California PUC fines Cingular Wireless $12M

[Guest]

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

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/24/BUG4I8TRAU1.DTL

In a landmark ruling, California regulators voted 4-1 Thursday to fine
Cingular Wireless $12.1 million for locking millions of mobile phone
customers into long-term contracts with hefty cancellation fees and then
failing to provide adequate service

The state Public Utilities Commission also ordered Cingular, a joint
venture of SBC Communications and BellSouth, to pay refunds to thousands
of customers who were forced to pay up to $550 in fees to cancel their
service from January 2000 to April 2002. Though exact figures were not
available, one consumer advocate estimated the company could be forced
to pay tens of millions of dollars in refunds.

Article continues... see link

--
Frank Harris in San Francisco

 

[Guest]

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

"Frank Harris" <frankbhX@XcompuserveX.com> wrote in message
news:cj2ugd$c7b$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>
>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/24/BUG4I8TRAU1.DTL
>
> In a landmark ruling, California regulators voted 4-1 Thursday to fine
> Cingular Wireless $12.1 million for locking millions of mobile phone
> customers into long-term contracts with hefty cancellation fees and then
> failing to provide adequate service
>
> The state Public Utilities Commission also ordered Cingular, a joint
> venture of SBC Communications and BellSouth, to pay refunds to thousands
> of customers who were forced to pay up to $550 in fees to cancel their
> service from January 2000 to April 2002. Though exact figures were not
> available, one consumer advocate estimated the company could be forced
> to pay tens of millions of dollars in refunds.
>
> Article continues... see link
>
> --
> Frank Harris in San Francisco


This will send s few shock waves through the cell phone industry, as
they all operate the same way.
Perhaps the industry needs a version of the truth in lending law, where
the cell phone company sales rep must state up front to a plotential
customer before the contract is signed something like the following:

1. "Through the air telephone service is no different than broadcast radio
or television. There will always be spots the signal cannot reach. Despite
the great coverage we have in your home location there are areas where calls
might get dropped and others where there may be no service at all."

2. "Because you're signing up for a long term plan, we are able to provide
you with a high quality phone well below it's normal cost. While you can
cancel your service at any time, you willl be charged the prorated balance
of what it cost us to buy the phone, plus a small clerical fee of $15.00 if
you leave before the end of the contract period.
For example, should you cancel at the 6th month of your 1 year contract
, you will owe half the true cost of your phone minus the $49.99 you are
paying today. As your phone cost $160.00, your cancellation charge at 6
months would be $160.00 minus $49.99 ($110.01) divided by 2 (1/2 your
contract completed) plus $15.00 or $70.01.

No company can gaurantee 100 percent coverage 100 percent of the time.
And cancellation fees of $550.00 seem pretty excessive. A little more
honesty up front before the sale, and a resonable cancelation fee that
covers the actual lost money would go along way towards making cell phone
companies more user friendly. According to some surveys I saw many rank up
there with the IRS as very annoying necesities. This may spur them to do
something to change that image.

Bob



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.769 / Virus Database: 516 - Release Date: 9/24/2004

 

[Rock]

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

>
> This will send s few shock waves through the cell phone industry, as
> they all operate the same way.
> Perhaps the industry needs a version of the truth in lending law,
where
> the cell phone company sales rep must state up front to a plotential
> customer before the contract is signed something like the following:
>
> 1. "Through the air telephone service is no different than broadcast
radio
> or television. There will always be spots the signal cannot reach.
Despite
> the great coverage we have in your home location there are areas where
calls
> might get dropped and others where there may be no service at all."
>
> 2. "Because you're signing up for a long term plan, we are able to
provide
> you with a high quality phone well below it's normal cost. While you can
> cancel your service at any time, you willl be charged the prorated balance
> of what it cost us to buy the phone, plus a small clerical fee of $15.00
if
> you leave before the end of the contract period.
> For example, should you cancel at the 6th month of your 1 year
contract
> , you will owe half the true cost of your phone minus the $49.99 you are
> paying today. As your phone cost $160.00, your cancellation charge at 6
> months would be $160.00 minus $49.99 ($110.01) divided by 2 (1/2 your
> contract completed) plus $15.00 or $70.01.
>
> No company can gaurantee 100 percent coverage 100 percent of the
time.
> And cancellation fees of $550.00 seem pretty excessive. A little more
> honesty up front before the sale, and a resonable cancelation fee that
> covers the actual lost money would go along way towards making cell phone
> companies more user friendly. According to some surveys I saw many rank
up
> there with the IRS as very annoying necesities. This may spur them to do
> something to change that image.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.769 / Virus Database: 516 - Release Date: 9/24/2004
>
>
I doubt the phones even cost more than $50 cingular. When you can but a
computer for $400-$500, I don't see the phones coming from overseas to be
the big expense they are made out to be.

 

[Guest]

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

> I doubt the phones even cost more than $50 cingular. When you can but a
> computer for $400-$500, I don't see the phones coming from overseas to be
> the big expense they are made out to be.
>

A modern cell phone is a computer married to a high-quality radio
transceiver. In theory at least, it should cost more than a personal
computer. In electronics, smaller = more expensive. Thus I'd estimate
actual value of a cell phone to be about a thousand bucks. HOWEVER, as the
cell phones are produced in bulk, the cost to produce them is probably a lot
less. Still, I doubt very much that any cell phone company can buy a decent
cell phone for $50. $150 or better I might believe. -Dave

 

[Guest]

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

As a Cingular/Pacific Bell customer during those times, Cingular got what
they deserve. Your defense of Cingular shows me you were not their customer
then. If it were up to me, the fine should be 100x higher. Absolutely no
mitigation or reduction.

"rjdriver" <rjdrivers@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6vz5d.75475$9Y5.19584@fed1read02...
>
> No company can gaurantee 100 percent coverage 100 percent of the time.
> And cancellation fees of $550.00 seem pretty excessive. A little more
> honesty up front before the sale, and a resonable cancelation fee that
> covers the actual lost money would go along way towards making cell phone