Cingular screws over AT&T Free2Go customers after merger

[Guest]

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

"Jonathan Kamens" <jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us> wrote in message
news:d5g6qh$5b9$1@jik.kamens.brookline.ma.us...

> In short, after the merger the prepaid account costs 150% more
> than it did before the merger.
>
> I see other postings about this, but I don't see anything
> which makes it perfectly clear just how badly they've screwed
> over occasional users with this change. Outrageous!

I am sure that they are trying to push the "Go Phone" which had it's prices
left alone and in a couple of instances, made better. Also, I think that the
Free 2 Go plan is TDMA and the Go Phone is GSM. I suspect that that might
also have something to do with it.

> Yes, sir, these mega-mergers sure do benefit the consumer! If
> you believe that, I've got some nice land in Florida I'd like
> to sell you.

You're just bitter because you bought that land from a large real estate
company.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Ward" <bobward@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5uln71pq15459s7crub4tguecsbpul63fk@4ax.com...
> On 6 May 2005 10:47:10 -0700, "Ryan" <welziak@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I would go to http://www.ftc.gov/ and file a complaint.
>>
>>This certainly is an example of what happens to consumers after a
>>merger that no one seems to notice.
>
>
> I doubt that the FTC would force the company to provide service at a
> cost that exeeds the revenues from that service.

I DOUBT that either the FTC or the FCC (previously mentioned) would care one
way or the other. Things like "Beat Feet" come to mind. Find something that
is better for you either financially or mentally.

 

[Guest]

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

"Richie" <mbc@pcbell.net> wrote in message
news:uJSee.13920$J12.9406@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> The reason is that no one wants to supply this service is because
> Wall-Street analysts look at average revenue per line. There is not much
> marginal cost to provide prepaid service but it pulls down that critical
> ratio.

Carriers make a log of money on Pre-Paid. They always get all their money up
front and a lot of customers NEVER use all the alotted minutes in the period
of time that they are for. It's like getting something for nothing for the
carriers.

> In other countries where people mostly use prepaid, the carriers are very
> profitable selling prepaid mobile services. But the financial parameters
> are different there.

A lot of the other countries don't have the built in banking/credit system
that we have and thus they use the PAYGO system.

 

[Guest]

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

The Real Bev wrote:
>
> Bob Ward wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:03:12 -0700, The Real Bev
> > <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Worst ever was CompUSA -- They played over and over again that already
> > >annoying commercial that mocked the poor sap on hold for customer service.
> > >Seemed almost willfully antagonistic. I should get a speakerphone so I didn't
> > >have to sit there holding the stupid phone, but I don't remember seeing
> > >cordless speakerphones...
> >
> > They say the memory is the first thing to go...
> > http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=90137152&SearchEngine=Froogle&SearchTerm=90137152&Type=PE&Category=Elec&Gad=0&dcaid=17379
> >
> > or http://tinyurl.com/b5n9x
>
> ...at yard sales 🙂 That looks nice. Maybe I'll see something like that
> tomorrow.

Got a $2 Panasonic cordless speakerphone today with two lines and callerID
(both useless). Works, but the volume on the handset is too low to be
useful. I can hook it up in parallel with the other phone and only use the
speaker when I need to. Maybe the handset will improve as it charges...

--
Cheers,
Bev
=====================================================
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sat, 7 May 2005 09:34:03 -0500, "bamp" <bampatcenturyteldotnet>
wrote:

>
>"Bob Ward" <bobward@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news😱q5o71tipq7r7n4h1dkfgmhm73k3kmhp0s@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:03:12 -0700, The Real Bev
>> <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Worst ever was CompUSA -- They played over and over again that already
>>>annoying commercial that mocked the poor sap on hold for customer service.
>>>Seemed almost willfully antagonistic. I should get a speakerphone so I
>>>didn't
>>>have to sit there holding the stupid phone, but I don't remember seeing
>>>cordless speakerphones...
>>
>>
>> They say the memory is the first thing to go...
>>
>> http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=90137152&SearchEngine=Froogle&SearchTerm=90137152&Type=PE&Category=Elec&Gad=0&dcaid=17379
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/b5n9x
>
>Memory is the second thing to go!!!
>
>bamp
>


I'd forgotten that.

 

[Guest]

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

I have an old Panasonic cordless with speakerphone on the base and the
handset. It's about 5 years old.

 

[bill]

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

bamp wrote:

> Memory is the second thing to go!!!
>
> bamp

Yes, but I forget what the the first was.

Bill

 

[Guest]

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

Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> writes:
>"Ryan" <welziak@snet.net> wrote:
>>I would go to http://www.ftc.gov/ and file a complaint.
>And what would this complaint be about?? A private company raising its
>prices? Wow! That's like totally unheard of in a capitalist system!

Before the FTC and SEC approve large mergers, one of the questions they
look at is not the legality of the merger, but rather whether the
merger will benefit consumers. Another question they look at is
whether the merger will create a monopoly or near-monopoly situation
which would allow the merged corporation to inappropriately take
advantage of its monopoly status to take advantage of consumers. It is
therefore reasonable to let the FTC know after the merger of a result,
of the merger, legal or not, which is detrimental to consumers.

 

[Guest]

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

jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

>Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> writes:
>>"Ryan" <welziak@snet.net> wrote:
>>>I would go to http://www.ftc.gov/ and file a complaint.
>>And what would this complaint be about?? A private company raising its
>>prices? Wow! That's like totally unheard of in a capitalist system!
>
>Before the FTC and SEC approve large mergers, one of the questions they
>look at is not the legality of the merger, but rather whether the
>merger will benefit consumers. Another question they look at is
>whether the merger will create a monopoly or near-monopoly situation
>which would allow the merged corporation to inappropriately take
>advantage of its monopoly status to take advantage of consumers. It is
>therefore reasonable to let the FTC know after the merger of a result,
>of the merger, legal or not, which is detrimental to consumers.

(a) The merger has been approved a long time ago. There's no way to
undo it. What's the point of locking the barn after the horses have
been stolen?

(b) AT&T/Cingular have NO monopolistic powers whatsoever. Cell phone
service market remains a highly competitive one, the prepaid market
even more. The example given by the poster by no means indicates any
possibility of a monopolistic power exercise.

 

[Guest]

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

> Seems strange that the merger would help TDMA signals, since
> Cingular was all GSM, which is what AT&T was switching to. Now,
> if you were an AT&T GSM customer, I could see how the addition
> of Cingular's towers would help.
>
Guess it depends where you are but both AT&TW and Cingular provide TDMA
coverage here (centeral Alabama) before and after the merger. GSM coverage
still lags behind TDMA here. I guess you can assume that AMPS and TDMA
coverage would suffer as GSM is added but I've seen little evidence of it,
would expect the problems would be in large markets where spectrum is
limited and use is high. Note a dual band handset is needed in many
locations where Cingular and AT&TW use different bands. Note my best
coverage at home and most used phone is Cingular 800Mhz TDMA, I also have
other phones I use :

Sprint 1900 CDMA
Nextel 800 iden
Southern Link 800 iden
Verizon 800 CDMA
Cingular 1900/800 GSM
Cingular 1900/800 GSM, TDMA, AMPS
T-mobile 1900 GSM

 

[Guest]

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

Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> writes:
>(a) The merger has been approved a long time ago. There's no way to
>undo it. What's the point of locking the barn after the horses have
>been stolen?

First of all, part of the process improvement methodology is analysis
of the results of completed processes to evaluate whether they were as
expected and, if not, whether anything might be done differently in the
future to make actual results more closely resemble expected results.

Second, the change to the Free2Go rates was made only in the last few
months, so if the FTC really felt that a serious violation of the
letter or the spirit of the merger restrictions had taken place, they
could order Cingular to restore the previous rates and "make whole"
consumers who have suffered so far from the change.

Complaining to the FTC is simply giving them data. They are in a
position to amalgamate data from many consumers and decide what
action, if any, should be taken based on that data. Individual
consumers are not, so it's perfectly reasonable for individual
consumers to complain to the FTC and let them decide whether any
action should be taken.

>(b) AT&T/Cingular have NO monopolistic powers whatsoever. Cell phone
>service market remains a highly competitive one, the prepaid market
>even more. The example given by the poster by no means indicates any
>possibility of a monopolistic power exercise.

Perhaps you're right, but I was answering the general question, "Why
would it be appropriate to complain to the FTC about a company raising
rates after a merger?" rather than limiting my answer to the case of
Cingular / AT&T.

Also, whether or not a particular corporation enjoys a monopoly or a
semi-monopoly is not always obvious; the criteria that the government
uses to decide such things are not transparent, to say the least.
Again, the FTC is in a better position to judge what to do with the
data than an individual consumer is.

 

[Guest]

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

jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

>Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> writes:
>>(a) The merger has been approved a long time ago. There's no way to
>>undo it. What's the point of locking the barn after the horses have
>>been stolen?
>
>First of all, part of the process improvement methodology is analysis
>of the results of completed processes to evaluate whether they were as
>expected and, if not, whether anything might be done differently in the
>future to make actual results more closely resemble expected results.
>
>Second, the change to the Free2Go rates was made only in the last few
>months, so if the FTC really felt that a serious violation of the
>letter or the spirit of the merger restrictions had taken place, they
>could order Cingular to restore the previous rates and "make whole"
>consumers who have suffered so far from the change.
>
>Complaining to the FTC is simply giving them data. They are in a
>position to amalgamate data from many consumers and decide what
>action, if any, should be taken based on that data. Individual
>consumers are not, so it's perfectly reasonable for individual
>consumers to complain to the FTC and let them decide whether any
>action should be taken.
>
>>(b) AT&T/Cingular have NO monopolistic powers whatsoever. Cell phone
>>service market remains a highly competitive one, the prepaid market
>>even more. The example given by the poster by no means indicates any
>>possibility of a monopolistic power exercise.
>
>Perhaps you're right, but I was answering the general question, "Why
>would it be appropriate to complain to the FTC about a company raising
>rates after a merger?" rather than limiting my answer to the case of
>Cingular / AT&T.
>
>Also, whether or not a particular corporation enjoys a monopoly or a
>semi-monopoly is not always obvious; the criteria that the government
>uses to decide such things are not transparent, to say the least.
>Again, the FTC is in a better position to judge what to do with the
>data than an individual consumer is.

You sure give FTC a lot of credit. It almost sounds like you believe
their goal is to protect consumers! You can't be that naive, can you?

 

[Guest]

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

Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> writes:
>You sure give FTC a lot of credit. It almost sounds like you believe
>their goal is to protect consumers! You can't be that naive, can you?

Andrew, it took a while and several threads, but this is the last
straw. you've finally convinced me that I'm never going to derive any
benefit from anything you post.

*plonk*

 

[Guest]

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

jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

>Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> writes:
>>You sure give FTC a lot of credit. It almost sounds like you believe
>>their goal is to protect consumers! You can't be that naive, can you?
>
>Andrew, it took a while and several threads, but this is the last
>straw. you've finally convinced me that I'm never going to derive any
>benefit from anything you post.

Why? Because you're too stupid or stubborn to recognize the truth?

 

[keith]

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

On Sun, 08 May 2005 23:47:32 +0000, Jonathan Kamens wrote:

> Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> writes:
>>You sure give FTC a lot of credit. It almost sounds like you believe
>>their goal is to protect consumers! You can't be that naive, can you?
>
> Andrew, it took a while and several threads, but this is the last
> straw. you've finally convinced me that I'm never going to derive any
> benefit from anything you post.

You must derive some sort of "benefit" from other's posts? COuld it be
that you're wrong? Does your ego need stroking that badly?
>
> *plonk*

Amazing.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

Andrew White wrote:

> Why? Because you're too stupid or stubborn to recognize the truth?

The FTC is glacially slow to act, but they do actually act in the consumer's
interest more often than most other government agencies.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

 

[Guest]

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

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
>You must derive some sort of "benefit" from other's posts?

Yes. Sometimes I learn things. Sometimes what other people have to
say convinces me that I'm wrong about something, and I change my mind.
That's what this neat thing called "intelligent discourse" is all
about. I've been on the Usenet for 18 years, and I still haven't lost
hope that there are a few souls here who, like me, are actually
interested in intelligent discourse.

>COuld it be
>that you're wrong? Does your ego need stroking that badly?

And then there are the people, many more of them unfortunately, who are
only here to bait and insult others.

*plonk*

 

[Guest]

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

Jonathan Kamens wrote:

> Before Cingular merged with AT&T wireless, subscribers to the
> AT&T wireless "Free2Go" prepaid calling plan could keep a
> prepaid account active by paying only $10 every 90 days.

The best option for prepaid is now CallPlus. You only have to buy $10
every 90 days ($3.33/month).

See "http://callpluswireless.com/html/cpw_faqs.html" (they have a
terrible web site, and it is very difficult to figure out how to
activate; you have to call them, and it takes just a few minutes). The
per-minute charge is rather high (25 cents), but I wanted this for
urgent use only, so it is okay for my needs.

I activated an old TDMA phone on CallPlus for my daughter. Too bad if
her friends have fancy camera phones; when I was a kid we had to use
these phones where you put coins in. Actually, I would have added her
to my Verizon plan for $10/month, except if I change my plan to a
family plan, I will lose my 8:01 p.m. off peak start time, which is
grandfathered into my current plan.

 

[Guest]

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

Brian Beuchaw wrote:

> Yeah, pre-paid seems to be the service none of the vendors want to
supply
> (or at least make it easy to supply), even though *lots* of people
want
> it. We're ditching Free2Go on 7/15 (when our minutes expire) and
going
> with Virgin Mobile (we only have a cellphone for very, very, very
> occasional use and want to pay as little as possible since we
probably use
> 30 minutes a year on it, if that).

CallPlus is cheaper, and has better coverage.

 

[Guest]

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

googled wrote:

> Cheapest prepaid cell service for infrequent or emergency calling is
> Beyond Wireless at http://www.gobeyondwireless.com/ .

That's a very good deal, especially since you don't have to add time to
keep the phone number active. Too bad it's only available in those few
states.

I activated an old TDMA phone on CallPlus, but it's $3.33 month
minumum, and 25 cents per minute at that rate.

The CDMA and GSM prepaid is much more. Also, I can't use GSM where I
live (Silicon Valley), as the coverage is extremely poor. CDMA and TDMA
are fine.

 

[steve]

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

scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
>The best option for prepaid is now CallPlus. You only have to buy $10
>every 90 days ($3.33/month).
>See "http://callpluswireless.com/html/cpw_faqs.html" (they have a
>terrible web site, and it is very difficult to figure out how to
>activate; you have to call them, and it takes just a few minutes).

Or try http://www.pharosint.com/CallPlus_pins_buy.html

 

[Guest]

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

Steve wrote:

> scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>The best option for prepaid is now CallPlus. You only have to buy $10
>>every 90 days ($3.33/month).
>>See "http://callpluswireless.com/html/cpw_faqs.html" (they have a
>>terrible web site, and it is very difficult to figure out how to
>>activate; you have to call them, and it takes just a few minutes).
>
>
> Or try http://www.pharosint.com/CallPlus_pins_buy.html

You're better off calling directly to the phone number on
"http://callpluswireless.com/html/cpw_faqs.html" because
there is no fee for activating a phone, and they do it right
away, versus Pharos's requirement to do things by snail-mail.

In fact you get 50 minutes for 90 days, for free, when you
activate directly.

Pharos used to be the only place to buy a $10 card, but you can
buy these directly now as well.

I get a very good TDMA signal in my city, much better than Sprint PCS or
Cingular or T-Mobile GSM, so I'm happy with CallPlus for now (until
Cingular starts deactivating the AT&T TDMA network!).

 

[Guest]

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

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>The best option for prepaid is now CallPlus. You only have to buy $10
> >>every 90 days ($3.33/month).
> >>See "http://callpluswireless.com/html/cpw_faqs.html" (they have a
> >>terrible web site, and it is very difficult to figure out how to
> >>activate; you have to call them, and it takes just a few minutes).
> >
> > Or try http://www.pharosint.com/CallPlus_pins_buy.html
>
> You're better off calling directly to the phone number on
> "http://callpluswireless.com/html/cpw_faqs.html" because
> there is no fee for activating a phone, and they do it right
> away, versus Pharos's requirement to do things by snail-mail.

Only the first time, and it only took a few days. The guy clearly sent the
package the same or the next day.

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I don't need instructions, I have a hammer."
-- T.W. Wier

 

[Guest]

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

> Complaining to the FTC is simply giving them data. They are in a
> position to amalgamate data from many consumers and decide what
> action, if any, should be taken based on that data. Individual
> consumers are not, so it's perfectly reasonable for individual
> consumers to complain to the FTC and let them decide whether any
> action should be taken.

I filed a complaint at ftc.gov. This is how they responded:

" Thank you for recent correspondence. The Federal Trade Commission
acts in the public interest to stop business practices that violate the
laws it enforces. Letters from consumers and businesses are very
important to the work of the Commission. They are often the first
indication of a problem in the marketplace and may provide the initial
evidence to begin an investigation. The Commission does not resolve
individual complaints. The Commission can, however, act when it sees a
pattern of possible violations developing.

The information you have provided will be recorded in our complaint
retention system. This computerized system enables us to identify
questionable business practices that are generating numerous complaints
and may be in violation of the law.

Thank you for providing information that may be used to develop or
support Commission enforcement initiatives.



Sincerely yours,



Consumer Response Center"

 

[Guest]

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

Hey, whatever works for you. I just had good experience buying tracfone
with 14 months of service and free phone for $74. It worked great and
never dropped a single call. Never had to call customer service because
never had a problem.