No. VA suburbs: Cingular or ATTWS?
Last response: in Network Providers
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)
Hi,
Our Verizon contract expires early next month. Because of the many dead
zones in the Fairfax VA area, including our prime shopping area, we are
going to switch over to either Cingular or AT&T. The details of the AT&T
plan fit our needs a little bit better than Cingular, but Cingular will give
us our preferred phones for free, on a federal employee discount. Consider
it about a wash.
My question is whether one offers better coverage now, whether Cingular &
AT&T are sharing towers in the DC/northern VA area already or when they
might begin to do so, and whether it might be advantageous to go with
Cingular as the "surviving" company, in case the merging of the two networks
(assuming the merger/buy-out does take place) causes temporary difficulties
for AT&T customers.
Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
Thanks!
Michael
Hi,
Our Verizon contract expires early next month. Because of the many dead
zones in the Fairfax VA area, including our prime shopping area, we are
going to switch over to either Cingular or AT&T. The details of the AT&T
plan fit our needs a little bit better than Cingular, but Cingular will give
us our preferred phones for free, on a federal employee discount. Consider
it about a wash.
My question is whether one offers better coverage now, whether Cingular &
AT&T are sharing towers in the DC/northern VA area already or when they
might begin to do so, and whether it might be advantageous to go with
Cingular as the "surviving" company, in case the merging of the two networks
(assuming the merger/buy-out does take place) causes temporary difficulties
for AT&T customers.
Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
Thanks!
Michael
More about : suburbs cingular attws
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <fbk9d.10750$r3.3242@trnddc05> on Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:20:43 GMT, "Michael
Jay Friedman" <friedman_michael@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Our Verizon contract expires early next month. Because of the many dead
>zones in the Fairfax VA area, including our prime shopping area, we are
>going to switch over to either Cingular or AT&T. The details of the AT&T
>plan fit our needs a little bit better than Cingular, but Cingular will give
>us our preferred phones for free, on a federal employee discount. Consider
>it about a wash.
>
>My question is whether one offers better coverage now,
Hard to say -- it varies.
>whether Cingular &
>AT&T are sharing towers in the DC/northern VA area already
They aren't.
>or when they
>might begin to do so,
Probably not until after the merger is completed.
>and whether it might be advantageous to go with
>Cingular as the "surviving" company, in case the merging of the two networks
>(assuming the merger/buy-out does take place) causes temporary difficulties
>for AT&T customers.
Probably not.
>Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
>month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
No.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <fbk9d.10750$r3.3242@trnddc05> on Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:20:43 GMT, "Michael
Jay Friedman" <friedman_michael@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Our Verizon contract expires early next month. Because of the many dead
>zones in the Fairfax VA area, including our prime shopping area, we are
>going to switch over to either Cingular or AT&T. The details of the AT&T
>plan fit our needs a little bit better than Cingular, but Cingular will give
>us our preferred phones for free, on a federal employee discount. Consider
>it about a wash.
>
>My question is whether one offers better coverage now,
Hard to say -- it varies.
>whether Cingular &
>AT&T are sharing towers in the DC/northern VA area already
They aren't.
>or when they
>might begin to do so,
Probably not until after the merger is completed.
>and whether it might be advantageous to go with
>Cingular as the "surviving" company, in case the merging of the two networks
>(assuming the merger/buy-out does take place) causes temporary difficulties
>for AT&T customers.
Probably not.
>Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
>month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
No.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)
Actually, if you choose ATT you will get the benefit of free roaming on
cingular, but not vice-versa.
John Navas, did you not know that?
steve
In article <Gik9d.16635$54.267229@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <fbk9d.10750$r3.3242@trnddc05> on Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:20:43 GMT, "Michael
> Jay Friedman" <friedman_michael@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Our Verizon contract expires early next month. Because of the many dead
> >zones in the Fairfax VA area, including our prime shopping area, we are
> >going to switch over to either Cingular or AT&T. The details of the AT&T
> >plan fit our needs a little bit better than Cingular, but Cingular will give
> >us our preferred phones for free, on a federal employee discount. Consider
> >it about a wash.
> >
> >My question is whether one offers better coverage now,
>
> Hard to say -- it varies.
>
> >whether Cingular &
> >AT&T are sharing towers in the DC/northern VA area already
>
> They aren't.
>
> >or when they
> >might begin to do so,
>
> Probably not until after the merger is completed.
>
> >and whether it might be advantageous to go with
> >Cingular as the "surviving" company, in case the merging of the two networks
> >(assuming the merger/buy-out does take place) causes temporary difficulties
> >for AT&T customers.
>
> Probably not.
>
> >Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
> >month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
>
> No.
Actually, if you choose ATT you will get the benefit of free roaming on
cingular, but not vice-versa.
John Navas, did you not know that?
steve
In article <Gik9d.16635$54.267229@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <fbk9d.10750$r3.3242@trnddc05> on Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:20:43 GMT, "Michael
> Jay Friedman" <friedman_michael@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Our Verizon contract expires early next month. Because of the many dead
> >zones in the Fairfax VA area, including our prime shopping area, we are
> >going to switch over to either Cingular or AT&T. The details of the AT&T
> >plan fit our needs a little bit better than Cingular, but Cingular will give
> >us our preferred phones for free, on a federal employee discount. Consider
> >it about a wash.
> >
> >My question is whether one offers better coverage now,
>
> Hard to say -- it varies.
>
> >whether Cingular &
> >AT&T are sharing towers in the DC/northern VA area already
>
> They aren't.
>
> >or when they
> >might begin to do so,
>
> Probably not until after the merger is completed.
>
> >and whether it might be advantageous to go with
> >Cingular as the "surviving" company, in case the merging of the two networks
> >(assuming the merger/buy-out does take place) causes temporary difficulties
> >for AT&T customers.
>
> Probably not.
>
> >Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
> >month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
>
> No.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
>Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
>>month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
This is something worth researching. If you were to remain an AT&T customer,
they'd have to continue letting you operate under the terms of the last
contract signed until you either signed a new contract or dropped the service.
I'm not positive that the rules apply in the same way when there's a
buyout/merger involved, but I don't see why they wouldn't. It wouldn't really
be fair to AT&T's existing customers for Cingular to force them into new plans.
And I'm not sure they want to risk losing a huge number of clients by doing so.
Steve Grauman
>Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
>>month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
This is something worth researching. If you were to remain an AT&T customer,
they'd have to continue letting you operate under the terms of the last
contract signed until you either signed a new contract or dropped the service.
I'm not positive that the rules apply in the same way when there's a
buyout/merger involved, but I don't see why they wouldn't. It wouldn't really
be fair to AT&T's existing customers for Cingular to force them into new plans.
And I'm not sure they want to risk losing a huge number of clients by doing so.
Steve Grauman
Related ressources
- So how is ATTWS GSM service - really? - Forum
- Dropped ATT for Verizon - Forum
- "A or B" side? - Forum
- Cingular in Chicago - Forum
- Cingular vs. Verizon in Boston? - Forum
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.attws (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
I've actually said that several times. But they don't share the same towers.
In <071020041838003987%reply@news.group> on Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:38:41 GMT,
steve <reply@news.group> wrote:
>Actually, if you choose ATT you will get the benefit of free roaming on
>cingular, but not vice-versa.
>
>John Navas, did you not know that?
>In article <Gik9d.16635$54.267229@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <fbk9d.10750$r3.3242@trnddc05> on Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:20:43 GMT, "Michael
>> Jay Friedman" <friedman_michael@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Our Verizon contract expires early next month. Because of the many dead
>> >zones in the Fairfax VA area, including our prime shopping area, we are
>> >going to switch over to either Cingular or AT&T. The details of the AT&T
>> >plan fit our needs a little bit better than Cingular, but Cingular will give
>> >us our preferred phones for free, on a federal employee discount. Consider
>> >it about a wash.
>> >
>> >My question is whether one offers better coverage now,
>>
>> Hard to say -- it varies.
>>
>> >whether Cingular &
>> >AT&T are sharing towers in the DC/northern VA area already
>>
>> They aren't.
>>
>> >or when they
>> >might begin to do so,
>>
>> Probably not until after the merger is completed.
>>
>> >and whether it might be advantageous to go with
>> >Cingular as the "surviving" company, in case the merging of the two networks
>> >(assuming the merger/buy-out does take place) causes temporary difficulties
>> >for AT&T customers.
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>> >Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
>> >month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
>>
>> No.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
I've actually said that several times. But they don't share the same towers.
In <071020041838003987%reply@news.group> on Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:38:41 GMT,
steve <reply@news.group> wrote:
>Actually, if you choose ATT you will get the benefit of free roaming on
>cingular, but not vice-versa.
>
>John Navas, did you not know that?
>In article <Gik9d.16635$54.267229@typhoon.sonic.net>, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <fbk9d.10750$r3.3242@trnddc05> on Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:20:43 GMT, "Michael
>> Jay Friedman" <friedman_michael@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Our Verizon contract expires early next month. Because of the many dead
>> >zones in the Fairfax VA area, including our prime shopping area, we are
>> >going to switch over to either Cingular or AT&T. The details of the AT&T
>> >plan fit our needs a little bit better than Cingular, but Cingular will give
>> >us our preferred phones for free, on a federal employee discount. Consider
>> >it about a wash.
>> >
>> >My question is whether one offers better coverage now,
>>
>> Hard to say -- it varies.
>>
>> >whether Cingular &
>> >AT&T are sharing towers in the DC/northern VA area already
>>
>> They aren't.
>>
>> >or when they
>> >might begin to do so,
>>
>> Probably not until after the merger is completed.
>>
>> >and whether it might be advantageous to go with
>> >Cingular as the "surviving" company, in case the merging of the two networks
>> >(assuming the merger/buy-out does take place) causes temporary difficulties
>> >for AT&T customers.
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>> >Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
>> >month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
>>
>> No.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041007194401.28718.00000424@mb-m05.aol.com> on 07 Oct 2004 23:44:01 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
>>>month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
>
>This is something worth researching. If you were to remain an AT&T customer,
>they'd have to continue letting you operate under the terms of the last
>contract signed until you either signed a new contract or dropped the service.
Once the old contract expires, Cingular could require that you sign a new
contract
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041007194401.28718.00000424@mb-m05.aol.com> on 07 Oct 2004 23:44:01 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>Also, if we go with AT&T, would Cingular be obliged to let us go
>>>month-to-month on the same terms once the contract expires?
>
>This is something worth researching. If you were to remain an AT&T customer,
>they'd have to continue letting you operate under the terms of the last
>contract signed until you either signed a new contract or dropped the service.
Once the old contract expires, Cingular could require that you sign a new
contract
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
>Once the old contract expires, Cingular could require that you sign a new
>contract
How? I thought the laws protected consumers from this kind of treatment.
Steve Grauman
>Once the old contract expires, Cingular could require that you sign a new
>contract
How? I thought the laws protected consumers from this kind of treatment.
Steve Grauman
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041007223713.29613.00000312@mb-m05.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 02:37:13 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>Once the old contract expires, Cingular could require that you sign a new
>>contract
>
>How? I thought the laws protected consumers from this kind of treatment.
By otherwise refusing to provide service. No law requires a carrier to
provide month-to-month service, or even service at all.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041007223713.29613.00000312@mb-m05.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 02:37:13 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>Once the old contract expires, Cingular could require that you sign a new
>>contract
>
>How? I thought the laws protected consumers from this kind of treatment.
By otherwise refusing to provide service. No law requires a carrier to
provide month-to-month service, or even service at all.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
>By otherwise refusing to provide service. No law requires a carrier to
>provide month-to-month service, or even service at all.
But there ARE laws that say my cellular provider has to allow me to continue to
get service under a previous contract even if the contract term has expired.
I.E. if you signed up with T-Mobile and your contract expires tomorrow, they're
required to allow you to continue to get service under that contract, expired
or not. I don't understand how Cingular can buy out AT&T and then refuse the
previous AT&T customers access to something they were granted by law.
Steve Grauman
>By otherwise refusing to provide service. No law requires a carrier to
>provide month-to-month service, or even service at all.
But there ARE laws that say my cellular provider has to allow me to continue to
get service under a previous contract even if the contract term has expired.
I.E. if you signed up with T-Mobile and your contract expires tomorrow, they're
required to allow you to continue to get service under that contract, expired
or not. I don't understand how Cingular can buy out AT&T and then refuse the
previous AT&T customers access to something they were granted by law.
Steve Grauman
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041008010634.01064.00001188@mb-m26.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 05:06:34 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>By otherwise refusing to provide service. No law requires a carrier to
>>provide month-to-month service, or even service at all.
>
>But there ARE laws that say my cellular provider has to allow me to continue to
>get service under a previous contract even if the contract term has expired.
>I.E. if you signed up with T-Mobile and your contract expires tomorrow, they're
>required to allow you to continue to get service under that contract, expired
>or not.
What laws?
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041008010634.01064.00001188@mb-m26.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 05:06:34 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>By otherwise refusing to provide service. No law requires a carrier to
>>provide month-to-month service, or even service at all.
>
>But there ARE laws that say my cellular provider has to allow me to continue to
>get service under a previous contract even if the contract term has expired.
>I.E. if you signed up with T-Mobile and your contract expires tomorrow, they're
>required to allow you to continue to get service under that contract, expired
>or not.
What laws?
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
>What laws?
I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are Federal
Laws to that effect. Consult a lawyer.
Steve Grauman
>What laws?
I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are Federal
Laws to that effect. Consult a lawyer.
Steve Grauman
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041008031911.23542.00001499@mb-m18.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 07:19:11 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>What laws?
>
>I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are Federal
>Laws to that effect.
Sorry, but I can't take that seriously.
>Consult a lawyer.
I suggest you take your own advice.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041008031911.23542.00001499@mb-m18.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 07:19:11 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>What laws?
>
>I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are Federal
>Laws to that effect.
Sorry, but I can't take that seriously.
>Consult a lawyer.
I suggest you take your own advice.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:9lw9d.16685$54.269549@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <20041008031911.23542.00001499@mb-m18.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 07:19:11
> GMT,
> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>
>>>What laws?
>>
>>I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are
>>Federal
>>Laws to that effect.
>
> Sorry, but I can't take that seriously.
I believe he is referring to the "thereoughtabea" law
this law requires everyone to adhere to the "seems right"
rule of behaviour.
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:9lw9d.16685$54.269549@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <20041008031911.23542.00001499@mb-m18.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 07:19:11
> GMT,
> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>
>>>What laws?
>>
>>I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are
>>Federal
>>Laws to that effect.
>
> Sorry, but I can't take that seriously.
I believe he is referring to the "thereoughtabea" law
this law requires everyone to adhere to the "seems right"
rule of behaviour.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <jAx9d.3$ua2.1@trnddc09> on Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:34:55 GMT, "Bernard
Farquart" <bernardfarquart@hotmail.delete.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:9lw9d.16685$54.269549@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <20041008031911.23542.00001499@mb-m18.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 07:19:11
>> GMT,
>> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>
>>>>What laws?
>>>
>>>I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are
>>>Federal
>>>Laws to that effect.
>>
>> Sorry, but I can't take that seriously.
>
>I believe he is referring to the "thereoughtabea" law
>this law requires everyone to adhere to the "seems right"
>rule of behaviour.
LOL
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <jAx9d.3$ua2.1@trnddc09> on Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:34:55 GMT, "Bernard
Farquart" <bernardfarquart@hotmail.delete.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:9lw9d.16685$54.269549@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>
>> In <20041008031911.23542.00001499@mb-m18.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 07:19:11
>> GMT,
>> oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>
>>>>What laws?
>>>
>>>I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are
>>>Federal
>>>Laws to that effect.
>>
>> Sorry, but I can't take that seriously.
>
>I believe he is referring to the "thereoughtabea" law
>this law requires everyone to adhere to the "seems right"
>rule of behaviour.
LOL
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
>I suggest you take your own advice.
Why? Obviously my understanding of the law isn't complete or Cingular wouldn't
be getting away with forcing ATTWS customers to resign when their contracts are
up. All I know is that there are Federal Laws which protect customers when
buying cellular service. If you don't want to believe me, OK. I'm happy getting
discounted phones and good service, and I couldn't care less if it's under AT&T
or Cingular.
Steve Grauman
>I suggest you take your own advice.
Why? Obviously my understanding of the law isn't complete or Cingular wouldn't
be getting away with forcing ATTWS customers to resign when their contracts are
up. All I know is that there are Federal Laws which protect customers when
buying cellular service. If you don't want to believe me, OK. I'm happy getting
discounted phones and good service, and I couldn't care less if it's under AT&T
or Cingular.
Steve Grauman
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041008180705.19398.00005333@mb-m17.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 22:07:05 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>I suggest you take your own advice.
>
>Why?
Because you're making unsubstantiated legal claims.
>Obviously my understanding of the law isn't complete or Cingular wouldn't
>be getting away with forcing ATTWS customers to resign when their contracts are
>up. All I know is that there are Federal Laws which protect customers when
>buying cellular service.
Of course there are -- they just do what you think they do (or want them to
do).
>If you don't want to believe me, OK.
Want has nothing to do with it -- I don't believe you because what you say is
contrary to the law.
>I'm happy getting
>discounted phones and good service, and I couldn't care less if it's under AT&T
>or Cingular.
In other words, ignorance is bliss. ;-)
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041008180705.19398.00005333@mb-m17.aol.com> on 08 Oct 2004 22:07:05 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>I suggest you take your own advice.
>
>Why?
Because you're making unsubstantiated legal claims.
>Obviously my understanding of the law isn't complete or Cingular wouldn't
>be getting away with forcing ATTWS customers to resign when their contracts are
>up. All I know is that there are Federal Laws which protect customers when
>buying cellular service.
Of course there are -- they just do what you think they do (or want them to
do).
>If you don't want to believe me, OK.
Want has nothing to do with it -- I don't believe you because what you say is
contrary to the law.
>I'm happy getting
>discounted phones and good service, and I couldn't care less if it's under AT&T
>or Cingular.
In other words, ignorance is bliss. ;-)
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
>Because you're making unsubstantiated legal claims.
>
Not really. I've had at least 3 different service providers who all told me
this. Maybe it's possible that it's a California State law and not a Federal
one. Either that or I guess they could be lying. But nobody has tried to screw
me on it.
>In other words, ignorance is bliss. ;-)
>
In some cases, it is. But I know enough about Cellular service and the
different providers who serve my area to know that I'm getting a good deal. I
get plenty of minutes at a great price, great service/coverage and discounted
prices on phones. I've examined the competeing plans and the only ones that
give more minutes for the same money are ones provided by T-Mobile and Sprint,
who's coverage in my area is nearly non-existant. I'm not being ignorant, but I
sure am blissful.
Steve Grauman
>Because you're making unsubstantiated legal claims.
>
Not really. I've had at least 3 different service providers who all told me
this. Maybe it's possible that it's a California State law and not a Federal
one. Either that or I guess they could be lying. But nobody has tried to screw
me on it.
>In other words, ignorance is bliss. ;-)
>
In some cases, it is. But I know enough about Cellular service and the
different providers who serve my area to know that I'm getting a good deal. I
get plenty of minutes at a great price, great service/coverage and discounted
prices on phones. I've examined the competeing plans and the only ones that
give more minutes for the same money are ones provided by T-Mobile and Sprint,
who's coverage in my area is nearly non-existant. I'm not being ignorant, but I
sure am blissful.
Steve Grauman
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041009054515.08561.00000152@mb-m22.aol.com> on 09 Oct 2004 09:45:15 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>Because you're making unsubstantiated legal claims.
>
>Not really. I've had at least 3 different service providers who all told me
>this.
In other words, not lawyers.
>Maybe it's possible that it's a California State law and not a Federal
>one. ...
Or maybe it's possible that it's not a law at all. ;-)
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <20041009054515.08561.00000152@mb-m22.aol.com> on 09 Oct 2004 09:45:15 GMT,
oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:
>>Because you're making unsubstantiated legal claims.
>
>Not really. I've had at least 3 different service providers who all told me
>this.
In other words, not lawyers.
>Maybe it's possible that it's a California State law and not a Federal
>one. ...
Or maybe it's possible that it's not a law at all. ;-)
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
>But there ARE laws that say my cellular provider has to allow me to continue
>to
>get service under a previous contract even if the contract term has expired.
No there are no such laws!
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
>But there ARE laws that say my cellular provider has to allow me to continue
>to
>get service under a previous contract even if the contract term has expired.
No there are no such laws!
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
>I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are Federal
>Laws to that effect. Consult a lawyer.
No need for a lawyer. There is simply no such law.
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
>I couldn't quote exactly where they are on the books, but there are Federal
>Laws to that effect. Consult a lawyer.
No need for a lawyer. There is simply no such law.
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)
>Obviously my understanding of the law isn't complete or Cingular wouldn't
>be getting away with forcing ATTWS customers to resign when their contracts
>are
>up.
Where do you get this idea. No one said that Cingular is doing anything with
AT&T customers.
First and foremost, there hasn't been a take over. There has been nothing
published that might even come close to suggesting what you stated.
Until the take over no knows what is going to happen. Keep in mid too that you
obviously have absolutly NO IDEA what you are talking about.
No such law as you are speculating is in place at the local, state or federal
level.
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
>Obviously my understanding of the law isn't complete or Cingular wouldn't
>be getting away with forcing ATTWS customers to resign when their contracts
>are
>up.
Where do you get this idea. No one said that Cingular is doing anything with
AT&T customers.
First and foremost, there hasn't been a take over. There has been nothing
published that might even come close to suggesting what you stated.
Until the take over no knows what is going to happen. Keep in mid too that you
obviously have absolutly NO IDEA what you are talking about.
No such law as you are speculating is in place at the local, state or federal
level.
--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
Related ressources:
- ForumiPaq 6315 on Cingular
- ForumCingular in Raleigh, NC
- ForumCingular service in Maryland questions
- ForumSprint PCS or Cingular /GSM?
- ForumWhy no names on Verizon caller ID?
- ForumVerizon Expanding Service - MSNBC
- ForumNasty Rumor.. Old AT&T Customers getting screwed soon?
- ForumGSM Coverage--I'm Confused
- ForumWhat phones work with "Digital" coverage area?
- ForumAdvice re: changing accounts
- ForumUsing GSM phone as a "dial-up modem"
- ForumATT vs. Verizon
- ForumVerizon finally has some competition...
- ForumTwo Verizon phones. same number?
- ForumRealplayer and Cingular's GPRS network
- More resources
Read discussions in other Network Providers categories
!
