service >representative to verify if I would be paying roaming charges in the >above scenerio. The customer service rep could not answer! She said I >could wait until I got my bill, then I would know for sure how Cingular >would treat the call. Yeah right. I have one suggestion - if you get an answer like that, ask them if they really think that is a good idea, or if there might be some way to find out before you get obligated to pay. It's a reasonable request, and if asked in a reasonable manner, most would agree. If they don't, thank them and end the call. Then call back to talk to someone who has a clue. My experience (personal experience, not what I read) is that there is a small percentage of people that are either new, don't care, or on drugs at many helpdesks, Cingular included. If you get one, it doesn't really mean the whole company sucks, unless it happens repetedly. This technique has worked for me, but of course, it will not work for anyone whose agenda is to simply dis the company rather than solve a problem (not referring specifically to you here, just in general). By the way, if it's important, I often call back even when I get an answer to verify the answer. SignatureMarty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx > Somewhere around 22 Mar 2006 17:19:13 -0800, while reading > alt.cellular.cingular, I think I thought I saw this post from "GomJabbar" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a reasonable manner, most would agree. If they don't, thank them and end > the call. Then call back to talk to someone who has a clue. I don't think any of the CSRs at any of the carriers have a clue about something like that. The Gulf of Mexico is a grey area. Depending on your location, you might pick up an analog signal from the U.S., if you're close to land maybe a CDMA digital signal from the U.S., and if you're really close, maybe a GSM or TDMA signal. I think the problem here is that Cingular automatically assumes that any 800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz GSM network that the phone picks up is included roaming, so it just displays "Cingular Extend." They should use an MNC which distinguishes between included roaming and not-included roaming, if indeed they charge for it. You'd have a good case for disputing any roaming charges, since the phone didn't display "roaming." Actually they should make the phone display the current roaming charge! From what I heard, the main reason that Verizon dropped all out-of-extended-network roaming was because often customers had old PRLs that were displaying the wrong thing, especially as Verizon was cutting back significantly on included roaming. On a CDMA phone, the user must download a new PRL for the phone to correctly display the network status. So now, if you want to use your CDMA Verizon phone on a network with whom Verizon has no roaming agreement, you can't do it, your phone simply will have "No Service." Verizon is able to use this policy to force smaller companies into roaming agreements, since without one, the smaller company can no longer get any roaming revenue at all from Verizon's customers. >... The Gulf of Mexico is a grey area. Depending on >your location, you might pick up an analog signal from the U.S., if >you're close to land maybe a CDMA digital signal from the U.S., and if >you're really close, maybe a GSM or TDMA signal. Coastal GSM signals are actually comparable in range to CDMA -- here in Northern California, I consistently pick up Cingular GSM farther out to sea that Verizon phones on the same boat. >I think the problem here is that Cingular automatically assumes that any > 800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz GSM network that the phone picks up is included >roaming, so it just displays "Cingular Extend." They should use an MNC >which distinguishes between included roaming and not-included roaming, >if indeed they charge for it. Cingular SIMs are in fact programmed that way. >You'd have a good case for disputing any >roaming charges, since the phone didn't display "roaming." Actually they >should make the phone display the current roaming charge! The problem is International Roaming. If it's turned off, then there shouldn't be a charge for roaming; if it's turn on, then the phone will roam on foreign networks. If you don't need or want International Roaming, call Customer Care and make sure that it's turned off. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> I think the problem here is that Cingular automatically assumes that any >> 800 Mhz or 1900 Mhz GSM network that the phone picks up is included >> roaming, so it just displays "Cingular Extend." They should use an MNC >> which distinguishes between included roaming and not-included roaming, >> if indeed they charge for it. > Cingular SIMs are in fact programmed that way. >> You'd have a good case for disputing any >> roaming charges, since the phone didn't display "roaming." Actually they >> should make the phone display the current roaming charge! > The problem is International Roaming. If it's turned off, then there > shouldn't be a charge for roaming; if it's turn on, then the phone will roam > on foreign networks. If you don't need or want International Roaming, call > Customer Care and make sure that it's turned off. Petrocom is not an international service. It is part of the U. S. of A. It is a service for use by the oilfield workers, so they can call home (or elsewhere). And they get charged out the ying-yang for the privilege of using it. "Cingular Extend" on the display of the phone gives the unwitting user no indication that he will be billed for roaming. Of course after the bill comes in, then he will know. > And they get charged out the ying-yang for the > privilege of using it. *THAT* is an understatement! http://www.petrocom.com/gsmedge.asp Per Month $ 30 pay as you go $ 200 200 minutes $ 400 500 minutes $ 700 1,000 minutes $1,300 2,000 minutes $1,800 3,000 minutes >>>>>>I can not trust Cingular. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >They have a monopoly. It is the same few companies, and their terms are >about the same. There is no monopoly in cellular, which is intensely competitive. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which > areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no > such thing. That could present a reasonable and obvious expectation of "in network coverage" to the point it could dilute Cingular's effort to drop anyone for excessive roaming. A possible similarity to a "bait and switch" scheme >> Looking at their maps, they are all 1 color. They don't tell you which >> areas are roaming or not. Indeed their maps imply that there is no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >coverage" to the point it could dilute Cingular's effort to drop anyone >for excessive roaming. A possible similarity to a "bait and switch" scheme Have you or anybody you know ever signed up for NetFlex? Sign up for there 3 at a time package and you'll get 3 alright, just not the "hot ones". SignatureLittleguy > I am a normal custormer who had no desire to modify their phone. Every > call I've made says Cingular on it. Every call I've received says [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, the average consumer has no way of knowing if they are roaming or > not. Very good point. I have Cingular GSM phone on a MVNO, and it does show when it's off the Cingular network, as there are high roaming charges. TDMA phones also show when you're roaming. Cingular should provide some indication of roaming, and have a way to warn the user that they are roaming too much. They could automatically send a text message to the phone anytime the roaming total was over their threshold. On Verizon, the phone will show whether it's on Verizon, Verizon's Extended Network with included roaming, or just roaming, even though AFAIK, there is no limit to the use of the Extended Network, so the only one to worry about is the off network roaming. Their new plans do not allow any off-extended network roaming (supposedly there are only a couple of locations where this is a problem) and one reason is that too many people were not paying attention to the roaming indicator, or had out-of-date PRL's, and complained about huge roaming charges. >>> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This >>> article [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > I can not trust Cingular. When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS network--something I never could do with my old TDMA phones. There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to inform the user that this call is not an on-network call. At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about whether to roam or not. >When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a >setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about >whether to roam or not. The vast majority of Cingular customers don't have any need to know. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> In article <JH_Tf.601332$qk4.388151@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > >At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about > >whether to roam or not. > > The vast majority of Cingular customers don't have any need to know. Therefore, according to Navas, how Cingular does it is perfectly acceptable. Navas sounds like one of those Mac fanatics who can't acknowledge that a different way might be a better way, or that Apple could possibly screw up. > There is also a third option on my phone--something they refer to as "Call > Guard." You can set the phone to roam automatically, but incoming roaming > calls have a distinctive ring tone, to alert the user that it is a roaming > situation. And outgoing calls that are made while roaming require that the > user push a couple of extra buttons before the call completes--again, to > inform the user that this call is not an on-network call. Get the Free and Clear $5/mo option and you won't have to worry about roaming charges. While day time minutes come out of your day time minutes bucket, roaming nights and weekends would be free. Well worth it! > When I switched to Sprint a few weeks ago, I noticed that my new phone has a > setting where I can restrict it from roaming off the Sprint PCS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about > whether to roam or not. Good for Sprint. On Verizon, the roaming indicator is counter-intuitive, it's solid for off-network paid roaming, and flashing for included extended network roaming. To most people, flashing indicates a warning. > >>> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This > >>> article [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > At least the customer is informed, and can make a conscious choice about > whether to roam or not. When I had Sprint, the phone only had the option to enable roaming, or not. No third option was available. When, after the first month, I had an extra $30 in roaming charges for calls made from my home, I just disabled roaming. If they had had better coverage where I lived, it wouldn't have been necessary, and I would probably still have the service. At the time, there was an option for an extra $5/month to allow the roaming to be free. > >> Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article > >> seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > I can not trust Cingular. I admit I wasn't aware of the 50% rule until I read it on the newsgroups. It is in the middle of a large amount of small print. I couldn't even find it on Cingular's site until I went to google and searched. My year with Sprint was the first time I really had nationwide roaming without roaming charges, and I wouldn't want to go back to paying $.69/minute for roaming. In the past, I did only because with the plans then, the regional plans had enough extra minutes vs the national plans that it was still cheaper. >Companies have the right to not sell to unprofitable customers. Look at >what Cingular is doing to the AT&T Wireless customers that had >sweetheart calling plans at low rates. It's still honoring those contracts. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Cingular is not doing anything to the ex-att customers. It is att that went out of business on them. What good does it do a company to charge rates too low to stay in business? > Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article > seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's > your take? > > http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_investigations/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15949_4556035 > ,00.html so what will Navas say? "Rubbish" or "Nonsense"? Stay tuned... > Apparently market share is no longer Cingular's main objective. This article > seems to say that Cingular is shedding customers who roam too much. What's > your take? > > http://www.wxyztv.com/wxyz/ys_investigations/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15949_4556035,0 0.html Also see "http://www.cm-life.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/03/22/4420eba3cd5b0" "Cingular discontinues area service Lack of towers causes company to end contracts" It's not like these customers were traveling outside the area where they lived when they signed up for service. Cingular should also be refunding any money that they paid for handsets, when their service is discontinued. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.