Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Getting out of 2 year contract

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 4:30:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

I have been a Cingular customer for the past 18 months of a 2 year
contract. I in the process of moving and there is no Cingular sevice
were I am moving, although I am only moving about 12 miles within the
same ZIP code (rural Georgetown County in SC). There is good Verizon
signal at my new location. Cingular customer service says I must pay
a $70 cancellation fee. Is there any exception for moving that will
suspend this fee?

More about : year contract

July 31, 2004 11:38:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <b1ing09clvlnbc9ku6j4gmbsoi6ljtmht9@4ax.com>,
Bob Niles <rjnilesnospam@msn.com> wrote:

> I have been a Cingular customer for the past 18 months of a 2 year
> contract. I in the process of moving and there is no Cingular sevice
> were I am moving, although I am only moving about 12 miles within the
> same ZIP code (rural Georgetown County in SC). There is good Verizon
> signal at my new location. Cingular customer service says I must pay
> a $70 cancellation fee. Is there any exception for moving that will
> suspend this fee?

Write to your State's Attorney General with a certified copy to Cingular
Corporate HQ.

The basic common law principle of "FIT FOR PURPOSE" applies. They sell
you a phone, and you can't use it, how can they charge you for service?
July 31, 2004 11:38:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <RM123-C918AA.14385231072004@news03.east.earthlink.net>,
Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

> In article <b1ing09clvlnbc9ku6j4gmbsoi6ljtmht9@4ax.com>,
> Bob Niles <rjnilesnospam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been a Cingular customer for the past 18 months of a 2 year
> > contract. I in the process of moving and there is no Cingular sevice
> > were I am moving, although I am only moving about 12 miles within the
> > same ZIP code (rural Georgetown County in SC). There is good Verizon
> > signal at my new location. Cingular customer service says I must pay
> > a $70 cancellation fee. Is there any exception for moving that will
> > suspend this fee?
>
> Write to your State's Attorney General with a certified copy to Cingular
> Corporate HQ.
>
> The basic common law principle of "FIT FOR PURPOSE" applies. They sell
> you a phone, and you can't use it, how can they charge you for service?

You can't be lawyer if you pull that principle out of hat and think it
applies here.

It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
not Cingular's fault that he is moving.

He should pay the $70 and be done with it. Fight it, he'll lose, and
his credit will suffer. He has no basis to fight it, he's under
contract.

If you go on a 3 week vacation and Cingular has no service there, do you
call CS and demand a refund for those weeks? I think you would.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 31, 2004 11:38:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>
> It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
> cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
> not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
>

OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
that Verizon does have service? -Dave
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 1:37:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Robert" <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote in message
news:RM123-C918AA.14385231072004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <b1ing09clvlnbc9ku6j4gmbsoi6ljtmht9@4ax.com>,
> Bob Niles <rjnilesnospam@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been a Cingular customer for the past 18 months of a 2 year
> > contract. I in the process of moving and there is no Cingular sevice
> > were I am moving, although I am only moving about 12 miles within the
> > same ZIP code (rural Georgetown County in SC). There is good Verizon
> > signal at my new location. Cingular customer service says I must pay
> > a $70 cancellation fee. Is there any exception for moving that will
> > suspend this fee?
>
> Write to your State's Attorney General with a certified copy to Cingular
> Corporate HQ.
>
> The basic common law principle of "FIT FOR PURPOSE" applies. They sell
> you a phone, and you can't use it, how can they charge you for service?

Please tell me- where in the contract does the company take liability for
service it never provided? I don't see anything about guaranteed blanket
coverage. Are you saying that they are responsible for providing new
service, based on someone's desire to move? Can you please point out any
industry that does this/
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 3:29:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message news:<2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de>...

> OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
> that Verizon does have service? -Dave

I'd blame Cingular... IF Cingular was somehow forcing the OP to move
to a non-Cingular area.

However, since the OP is moving due to circumstances beyond Cingular's
control, why are they to blame?

The OP received due consideration for his committment- a reduced price
(or free) phone. Cingular is one of the few wireless providers that
offers no-contract service if you supply your own hardware or pay full
price for equipment. No one forced the OP to commit to two years.
Why should Cingular "eat" their subsidy because the OP decides to
move?

If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000
miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near
your new house?
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 4:28:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400, "Dave
C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>> It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
>> cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
>> not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
>
>OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
>that Verizon does have service? -Dave

There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage. It's
called a free market.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 1, 2004 7:23:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400, "Dave
> C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
>
> >> It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
> >> cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
> >> not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
> >
> >OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
> >that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>
> There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage. It's
> called a free market.

Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.

If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT. The CONTRACT i
hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
State Law etc takes precedence.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 7:23:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Robert" <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote in message
news:RM123-DF08F7.22235431072004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400,
"Dave
> > C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you
don't
> > >> cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's
also
> > >> not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
> > >
> > >OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an
area
> > >that Verizon does have service? -Dave
> >
> > There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage.
It's
> > called a free market.
>
> Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.
>
> If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT. The CONTRACT i
> hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
> State Law etc takes precedence.

And after a year, you have shown no proof that this is the case. You blab
on like a whiney child about this, and yet the contracts HAVE been upheld,
and no carrier has been ordered to immediately terminate service when a
customer moves outside traditional coverage areas for that carrier.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 10:23:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <g8adnWmXM9_i-JHcRVn-vQ@adelphia.com>,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

> Please tell me- where in the contract does the company take liability for
> service it never provided?

I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
holds the burden here.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 10:52:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Dave C. answered:

>>It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
>>cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
>>not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
>>
>
>
> OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
> that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>
>
certainly NOT Cingular.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 10:53:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Robert the slobberer answered:

> In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400, "Dave
>>C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
>>>>cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
>>>>not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
>>>
>>>OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
>>>that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>>
>>There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage. It's
>>called a free market.
>
>
> Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.
>
> If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT. The CONTRACT i
> hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
> State Law etc takes precedence.

you really are a putz shithead.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 12:25:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <RM123-DF08F7.22235431072004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
03:23:51 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

>In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> There is no blame because there is no guarantee of co mparable coverage. It's
>> called a free market.
>
>Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.

Not even a nice try, as you would know if you'd actually done any homework,
instead of just spewing -- as I've made clear, I have *no* connection to *any*
cellular company other than as a customer.

>If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT.

Not true.

>The CONTRACT i
>hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
>State Law etc takes precedence.

As you a lawyer and is this a legal opinion? Or is it just more misinformed
ranting? ;-)

Under the circumstances as stated, the contract is binding on the OP.

Moral: If you want the freedom to cancel, then don't sign a term contract.
Go month-to-month, as I do.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 12:25:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <de37a2e0.0407312229.197b362f@posting.google.com> on 31 Jul 2004 23:29:37
-0700, elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) wrote:

>"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in message news:<2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>> OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
>> that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>
>I'd blame Cingular... IF Cingular was somehow forcing the OP to move
>to a non-Cingular area.
>
>However, since the OP is moving due to circumstances beyond Cingular's
>control, why are they to blame?
>
>The OP received due consideration for his committment- a reduced price
>(or free) phone. Cingular is one of the few wireless providers that
>offers no-contract service if you supply your own hardware or pay full
>price for equipment. No one forced the OP to commit to two years.
>Why should Cingular "eat" their subsidy because the OP decides to
>move?
>
>If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000
>miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near
>your new house?

Well put.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 2:16:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

> >
> > OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an
area
> > that Verizon does have service? -Dave
> >
> >
> certainly NOT Cingular.

So tell me . . . if Cingular is not responsible for maintenance of the
Cingular towers, who is? -Dave
August 1, 2004 3:24:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <9O1Pc.5055$54.79655@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000
> >miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near
> >your new house?
>
> Well put.

No but many will happily give a refund. Verizon typically does upon
request.
August 1, 2004 3:25:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <wN1Pc.5054$54.79714@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <RM123-DF08F7.22235431072004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug
> 2004
> 03:23:51 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:
>
> >In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> There is no blame because there is no guarantee of co mparable coverage.
> >> It's
> >> called a free market.
> >
> >Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.
>
> Not even a nice try, as you would know if you'd actually done any homework,
> instead of just spewing -- as I've made clear, I have *no* connection to
> *any*
> cellular company other than as a customer.
>
> >If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT.
>
> Not true.

Happens all the time.
August 1, 2004 6:02:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <2n4at3FscmrkU4@uni-berlin.de>,
Jimbo Jones w/SpicyHeadberg <JJones@SpicyHB.com> wrote:

> Dave C. answered:
>
> >>It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
> >>cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
> >>not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
> >>
> >
> >
> > OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
> > that Verizon does have service? -Dave
> >
> >
> certainly NOT Cingular.

In most cases, a well placed letter or two will get one out of a
contract in such a case if the TRULY is no service (not just not as good
service).
August 1, 2004 6:02:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <2n4avfFscmrkU5@uni-berlin.de>,
Jimbo Jones w/SpicyHeadberg <JJones@SpicyHB.com> wrote:

> Robert the slobberer answered:
>
> > In article <xOWOc.5024$54.78947@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >>
> >>In <2n2ei2Frdoi2U1@uni-berlin.de> on Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:43:22 -0400, "Dave
> >>C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>It worked for 18 months, right? He signed a contract and if you don't
> >>>>cancel service within the first 14 days, you are bound to it. It's also
> >>>>not Cingular's fault that he is moving.
> >>>
> >>>OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an
> >>>area
> >>>that Verizon does have service? -Dave
> >>
> >>There is no blame because there is no guarantee of comparable coverage.
> >>It's
> >>called a free market.
> >
> >
> > Spoken like the Cellular rep you once were and still sound like.
> >
> > If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT. The CONTRACT i
> > hardly as binding in all respects as one might believe. Common law,
> > State Law etc takes precedence.
>
> you really are a putz shithead.

And you demonstrate that you must have been looking in a mirror by your
use of such language in a public forum.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 6:35:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <RM123-C852C7.06250601082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
11:25:02 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

>In article <wN1Pc.5054$54.79714@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <RM123-DF08F7.22235431072004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug
>> 2004
>> 03:23:51 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

>> >If he truly has no coverage, HE CAN GET OUT OF CONTRACT.
>>
>> Not true.
>
>Happens all the time.

The cell company may LET a subscriber out of the contract, but only if it can
be persuaded to do so. Under these circumstances, as I've noted several
times, the contract is binding.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 6:37:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <RM123-318724.06243901082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
11:24:35 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

>In article <9O1Pc.5055$54.79655@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000
>> >miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near
>> >your new house?
>>
>> Well put.
>
>No but many will happily give a refund. Verizon typically does upon
>request.

Proof? Or more hot air?

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 6:42:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <2n4c84Fs39bvU1@uni-berlin.de> on Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:16:08 -0400, "Dave C."
<mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>> > OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an area
>> > that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>> >
>> certainly NOT Cingular.
>
>So tell me . . . if Cingular is not responsible for maintenance of the
>Cingular towers, who is? -Dave

Irrelevant. Cingular isn't responsible for placing towers in the particular
area to which the OP *chose* to move. (That some other carrier does have
coverage is likewise irrelevant.) Cingular would be responsible if and only
if coverage (a) didn't exist in the first place or (b) was significantly
reduced. Neither applies in this case.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 6:46:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-31571A.06235201082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
06:23:52 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <g8adnWmXM9_i-JHcRVn-vQ@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> Please tell me- where in the contract does the company take liability for
>> service it never provided?
>
>I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
>represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
>holds the burden here.

Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
coverage in that area, but not that particular location. The burden, quite
simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the particular location,
and choose accordingly. If the subscriber chooses to move to a non-coverage
area, then it's unrealistic to expect the carrier to take the loss (e.g., of
the subsidy on the phone the OP is using).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 6:46:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <Nm7Pc.5069$54.79993@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
> >represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
> >holds the burden here.
>
> Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
> coverage in that area, but not that particular location.

But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.

It's long past time for the cellular providers to quit hiding behind the
"we said it, but it isn't so, and that's your problem" thing with
respect to their coverage maps.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 6:46:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <Nm7Pc.5069$54.79993@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
> coverage in that area, but not that particular location. The burden, quite
> simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the particular location,
> and choose accordingly.

We aren't talking about NEW service here; we're talking about someone
using the provider's map data to determine where to move to, given that
he has existing service and wants to continue it.

He can't really test it, not fully. If the provider says "yeah, we have
service there"--either the CS rep or a map--then the customer has to
expect that to be true.

They can't hide behind the old "yeah, we said so, but it isn't true, so
it's your fault" thing.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 6:46:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-8CBEF6.11080401082004@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <Nm7Pc.5069$54.79993@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > >I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
> > >represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
> > >holds the burden here.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might
well be
> > coverage in that area, but not that particular location.
>
> But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
> he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.

The more scientific and logical determination is to have the cellphone on
when looking at houses. If you have signal, you have service. And if you
move into an area where the phone doesn't work, that is your choice, not the
carrier's.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 7:22:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>If you buy a gift certificate to a local restaurant and move 1000
>miles away, is the restaurant's fault they don't have a locality near
>your new house?
>

No, it is cingular's fault. I'm in college and my roommate beat a traffic
ticket so there's my proof. And that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 7:25:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-8CBEF6.11080401082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
11:08:04 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <Nm7Pc.5069$54.79993@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
>> >represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
>> >holds the burden here.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
>> coverage in that area, but not that particular location.
>
>But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
>he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.

On the contrary -- as I wrote in the part you snipped:

The burden, quite simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the
particular location, and choose accordingly.

Checking coverage is of course quite simple (for an existing subscriber). In
fact the OP might well have known that there was no coverage before moving,
and should have known in any event.

>It's long past time for the cellular providers to quit hiding behind the
>"we said it, but it isn't so, and that's your problem" thing with
>respect to their coverage maps.

It's long past time for customers to use reasonable care and to take
responsibility for their own choices.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 7:26:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <_4-dnZPv6tlVlZDcRVn-pg@adelphia.com> on Sun, 1 Aug 2004 09:14:35 -0600,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>news:elmop-8CBEF6.11080401082004@text.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <Nm7Pc.5069$54.79993@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
>> > >represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
>> > >holds the burden here.
>> >
>> > Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
>> > coverage in that area, but not that particular location.
>>
>> But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
>> he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.
>
>The more scientific and logical determination is to have the cellphone on
>when looking at houses. If you have signal, you have service. And if you
>move into an area where the phone doesn't work, that is your choice, not the
>carrier's.

Amen.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 7:35:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-88DE28.11105101082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
11:10:51 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <Nm7Pc.5069$54.79993@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well be
>> coverage in that area, but not that particular location. The burden, quite
>> simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the particular location,
>> and choose accordingly.
>
>We aren't talking about NEW service here; we're talking about someone
>using the provider's map data to determine where to move to, given that
>he has existing service and wants to continue it.
>
>He can't really test it, not fully. If the provider says "yeah, we have
>service there"--either the CS rep or a map--then the customer has to
>expect that to be true.

Relying on a general coverage map (if he did) would be just plain silly.
Because we aren't talking about new service here, he can indeed really test
it, and fully. All he need do is (a) look at the signal strength on his
phone, or [drum roll] (b) try to make a call. Or are you suggesting that he
didn't even inspect the new location before moving?

>They can't hide behind the old "yeah, we said so, but it isn't true, so
>it's your fault" thing.

The subscriber can't hide behind the old, "yeah, I picked an area with no
coverage, so I figure you should just forget about the big discount you gave
me on my cell phone" thing.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 9:25:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>> > OK, who would you blame for the fact that Cingular has NO SERVICE in an
>area
>> > that Verizon does have service? -Dave
>> >
>> >
>> certainly NOT Cingular.
>
>So tell me . . . if Cingular is not responsible for maintenance of the
>Cingular towers, who is? -Dave

Dave, you all seem to forget several things.

The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have a
lisence to operate in his new home area. No lisence, no towers.

Maintenance would indicate that there was some service at one time but maybe
not at this time. From the sounds of it there never was any.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 10:01:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <558Pc.5076$54.80156@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >He can't really test it, not fully. If the provider says "yeah, we have
> >service there"--either the CS rep or a map--then the customer has to
> >expect that to be true.
>
> Relying on a general coverage map (if he did) would be just plain silly.
> Because we aren't talking about new service here, he can indeed really test
> it, and fully. All he need do is (a) look at the signal strength on his
> phone, or [drum roll] (b) try to make a call. Or are you suggesting that he
> didn't even inspect the new location before moving?

That may be entirely impractical. So he goes by the coverage map and/or
CS rep.

Now what?

John, you're tiring. It's not always the customer's fault. Sometimes
it's the fault of the cellular provider. In that case, it's up to the
cellular provider to make good on things--in this case, "we said we had
service but we don't, therefore there's no contract". That's simple law.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 10:03:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <zX7Pc.5073$54.80109@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
> >he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.
>
> On the contrary -- as I wrote in the part you snipped:
>
> The burden, quite simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the
> particular location, and choose accordingly.

The subscriber may not have the opportunity to do so.

If that's the case, the subscriber will fall back to the next
opportunity: ask the company. Give a ZIP code, and ask if there's
coverage. And then double check that with another phone call to CS, and
then the published map.

And when all of those things indicate that there's service, but he moves
and finds out there's not--guess what? It's the provider's problem, not
his.

When he makes best effort and they fall down on their face, it's their
fault.

John, it's not always the customer's fault. And if the provider makes a
claim that there's service but it turns out there isn't, then the
provider broke the contract. *Now* what are the penalties? Do we as
subscribers have any penalties we can levy on the providers for breaking
the contract?
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 10:06:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <_4-dnZPv6tlVlZDcRVn-pg@adelphia.com>,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

> > But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
> > he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.
>
> The more scientific and logical determination is to have the cellphone on
> when looking at houses.

That won't always happen. Some people move without even seeing the
house.

Besides: what if I base my house hunting on prior research performed by
calling the provider and asking about service in that ZIP code? And the
provider says "yes, we have full coverage in that ZIP code"?

If they don't, at that point the provider has broken their contract.
They've made a representation that isn't true.

Tell us, Scott and John, what penalties do you suggest for cellular
providers that lie and break their contracts? That lie on the phone and
on their coverage maps? Oh, I see--none. You don't think the providers
should be held responsible for lying.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 11:46:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-CB8F78.18062701082004@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <_4-dnZPv6tlVlZDcRVn-pg@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > > But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps,
then
> > > he made the best effort that was available to him to make that
decision.
> >
> > The more scientific and logical determination is to have the cellphone
on
> > when looking at houses.
>
> That won't always happen. Some people move without even seeing the
> house.

And that is there decision. Not a wise one, but that is solely my opinion.

>
> Besides: what if I base my house hunting on prior research performed by
> calling the provider and asking about service in that ZIP code? And the
> provider says "yes, we have full coverage in that ZIP code"?

Number one, get it in writing. A phone call with a 'mystery rep' wouldn't
hold water anywhere. And anybody who's used a cell phone for more than a
week will have experienced anything but blanket coverage in just about any
area code they frequent.

>
> If they don't, at that point the provider has broken their contract.
> They've made a representation that isn't true.

Agreed, but one that is undocumented.

>
> Tell us, Scott and John, what penalties do you suggest for cellular
> providers that lie and break their contracts? That lie on the phone and
> on their coverage maps? Oh, I see--none. You don't think the providers
> should be held responsible for lying.
>

Never said that, and you can venture over to the Verizon group and view a
couple of my posts over the last week, that show how I feel about broken
promises. From your tone, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

However, you injecting things into this thread that are not applicable to
the OP. Having signed a legally valid and enforceable contract, the OP has
made the decision to move, and has unilaterally diminished the value of the
service. Cingular has not changed or diminished the service that was
available a week ago. There is no legal requirement that Cingular offer
service in the new area just because a subscriber moves out of coverage.
The network described in the contract hasn't changed. What's to prevent me
from calling and cancelling service, because I'm moving out of coverage?
Don't plan on moving, but it gets me out of the contract. Believing that
I'm not the first to think of this, it may explain the firm ground being
exhibited by Cingular.
Anonymous
August 1, 2004 11:55:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

> Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
>
> The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have
a
> lisence to operate in his new home area.

So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave
August 2, 2004 12:28:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <elmop-8CBEF6.11080401082004@text.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> In article <Nm7Pc.5069$54.79993@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > >I guess it might come down to the coverage map. If their map
> > >represented service in the area, but their map is wrong, then Cingular
> > >holds the burden here.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Coverage maps aren't that specific, and there might well
> > be
> > coverage in that area, but not that particular location.
>
> But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
> he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.


If someone makes a decision where to move based on cellular coverage,
they have a lot more problems than just whether to pay the $70 to get
out of the contract.
August 2, 2004 12:37:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <2n5e6jFt3mfuU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net>
wrote:

> > Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
> >
> > The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have
> a
> > lisence to operate in his new home area.
>
> So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
> would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave

Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
that has no service.


It appears from your responses that if you convinced people you had a
brain, that would be FRAUD. I'm not convinced you have a brain, hence,
no fraud.
August 2, 2004 4:53:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <Steve-C08753.20370801082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:

> In article <2n5e6jFt3mfuU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
> > >
> > > The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have
> > a
> > > lisence to operate in his new home area.
> >
> > So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
> > would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave
>
> Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
> don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
> go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
> that has no service.

Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 4:53:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <RM123-784E68.19530701082004@news03.east.earthlink.net>,
Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

> > Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
> > don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
> > go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
> > that has no service.
>
> Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.

Don't confuse Steve and John with the facts.

I see John is too busy preening himself to pay attention here.

John had some good information back when modems were a hot topic. What
was that, 10 years ago? But time has passed John by. Now he's trying
to convince the world of his knowledge on other things, but he's failing.

John, you need to take a vacation. If you want to reinvent yourself in
the modern world, you'd do best to drop out of it for awhile and assess
yourself and the world in which you live.
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 4:53:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Robert" <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote in message
news:RM123-784E68.19530701082004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <Steve-C08753.20370801082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <2n5e6jFt3mfuU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
> > > >
> > > > The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might
not have
> > > a
> > > > lisence to operate in his new home area.
> > >
> > > So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then.
That
> > > would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave
> >
> > Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
> > don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
> > go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
> > that has no service.
>
> Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.

Funny- I don't see anything on the books. Care to expand on that, and you
need to provide more than 'fit for purpose', which the phone meets when used
on network.
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 4:53:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote in message news:<RM123-784E68.19530701082004@news03.east.earthlink.net>...

> > Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
> > don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
> > go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
> > that has no service.
>
> Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.

Bull- even "fit for purpose" has a definitive meaning- i.e. I can't
complain that the hammer I bought isn't fit for driving screws.

The cell phone and service described in the original post is still
100% "fit for the purpose" the OP bought it for. He's changed HIS
"purpose" by moving. Cingular hasn't changed the service in any way.

Now this the part where you say "spoken like cellular dealer you once
were..."

Which, while true, (I was a Cingular dealer years ago) DOES NOT
invalidate the argument. Of course, observing the rules of debate
were never your strong suit...
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 5:37:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

>So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
>would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave

Well, Dave, just because you change YOUR address doesn't void your contract.

You (whomever) had service when they signed up. It is not the carriers fault
that you decided to move.

I don't know of any other contract that is voided by moving.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 6:47:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <2n5e6jFt3mfuU1@uni-berlin.de> on Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:55:14 -0400, "Dave C."
<mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>> Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
>>
>> The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have a
>> lisence to operate in his new home area.
>
>So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
>would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave

No fraud. There is a contract to provide service in those areas in which
service is available. No carrier guarantees universal coverage. You're still
obligated to pay your bill even when you aren't in an area with coverage.
Don't like that? Then don't sign the contract in the first place.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 6:49:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <RM123-784E68.19530701082004@news03.east.earthlink.net> on Mon, 02 Aug 2004
00:53:01 GMT, Robert <RM123@faq.cIty> wrote:

>In article <Steve-C08753.20370801082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <2n5e6jFt3mfuU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > Dave, you all seem to forget several things.
>> > >
>> > > The main one that covers this conversation is that Cingular might not have
>> > a
>> > > lisence to operate in his new home area.
>> >
>> > So they can't legally charge someone for service in that area, then. That
>> > would be FRAUD, wouldn't it? -Dave
>>
>> Once a contract is taken out in an area that Cingular services, and you
>> don't cancel the contract within 2 weeks, it becomes binding whether you
>> go on vacation to a place that has no service, or you move to an area
>> that has no service.
>
>Thats what they might like you to believe. Common Law supercedes.

There is no such "common law."

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 6:50:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-FAF990.21133401082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
21:13:34 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>I see John is too busy preening himself to pay attention here.
>
>John had some good information back when modems were a hot topic. What
>was that, 10 years ago? But time has passed John by. Now he's trying
>to convince the world of his knowledge on other things, but he's failing.
>
>John, you need to take a vacation. If you want to reinvent yourself in
>the modern world, you'd do best to drop out of it for awhile and assess
>yourself and the world in which you live.

Ad hominem. Sure sign of a desperate position. ;-)

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 6:58:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-CB8F78.18062701082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
18:06:27 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <_4-dnZPv6tlVlZDcRVn-pg@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> > But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
>> > he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.
>>
>> The more scientific and logical determination is to have the cellphone on
>> when looking at houses.
>
>That won't always happen. Some people move without even seeing the
>house.

If so, then they are responsible for the consequences. The law doesn't
protect a foolish buyer.

>Besides: what if I base my house hunting on prior research performed by
>calling the provider and asking about service in that ZIP code? And the
>provider says "yes, we have full coverage in that ZIP code"?

No provider guarantees "full coverage."

>Tell us, Scott and John, what penalties do you suggest for cellular
>providers that lie and break their contracts? That lie on the phone and
>on their coverage maps? Oh, I see--none.

Oh, I see--what I actually think doesn't matter to you.

>You don't think the providers
>should be held responsible for lying.

1. Wrong.

2. There was no lie in this case.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 7:04:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-B27C1B.18035401082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
18:03:54 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <zX7Pc.5073$54.80109@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >But if the user made a decision where to move based on those maps, then
>> >he made the best effort that was available to him to make that decision.
>>
>> On the contrary -- as I wrote in the part you snipped:
>>
>> The burden, quite simply, is on the subscriber to test the coverage at the
>> particular location, and choose accordingly.
>
>The subscriber may not have the opportunity to do so.

Then the subscriber must be prepared to accept the consequences.

>If that's the case, the subscriber will fall back to the next
>opportunity: ask the company. Give a ZIP code, and ask if there's
>coverage. And then double check that with another phone call to CS, and
>then the published map.

I suspect that either (1) the subscriber didn't bother at all, or [more likely
IMHO] (2) knew in advance but moved to that location anyway.

>And when all of those things indicate that there's service, but he moves
>and finds out there's not--guess what? It's the provider's problem, not
>his.

Not unless the provider has guaranteed coverage at that particular location,
which no provider will do.

>When he makes best effort and they fall down on their face, it's their
>fault.

Nope, and no evidence of a "best effort" in any event.

>John, it's not always the customer's fault.

This case is the customer's fault.

>And if the provider makes a
>claim that there's service but it turns out there isn't, then the
>provider broke the contract.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

>*Now* what are the penalties? Do we as
>subscribers have any penalties we can levy on the providers for breaking
>the contract?

Of course. But the provider has to actually break the contract, something
that hasn't been shown.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
August 2, 2004 7:06:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <elmop-AAD0A5.18012301082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
18:01:23 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <558Pc.5076$54.80156@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >He can't really test it, not fully. If the provider says "yeah, we have
>> >service there"--either the CS rep or a map--then the customer has to
>> >expect that to be true.
>>
>> Relying on a general coverage map (if he did) would be just plain silly.
>> Because we aren't talking about new service here, he can indeed really test
>> it, and fully. All he need do is (a) look at the signal strength on his
>> phone, or [drum roll] (b) try to make a call. Or are you suggesting that he
>> didn't even inspect the new location before moving?
>
>That may be entirely impractical.

Then the subscriber must be prepared to accept the consequences.

>So he goes by the coverage map and/or
>CS rep.
>
>Now what?

The subscriber must be prepared to accept the consequences.

>John, you're tiring.

Nope.

>It's not always the customer's fault.

True.

>Sometimes
>it's the fault of the cellular provider.

True, but not in this case.

>In that case, it's up to the
>cellular provider to make good on things--in this case, "we said we had
>service but we don't, therefore there's no contract". That's simple law.

Wrong on all counts.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
August 2, 2004 8:53:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <XZhPc.5121$54.81655@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <elmop-FAF990.21133401082004@text.usenetserver.com> on Sun, 01 Aug 2004
> 21:13:34 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> >I see John is too busy preening himself to pay attention here.
> >
> >John had some good information back when modems were a hot topic. What
> >was that, 10 years ago? But time has passed John by. Now he's trying
> >to convince the world of his knowledge on other things, but he's failing.
> >
> >John, you need to take a vacation. If you want to reinvent yourself in
> >the modern world, you'd do best to drop out of it for awhile and assess
> >yourself and the world in which you live.
>
> Ad hominem. Sure sign of a desperate position. ;-)

But Elmo's correct, people get out of contracts all the time for a
variety of good reasons. Moving to an area where one doesnt have service
is a perfectly valid reason, despite your huffing and puffing.
!