Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Call forwarding not included with cingular plans???

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 8, 2004 9:16:19 PM

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

I've been a wireless phone user for a long time now and it seems that
wireless companies always included services such as call forwarding with
just about all calling plans.

For example Verizon includes these services:
3-Way Calling
411 Connect®
Basic Voice Mail
Call Forwarding
Call WaitingCaller ID
New Every Two®
No Answer/Transfer
TXT Messaging

ATT gave free call forwarding as well.

I was looking on the cingular page, and call forwarding is not listed as a
service included with your plan. Is it truly the case that you have to pay
for call forwarding with cingular?
December 8, 2004 10:49:43 PM

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

I just signed up with Cingular, and don't have the phone yet, however,
I picked up a brochure at a Cingular store today. It lists:

Basic voicemail
Call forwarding
Call waiting
3-way calling
Caller ID
Detailed billing
Text/Instant messaging (10-cents a message unless you pay extra)
Multimedia messaging (25-cents per message unless you pay extra)
Media net (1-cent per kilobyte unless you pay extra)

This is for GSM National plans. Don't know if it would be different
for regional plans.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:16:19 -0800, "Halogen8" <halogen8@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I've been a wireless phone user for a long time now and it seems that
>wireless companies always included services such as call forwarding with
>just about all calling plans.
>
>For example Verizon includes these services:
>3-Way Calling
>411 Connect®
>Basic Voice Mail
>Call Forwarding
>Call WaitingCaller ID
>New Every Two®
>No Answer/Transfer
>TXT Messaging
>
>ATT gave free call forwarding as well.
>
>I was looking on the cingular page, and call forwarding is not listed as a
>service included with your plan. Is it truly the case that you have to pay
>for call forwarding with cingular?
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 9, 2004 12:32:48 PM

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

I am sure you "get" (enabled) call forwarding for "free" which each carrier,
but you have to pay per forwarded call, or per forwarded minute. Each
carrier charges differently.

Cingular is 10 cents a minute I believe. Cingular offers as an option, the
fast-forwarding package, that is intended to be use with the included
cradle, but also has unlimited call forwarding for the monthly $2.99(?) fee.
This fee is waived with combined SBC billing.

Lance

"Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
news:8uefr09fl9gpr8q6csamhd4fbo49qolosc@4ax.com...
> I just signed up with Cingular, and don't have the phone yet, however,
> I picked up a brochure at a Cingular store today. It lists:
>
> Basic voicemail
> Call forwarding
> Call waiting
> 3-way calling
> Caller ID
> Detailed billing
> Text/Instant messaging (10-cents a message unless you pay extra)
> Multimedia messaging (25-cents per message unless you pay extra)
> Media net (1-cent per kilobyte unless you pay extra)
>
> This is for GSM National plans. Don't know if it would be different
> for regional plans.
>
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:16:19 -0800, "Halogen8" <halogen8@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've been a wireless phone user for a long time now and it seems that
> >wireless companies always included services such as call forwarding with
> >just about all calling plans.
> >
> >For example Verizon includes these services:
> >3-Way Calling
> >411 Connect®
> >Basic Voice Mail
> >Call Forwarding
> >Call WaitingCaller ID
> >New Every Two®
> >No Answer/Transfer
> >TXT Messaging
> >
> >ATT gave free call forwarding as well.
> >
> >I was looking on the cingular page, and call forwarding is not listed as
a
> >service included with your plan. Is it truly the case that you have to
pay
> >for call forwarding with cingular?
> >
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 9, 2004 11:49:55 PM

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

Lance,

Thanks for the information.

I found this on cingulars website (but am still not perfectly clear):

http://www.cingular.com/customer_service/common_call_fo...
"Forwarded calls are billed airtime from the time the call is answered until
it is ended. Each call forwarded may receive, depending on your location,
per minute/per call or interconnect charges based on where the call is
forwarded."

So if I forward the phone during offpeak, and I have unlimited offpeak, I am
not billed to forward a call within my same area code?

What exactly are interconnect charges, and where/when are they billed?

Thanks!


"SBC" <lsblack@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4ZUtd.56600$QJ3.35015@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>I am sure you "get" (enabled) call forwarding for "free" which each
>carrier,
> but you have to pay per forwarded call, or per forwarded minute. Each
> carrier charges differently.
>
> Cingular is 10 cents a minute I believe. Cingular offers as an option,
> the
> fast-forwarding package, that is intended to be use with the included
> cradle, but also has unlimited call forwarding for the monthly $2.99(?)
> fee.
> This fee is waived with combined SBC billing.
>
> Lance
>
> "Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
> news:8uefr09fl9gpr8q6csamhd4fbo49qolosc@4ax.com...
>> I just signed up with Cingular, and don't have the phone yet, however,
>> I picked up a brochure at a Cingular store today. It lists:
>>
>> Basic voicemail
>> Call forwarding
>> Call waiting
>> 3-way calling
>> Caller ID
>> Detailed billing
>> Text/Instant messaging (10-cents a message unless you pay extra)
>> Multimedia messaging (25-cents per message unless you pay extra)
>> Media net (1-cent per kilobyte unless you pay extra)
>>
>> This is for GSM National plans. Don't know if it would be different
>> for regional plans.
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:16:19 -0800, "Halogen8" <halogen8@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I've been a wireless phone user for a long time now and it seems that
>> >wireless companies always included services such as call forwarding with
>> >just about all calling plans.
>> >
>> >For example Verizon includes these services:
>> >3-Way Calling
>> >411 Connect®
>> >Basic Voice Mail
>> >Call Forwarding
>> >Call WaitingCaller ID
>> >New Every Two®
>> >No Answer/Transfer
>> >TXT Messaging
>> >
>> >ATT gave free call forwarding as well.
>> >
>> >I was looking on the cingular page, and call forwarding is not listed as
> a
>> >service included with your plan. Is it truly the case that you have to
> pay
>> >for call forwarding with cingular?
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 11, 2004 2:48:53 PM

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

I checked the Cingular link. This is new. Wow, that is confusing. It used
to be 10 cents a minute (for GSM at least), plus any long distance, unless
you had 'unlimited call forwarding' which was part of the 'fast forward'
option.

Now you need to call Cingular service, and give them specific scenariors to
get cost.
Cell phone in immediate home area - forwarded to home phone.
Cell phone in immediate home area - forwarded to mobile phone in home
area.
Cell phone in national home area - forwarded to mobile in national home
area.
Cell phone in national home area - forwarded to phone in national home
area.
Cell phone international roaming - forwarded to mobile in national home
area.
(etc)

I currently don't know.

Lance

"Halogen8" <halogen8@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XV9ud.131$Sq.88@fed1read01...
> Lance,
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> I found this on cingulars website (but am still not perfectly clear):
>
> http://www.cingular.com/customer_service/common_call_fo...
> "Forwarded calls are billed airtime from the time the call is answered
until
> it is ended. Each call forwarded may receive, depending on your location,
> per minute/per call or interconnect charges based on where the call is
> forwarded."
>
> So if I forward the phone during offpeak, and I have unlimited offpeak, I
am
> not billed to forward a call within my same area code?
>
> What exactly are interconnect charges, and where/when are they billed?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> "SBC" <lsblack@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:4ZUtd.56600$QJ3.35015@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >I am sure you "get" (enabled) call forwarding for "free" which each
> >carrier,
> > but you have to pay per forwarded call, or per forwarded minute. Each
> > carrier charges differently.
> >
> > Cingular is 10 cents a minute I believe. Cingular offers as an option,
> > the
> > fast-forwarding package, that is intended to be use with the included
> > cradle, but also has unlimited call forwarding for the monthly $2.99(?)
> > fee.
> > This fee is waived with combined SBC billing.
> >
> > Lance
> >
> > "Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
> > news:8uefr09fl9gpr8q6csamhd4fbo49qolosc@4ax.com...
> >> I just signed up with Cingular, and don't have the phone yet, however,
> >> I picked up a brochure at a Cingular store today. It lists:
> >>
> >> Basic voicemail
> >> Call forwarding
> >> Call waiting
> >> 3-way calling
> >> Caller ID
> >> Detailed billing
> >> Text/Instant messaging (10-cents a message unless you pay extra)
> >> Multimedia messaging (25-cents per message unless you pay extra)
> >> Media net (1-cent per kilobyte unless you pay extra)
> >>
> >> This is for GSM National plans. Don't know if it would be different
> >> for regional plans.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:16:19 -0800, "Halogen8" <halogen8@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've been a wireless phone user for a long time now and it seems that
> >> >wireless companies always included services such as call forwarding
with
> >> >just about all calling plans.
> >> >
> >> >For example Verizon includes these services:
> >> >3-Way Calling
> >> >411 Connect®
> >> >Basic Voice Mail
> >> >Call Forwarding
> >> >Call WaitingCaller ID
> >> >New Every Two®
> >> >No Answer/Transfer
> >> >TXT Messaging
> >> >
> >> >ATT gave free call forwarding as well.
> >> >
> >> >I was looking on the cingular page, and call forwarding is not listed
as
> > a
> >> >service included with your plan. Is it truly the case that you have
to
> > pay
> >> >for call forwarding with cingular?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
December 13, 2004 7:53:34 PM

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

SBC sold me the Cingular service with the $40 "fast forward" device and
$2.99 monthly forwarding charge waived. What a great idea...you just place
the phone in the charger/fast forward device and your calls are
automatically forwarded to the preassigned number. Here is the problem:
Unless I am totally inept when it comes to mechanical things and
electronics, this "Fast Forward" device is quite poorly designed. This is
supposed to be a combination charging base and automatic call forwarder.
Good idea, poorly executed. The phone is a Sony-Ericsson T-616 (but that's
another post altogether).

The first fast forward device failed after about four weeks. SBC directed
me to a Cingular Store, where SBC/Cingular customers are not even
acknowledged as Cingular users, to exchange the unit. The manager, after a
few minutes of grumbling, did exchange the device, however. In the several
months since then, I have continued to use the fast forward device, while
informally collecting statistics on its use.

1 of 4 attempts OK. In use, a successful connect and forward activity
occurs about one time in four. Of the other three attempts out of four, one
time will just lock up the phone requiring battery removal to restart it.
The other two times out of four, the Fast Forward device just beeps in
protest, and you have to press the cancel button, remove the phone and try
again. Just the "plug in" procedure is an exercise in manual dexterity
requiring a fair amount of practice.

Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
Again, a good idea, poorly executed.

Oh yes, one more thing. I cannot prove it yet, but I will have evidence at
the end of this billing cycle I think, that forwarded calls DO use your
Cingular minutes, so all you get for the forwarding is use of your other,
probably more convenient, phones.

It looks like Verizon, in spiter of their higher prices, may have to be my
next carrier.

"SBC" <lsblack@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4ZUtd.56600$QJ3.35015@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>I am sure you "get" (enabled) call forwarding for "free" which each
>carrier,
> but you have to pay per forwarded call, or per forwarded minute. Each
> carrier charges differently.
>
> Cingular is 10 cents a minute I believe. Cingular offers as an option,
> the
> fast-forwarding package, that is intended to be use with the included
> cradle, but also has unlimited call forwarding for the monthly $2.99(?)
> fee.
> This fee is waived with combined SBC billing.
>
> Lance
>
> "Dick" <LeadWinger> wrote in message
> news:8uefr09fl9gpr8q6csamhd4fbo49qolosc@4ax.com...
>> I just signed up with Cingular, and don't have the phone yet, however,
>> I picked up a brochure at a Cingular store today. It lists:
>>
>> Basic voicemail
>> Call forwarding
>> Call waiting
>> 3-way calling
>> Caller ID
>> Detailed billing
>> Text/Instant messaging (10-cents a message unless you pay extra)
>> Multimedia messaging (25-cents per message unless you pay extra)
>> Media net (1-cent per kilobyte unless you pay extra)
>>
>> This is for GSM National plans. Don't know if it would be different
>> for regional plans.
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:16:19 -0800, "Halogen8" <halogen8@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I've been a wireless phone user for a long time now and it seems that
>> >wireless companies always included services such as call forwarding with
>> >just about all calling plans.
>> >
>> >For example Verizon includes these services:
>> >3-Way Calling
>> >411 Connect®
>> >Basic Voice Mail
>> >Call Forwarding
>> >Call WaitingCaller ID
>> >New Every Two®
>> >No Answer/Transfer
>> >TXT Messaging
>> >
>> >ATT gave free call forwarding as well.
>> >
>> >I was looking on the cingular page, and call forwarding is not listed as
> a
>> >service included with your plan. Is it truly the case that you have to
> pay
>> >for call forwarding with cingular?
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
December 13, 2004 8:18:42 PM

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:53:34 GMT, "William" <will@swbell.net> wrote:

>Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
>joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
>Again, a good idea, poorly executed.

Lord knows what you're doing since you can either use codes punched
into your keypad or use phone menus to forward and it shouldn't take
more than a few key strokes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
December 13, 2004 8:37:57 PM

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

In article <iOjvd.39566$bP2.6278@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, William
<will@swbell.net> wrote:

>
> Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
> joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
> Again, a good idea, poorly executed.
>
Well you can save the command to your phone book in in the format:

**61*<forward to number>*11*5# This serves to forward calls if
unanswered after 5 seconds. there are other codes for busy and
unavailable transfer.

BTW, T-mobile provides 500 minutes per month for conditional forwarding
(busy, no answer, unavailable) the is no charge for it. with this
service I dial **61*<forward to number>*11*5# and hit send.


steve
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 13, 2004 8:40:33 PM

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

In article <iOjvd.39566$bP2.6278@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
will@swbell.net says...
> Good idea, poorly executed. The phone is a Sony-Ericsson T-616 (but that's
> another post altogether).
>
Sounds like it's a problem with the base communicating with the SE T-616
not really a problem with the device. Can't say I'm surprised
considering all the problems people report with the Txxx phones.

> Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
> joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
> Again, a good idea, poorly executed.

Again, not Cingular's fault. Does the phone have any "one-touch" speed
dialing where you just push and hold a 1-9 button? Every brand I've
ever had has had such a feature. You'd need to dedicate two buttons to
that.

> Oh yes, one more thing. I cannot prove it yet, but I will have evidence at
> the end of this billing cycle I think, that forwarded calls DO use your
> Cingular minutes, so all you get for the forwarding is use of your other,
> probably more convenient, phones.
>

Let us know but from what others, and the Cingular website, says there
should be NO forwarding charges and NO minutes used. If you see
otherwise more than likely the "unlimited forwarding" feature is not
activated correctly and CS will have to fix it (and credit your
minutes).
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 13, 2004 8:54:41 PM

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

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

In <iOjvd.39566$bP2.6278@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> on Mon, 13 Dec 2004
16:53:34 GMT, "William" <will@swbell.net> wrote:

>Of course, the alternative forwarding method with this phone requires 15
>joystick and button presses to enable and a similar number to cancel.
>Again, a good idea, poorly executed.

That can be greatly simplified with a Shortcut using standard GSM codes.

>Oh yes, one more thing. I cannot prove it yet, but I will have evidence at
>the end of this billing cycle I think, that forwarded calls DO use your
>Cingular minutes, so all you get for the forwarding is use of your other,
>probably more convenient, phones.

Contact Customer Care.

>It looks like Verizon, in spiter of their higher prices, may have to be my
>next carrier.

"The grass isn't greener..." -- Verizon has its own set of issues, including
the lack of standard GSM codes.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 18, 2004 2:51:16 AM

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

William wrote:

>
> Oh yes, one more thing. I cannot prove it yet, but I will have evidence at
> the end of this billing cycle I think, that forwarded calls DO use your
> Cingular minutes, so all you get for the forwarding is use of your other,
> probably more convenient, phones.
>

So, what would you expect to be billed for the following scenarios:

- mobile to mobile forwarded to land where both mobiles have free mobile
to mobile

- land to mobile forwarded to long distance where the mobile has free
long distance

In either of those cases, and probably others, there is the potential
for abuse if you didn't get billed for something. Minutes of use seems
fair because then the forwarding leg is treated as if you made the call.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 20, 2004 11:23:54 AM

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:53:34 GMT, "William" <will@swbell.net> wrote:

>The first fast forward device failed after about four weeks. SBC directed
>me to a Cingular Store, where SBC/Cingular customers are not even
>acknowledged as Cingular users

I've heard similar things about the SBC/Dish Network partnership, i.e.
from a customer service standpoint, it's better to sign up with Dish
Network directly than to sign up through SBC.

>It looks like Verizon, in spiter of their higher prices, may have to be my
>next carrier.

Don't go to Verizon expecting it to be any better. I left Verizon
Wireless for Cingular, and VZW said "goodbye" by raping me with a $175
"early termination fee" even though there was nothing early about my
termination at all. Cingular offered me month-to-month service from
day one, AND they have many cool Bluetooth phones whereas VZW
grudgingly offers only one (and it doesn't work well with the
Bluetooth Hands Free Link in my Acura TL). AND their prices are
higher.

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy *or* become Verizon customers.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 20, 2004 11:25:38 AM

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:40:33 GMT, Jud Hardcastle
<l5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.removethis.com> wrote:

>Sounds like it's a problem with the base communicating with the SE T-616
>not really a problem with the device. Can't say I'm surprised
>considering all the problems people report with the Txxx phones.

What problems are these?

I have two T-616s and a T-637 - they work just fine for me.

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy *or* become Verizon customers.
December 20, 2004 4:18:48 PM

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

could you clarify a bit? i am on Verizon Wireless so this interests me. I
signed up for a 1-yr. plan in May 2003. I have been month-to-month (as far
as i know) since then, but it sounds like they may have some provision
saying you automatically renew for another year??


>
> Don't go to Verizon expecting it to be any better. I left Verizon
> Wireless for Cingular, and VZW said "goodbye" by raping me with a $175
> "early termination fee" even though there was nothing early about my
> termination at all.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 21, 2004 4:20:03 AM

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

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

In <3kuds0tu9dgc7c90k2ek4uu49icdtbjm8p@4ax.com> on Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:23:54
-0800, Scott en Aztlán <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:

>Don't go to Verizon expecting it to be any better. I left Verizon
>Wireless for Cingular, and VZW said "goodbye" by raping me with a $175
>"early termination fee" even though there was nothing early about my
>termination at all.

Then you are also at fault for letting VZW get away with it. Did you even
file a complaint with the BBB?

>Cingular offered me month-to-month service from
>day one,

No longer -- minimum 1-year term.

>AND they have many cool Bluetooth phones whereas VZW
>grudgingly offers only one (and it doesn't work well with the
>Bluetooth Hands Free Link in my Acura TL). AND their prices are
>higher.

True.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 22, 2004 12:24:40 AM

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

In article <nghhs0d1c9b7dojvkdkjr9ro9nift6dt4u@4ax.com>,
Scott en Aztl?n <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:

> >No longer -- minimum 1-year term.
>
> Since when?

Since John felt he had to open his mouth and say SOMETHING, and this was
the only thing that came to mind for him.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 23, 2004 12:49:40 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:52:54 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>>No longer -- minimum 1-year term.
>>
>>Since when?
>
>Sometime in the past year.
>
>>And how do they justify locking a customer into a contract when they
>>have no subsidy costs to recover?
>
>Sign-up costs.

Bullshit. Those are more than covered by the "activation fee" that you
pay when you add a new line. The fact that I signed up last year with
no contract whatsoever is proof of this.

Cingular has just removed the main reason people like me signed up
with them in the first place. I guess arrogance is part of the package
you get when you're #1. :( 

Hey, maybe now that VZW is #2 they'll try harder! :) 

>Cingular wants to minimize churn.

Gee, maybe they could try doing that by offering better service at a
better price? :rolleyes:

BTW, what's so special about the cellular industry that they feel
their "churn" problems are so much worse than, say, the pay TV
industry's? I can sign up for Cox cable, Dish Network, or DirecTV
month-to-month as long as I don't ask them to subsidize my hardware
purchase. Why do cell phone companies deny me this option?

>>Or are they like T-Mobile, who
>>doesn't even TRY to justify their outright rapaciousness?
>
>T-Mobile is actually the price leader.

That may be, but they lost their chance to have me as a customer with
their ridiculous policy of insisting on a long-term contract even when
I was supplying my own hardware.

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for resale on eBay).
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 23, 2004 10:50:23 PM

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

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

In <bq0ms01c29jq47o8ek4bdn8h4p4fgmiu17@4ax.com> on Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:49:40
-0800, Scott en Aztlán <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:52:54 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>>And how do they justify locking a customer into a contract when they
>>>have no subsidy costs to recover?
>>
>>Sign-up costs.
>
>Bullshit. Those are more than covered by the "activation fee" that you
>pay when you add a new line. The fact that I signed up last year with
>no contract whatsoever is proof of this.

I don't agree.

>Cingular has just removed the main reason people like me signed up
>with them in the first place. I guess arrogance is part of the package
>you get when you're #1. :( 

I don't think so.

>Hey, maybe now that VZW is #2 they'll try harder! :) 

It's been trying harder, which is how it got to be the prior #1.

>>Cingular wants to minimize churn.
>
>Gee, maybe they could try doing that by offering better service at a
>better price? :rolleyes:

I think it is; otherwise I would be with some other carrier.

>BTW, what's so special about the cellular industry that they feel
>their "churn" problems are so much worse than, say, the pay TV
>industry's? ...

What's special is the ease of switching carriers. It's much harder to switch
TV services.

>>>Or are they like T-Mobile, who
>>>doesn't even TRY to justify their outright rapaciousness?
>>
>>T-Mobile is actually the price leader.
>
>That may be, but they lost their chance to have me as a customer with
>their ridiculous policy of insisting on a long-term contract even when
>I was supplying my own hardware.

Sounds to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face, since that's
standard industry practice. You're not the kind of customer cellular carriers
want, so they choose not to give you what you want -- that's how a free market
works.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 23, 2004 10:50:24 PM

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

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:50:23 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>>>And how do they justify locking a customer into a contract when they
>>>>have no subsidy costs to recover?
>>>
>>>Sign-up costs.
>>
>>Bullshit. Those are more than covered by the "activation fee" that you
>>pay when you add a new line. The fact that I signed up last year with
>>no contract whatsoever is proof of this.
>
>I don't agree.

Why not? Any logical reason, or do you just enjoy arguing?

>>>Cingular wants to minimize churn.
>>
>>Gee, maybe they could try doing that by offering better service at a
>>better price? :rolleyes:
>
>I think it is; otherwise I would be with some other carrier.

Then they don't need to lock you in with a contract, do they?

>>BTW, what's so special about the cellular industry that they feel
>>their "churn" problems are so much worse than, say, the pay TV
>>industry's? ...
>
>What's special is the ease of switching carriers. It's much harder to switch
>TV services.

Hardly. Until number portability, it was actually EASIER to switch
your TV service. Drop Dish and call DirecTV - you can even use the
same dish if you want - just re-aim it to the DirecTV satellite. The
Dishes and LNBs are compatible. Or switch from Dish to cable.

>>>>Or are they like T-Mobile, who
>>>>doesn't even TRY to justify their outright rapaciousness?
>>>
>>>T-Mobile is actually the price leader.
>>
>>That may be, but they lost their chance to have me as a customer with
>>their ridiculous policy of insisting on a long-term contract even when
>>I was supplying my own hardware.
>
>Sounds to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face, since that's
>standard industry practice.

That doesn't mean it's not asinine.

>You're not the kind of customer cellular carriers
>want, so they choose not to give you what you want -- that's how a free market
>works.

I pay Cingualr $114/month in service charges - just what sort of
customers does Cingular want if not people like me?

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for resale on eBay).
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 24, 2004 6:52:04 AM

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

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

In <01sms0te9sm9ujlfgadlterslr227msgtf@4ax.com> on Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:32:31
-0800, Scott en Aztlán <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:50:23 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>>Bullshit. Those are more than covered by the "activation fee" that you
>>>pay when you add a new line. The fact that I signed up last year with
>>>no contract whatsoever is proof of this.
>>
>>I don't agree.
>
>Why not? Any logical reason, or do you just enjoy arguing?

Lots of experience in Customer Service and Billing. And you?

>>>>Cingular wants to minimize churn.
>>>
>>>Gee, maybe they could try doing that by offering better service at a
>>>better price? :rolleyes:
>>
>>I think it is; otherwise I would be with some other carrier.
>
>Then they don't need to lock you in with a contract, do they?

The contract reflects the deal I'm being given. Without a minimum contact,
the price would probably be higher because costs would be higher.

>>>BTW, what's so special about the cellular industry that they feel
>>>their "churn" problems are so much worse than, say, the pay TV
>>>industry's? ...
>>
>>What's special is the ease of switching carriers. It's much harder to switch
>>TV services.
>
>Hardly. ...

We'll just have to agree to disagree -- I don't care to argue about it.

>>Sounds to me like cutting off your nose to spite your face, since that's
>>standard industry practice.
>
>That doesn't mean it's not asinine.

I think that speaks for itself.

>>You're not the kind of customer cellular carriers
>>want, so they choose not to give you what you want -- that's how a free market
>>works.
>
>I pay Cingualr $114/month in service charges - just what sort of
>customers does Cingular want if not people like me?

People willing to accept term contracts.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 24, 2004 11:44:01 AM

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

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:52:04 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>>>Bullshit. Those are more than covered by the "activation fee" that you
>>>>pay when you add a new line. The fact that I signed up last year with
>>>>no contract whatsoever is proof of this.
>>>
>>>I don't agree.
>>
>>Why not? Any logical reason, or do you just enjoy arguing?
>
>Lots of experience in Customer Service and Billing.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam.

>>>>>Cingular wants to minimize churn.
>>>>
>>>>Gee, maybe they could try doing that by offering better service at a
>>>>better price? :rolleyes:
>>>
>>>I think it is; otherwise I would be with some other carrier.
>>
>>Then they don't need to lock you in with a contract, do they?
>
>The contract reflects the deal I'm being given. Without a minimum contact,
>the price would probably be higher because costs would be higher.

This is Argumentum Ad Nauseum - repeating something over and over
again does not prove it to be true. You would be more convincing if
you explained the details of WHY costs are higher without a contract.

I've presented FACTS to back up my position. How about you do the same
for yours?

>>>>BTW, what's so special about the cellular industry that they feel
>>>>their "churn" problems are so much worse than, say, the pay TV
>>>>industry's? ...
>>>
>>>What's special is the ease of switching carriers. It's much harder to switch
>>>TV services.
>>
>>Hardly. ...
>
>We'll just have to agree to disagree -- I don't care to argue about it.

Then I guess this conversation is over. ;) 

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for resale on eBay).
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 24, 2004 8:00:49 PM

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

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

In <2bhos09sebk2oeesjj2et9mctisglkgaoq@4ax.com> on Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:44:01
-0800, Scott en Aztlán <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:

>I've presented FACTS to back up my position. ...

Actually you haven't.

>Then I guess this conversation is over. ;) 

Works for me.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
December 24, 2004 9:28:50 PM

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

Scott en Aztlán <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in
news:2bhos09sebk2oeesjj2et9mctisglkgaoq@4ax.com:

> Then I guess this conversation is over. ;) 

All discussions with John Navas are over before they even begin. He's always
right, because he's John Navas and he said so. You're supposed to accept
that, and if you don't, you're a fool, because John Navas said so.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 24, 2004 11:29:16 PM

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

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

In <Xns95C97EFAECA6Estile@129.250.170.89> on 24 Dec 2004 18:28:50 GMT, Howard
<stile99@email.com.> wrote:

>Scott en Aztlán <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in
>news:2bhos09sebk2oeesjj2et9mctisglkgaoq@4ax.com:
>
>> Then I guess this conversation is over. ;) 
>
>All discussions with John Navas are over before they even begin. He's always
>right, because he's John Navas and he said so. You're supposed to accept
>that, and if you don't, you're a fool, because John Navas said so.

FYI, your post specifically violates the newsgroup charter, which I think
speaks for itself.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
December 25, 2004 12:27:23 AM

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

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:w__yd.14272$_3.159124@typhoon.sonic.net:

> FYI, your post specifically violates the newsgroup charter, which I
> think speaks for itself.

Not surprising. I'm quite sure questioning John Navas is specifically
listed as a violation.

I also don't care. You also have no idea which group I posted this to, and
which one is the crossposted one. As usual, you have no clue, but think
you do.

But I'm the one who is wrong, because you're John Navas. Forgive me, O
King.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 25, 2004 10:42:21 AM

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

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

In <Xns95C99D417D9CDstile@129.250.170.82> on 24 Dec 2004 21:27:23 GMT, Howard
<stile99@email.com.> wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:w__yd.14272$_3.159124@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>> FYI, your post specifically violates the newsgroup charter, which I
>> think speaks for itself.

>But I'm the one who is wrong, ...

Agreed.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular&gt;
December 25, 2004 11:10:37 PM

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

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:xR8zd.14394$_3.160319@typhoon.sonic.net:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Xns95C99D417D9CDstile@129.250.170.82> on 24 Dec 2004 21:27:23 GMT,
> Howard
><stile99@email.com.> wrote:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>news:w__yd.14272$_3.159124@typhoon.sonic.net:
>>
>>> FYI, your post specifically violates the newsgroup charter, which I
>>> think speaks for itself.
>
>>But I'm the one who is wrong, ...
>
> Agreed.

John Navas, ladies and gentleman. Unable to hold a conversation on his
own, relies on misquoting others.

I really don't need to tell people what you are, you do so much a better
job of it than I ever could. Thank you.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
December 26, 2004 4:26:02 AM

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

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

In <Xns95CA903ECBDAAstile@129.250.170.90> on 25 Dec 2004 20:10:37 GMT, Howard
<stile99@email.com.> wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:xR8zd.14394$_3.160319@typhoon.sonic.net:
>
>> In <Xns95C99D417D9CDstile@129.250.170.82> on 24 Dec 2004 21:27:23 GMT,
>> Howard
>><stile99@email.com.> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>>news:w__yd.14272$_3.159124@typhoon.sonic.net:
>>>
>>>> FYI, your post specifically violates the newsgroup charter, which I
>>>> think speaks for itself.
>>
>>>But I'm the one who is wrong, ...
>>
>> Agreed.
>
>John Navas, ladies and gentleman. Unable to hold a conversation on his
>own, relies on misquoting others.

I see your sense of humor is as poor as your manners. Oh well. Have a nice
day.
!