NEWS: AT&T Prepares to ‘De-Brand’ the Cingular Wireless Name

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/technology/12phone.html>

One of the biggest "de-brandings" in advertising history is to begin
Monday when AT&T, now the sole owner of Cingular Wireless, starts
changing all Cingular marketing to adopt the AT&T name.

AT&T will not disclose the budget for the campaign, which will
continue for five or six months -- leading to the partnership with
Apple on the new iPhone, scheduled for midyear.

A campaign last year to promote AT&T as the new brand name of SBC
Communications cost an estimated $1 billion.

...

"We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision lightly,"
Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at AT&T in San
Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the name of
Cingular, the nation’s largest mobile carrier.

"What consumer and business customers want is a single provider of
services for the way they live and work today," Ms. Clark said, "and
if it’s one company, they want it under one name."

...

The new campaign shows the Cingular logo being transformed into an
AT&T globe. The AT&T slogan, "Your world delivered," replaces the
Cingular slogan, "Raising the bar."

AT&T will keep some familiar elements of Cingular ads, said Karen E.
Jennings, senior executive vice president for advertising and
corporate communications at AT&T. For example, the actor Stanley
Tucci, who serves as the announcer in Cingular commercials, will be
heard in AT&T commercials, she said. And the color orange will turn
up in ads for what AT&T will call "wireless service from AT&T"; THE
NAME AT&T WIRELESS WILL NOT BE REVIVED. [emphasis added]

Ms. Clark said that AT&T planned to continue working with the BBDO
Worldwide agency, which created ads for Cingular.


[MORE]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:18:57 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> The new campaign shows the Cingular logo being transformed into an
> AT&T globe.


Also known as the AT&T Deathstar

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:18:57 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> The new campaign shows the Cingular logo being transformed into an
>> AT&T globe.
>
>
> Also known as the AT&T Deathstar


I thought it was the at&t Deathstar.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:ru1gq2l2tmk5v19td49ts3orhuluhapdtl@4ax.com:

><http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/technology/12phone.html>
>
> One of the biggest "de-brandings" in advertising history is to
> begin Monday when AT&T, now the sole owner of Cingular Wireless,
> starts changing all Cingular marketing to adopt the AT&T name.
>
> AT&T will not disclose the budget for the campaign, which will
> continue for five or six months -- leading to the partnership
> with Apple on the new iPhone, scheduled for midyear.
>
> A campaign last year to promote AT&T as the new brand name of SBC
> Communications cost an estimated $1 billion.
>
> ...
>
> "We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
> lightly," Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at
> AT&T in San Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the
> name of Cingular, the nation’s largest mobile carrier.


<snip>

So is this Cingular or AT&T service? When I renew my contract (maybe
I should say *IF*), will I need to pay an activation fee again for the
"new" service?

I was so fried when Cingular took over AT&T wireless - we had AT&T for
years and renewed with Cingular (since AT&T was now owned by them and
we had no other choice) and they charged an activation fee and I
didn't get a free phone upgrade as I always had with AT&T. Well, the
contract was done by the time we got the bill showing the activation
fee (funny, the manager forgot to mention that).

Our two years are up and we're wondering what to do now......


Sherry

At 12 Jan 2007 23:30:38 -0600 Sherry wrote:

> So is this Cingular or AT&T service?

It's a name change only. The new AT&T is the curent Cingular.

> When I renew my contract (maybe
> I should say *IF*), will I need to pay an activation fee again for the
> "new" service?

No. When you last renewed, you were moving from the old ATTWS to their
purchaser. Cingular bought ATTWS (which, ironically no longer had any
relation to the old AT&T, who was bought by Southwestern Bell, half-owner
of Cingular. SWB renamed itself AT&T, then merged with Bell South, who
owned the other half of Cingular. Now that "the new AT&T" owns all of
Cingular, renaming it AT&T as well makes sense)
>
> I was so fried when Cingular took over AT&T wireless - we had AT&T for
> years and renewed with Cingular (since AT&T was now owned by them and
> we had no other choice) and they charged an activation fee and I
> didn't get a free phone upgrade as I always had with AT&T.

What do you mean "you had no other choice?" You could've switched to a
different carrier if you wanted whenever you completed your AT&T Wireless
contract. (I'm not suggesting that you SHOULD have, only that you could
have.)

> Well, the
> contract was done by the time we got the bill showing the activation
> fee (funny, the manager forgot to mention that).
>
> Our two years are up and we're wondering what to do now......

If you're happy enough with the service, why not just continue month to
month until you have a reason to renew (like needing new phones, for
example.) In my ten years with Cingular (starting when they were
"Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems" in my area) I was under a contract
probably for only three or four of them. In my current six-plus years
with T-Mo, I'm finishing up my 3rd one-year contract this April. Unless
I want a substantial discount on a new phone, I don't need or want a
contract.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In <45a8677a$0$4846$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> writes:
[ snip ]
>If you're happy enough with the service, why not just continue month to
>month until you have a reason to renew (like needing new phones, for
>example.) In my ten years with Cingular (starting when they were
>"Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems" in my area) I was under a contract
>probably for only three or four of them. In my current six-plus years
>with T-Mo, I'm finishing up my 3rd one-year contract this April. Unless
>I want a substantial discount on a new phone, I don't need or want a
>contract.

It might be worth going for a contract anyway. When I
renewed and they (in my case, T-Mobile) offerred me
a phone, I said I was quite satisfied with the one
I had.

I wound up getting a month's "free" service instead.

(the sixth month of the one year contract had the
basic fees waived. The taxes and non tax taxes and
similar charges were still there... In short, though,
it saved me about $40).


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

At 13 Jan 2007 06:03:42 +0000 danny burstein wrote:

> It might be worth going for a contract anyway. When I
> renewed and they (in my case, T-Mobile) offerred me
> a phone, I said I was quite satisfied with the one
> I had.
>
> I wound up getting a month's "free" service instead.
>
> (the sixth month of the one year contract had the
> basic fees waived. The taxes and non tax taxes and
> similar charges were still there... In short, though,
> it saved me about $40).

The problem is, had your phone broken during the first few months of your
contract, you'd be inelligible for the best pricing on a replacement for
quite awhile.

To each his own- to me, the freedom to switch carriers or negotiate a
better deal (when I need one) is worth more than $40.

BTW, I don't know if they're blowing smoke or not, but some at Howard
Forums have claimed to hold out for two months free (the 6th and 12th,)
doing what you described .



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
> lightly," Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at
> AT&T in San Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the
> name of Cingular, the nation's largest mobile carrier.

Too bad they didn't do the same rigorous research before changing the name
from AT&T in the first place. It would have saved a boatload of money that,
obviously, was passed on to the consumer. I hated the thought of having that
stupid looking Cingular logo on my phone. The fees, changes in contract
terms, and weeklong technical snafus in getting my new phone to actually
work with the network almost made me give up on them altogether. They're not
getting away with the same BS again. I'd be perfectly happy to switch to
Verizon which is used by every one of my friends...it would save me money.

In article <D%4qh.3$eB3.2@newsfe08.lga>, "Ric" <no@way.com> wrote:

> "We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
> > lightly," Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at
> > AT&T in San Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the
> > name of Cingular, the nation's largest mobile carrier.
>
> Too bad they didn't do the same rigorous research before changing the name
> from AT&T in the first place. It would have saved a boatload of money that,
> obviously, was passed on to the consumer.

At that point in time the purchase agreement for AT&TWS only gave
Cingulkar 6 months of use of the ATT name. That was a year before SBC
bought AT&T and adopted the name.



> I hated the thought of having that
> stupid looking Cingular logo on my phone. The fees, changes in contract
> terms, and weeklong technical snafus in getting my new phone to actually
> work with the network almost made me give up on them altogether. They're not
> getting away with the same BS again. I'd be perfectly happy to switch to
> Verizon which is used by every one of my friends...it would save me money.

Ric wrote:
> "We did rigorous research; we did not enter this decision
>> lightly," Wendy Clark, senior vice president for advertising at
>> AT&T in San Antonio, said yesterday of the decision to change the
>> name of Cingular, the nation's largest mobile carrier.
>
> Too bad they didn't do the same rigorous research before changing the name
> from AT&T in the first place.

It was different. Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, not AT&T which is a
totally different company. AT&T merged with SBC which owned the other
half of Cingular.

The most important change is "The nearly 15,000 employees in these
stores and kiosks will begin wearing AT&T-branded apparel in coming months."

In all reality who cares, it's not a big issue, if you don't like Cingular
soon to be called at&t, leave and cut a deal with another carrier if you're
off contract, or leave when it's done. My only bitch with Cingular is cost,
I think they are overpriced, but then again, so is VW. Them changing their
name won't make a difference in service.

I also happen to think their customer service has improved in the past few
years. I'm sure there are both valid horror stories as well the opposite.
In my case there are two company stores close to me, one in the local mall,
filled with the moron's, and a full service center including repairs outside
of the mall and down the street. The latter is a pleasure to do business
with and has been there for years, and through several mergers and such.

In article <OcSdnX6LxcaMzDTYnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michael Paris" <mparis27@comcast.net> wrote:

> In all reality who cares, it's not a big issue, if you don't like Cingular
> soon to be called at&t, leave and cut a deal with another carrier if you're
> off contract, or leave when it's done. My only bitch with Cingular is cost,
> I think they are overpriced, but then again, so is VW. Them changing their
> name won't make a difference in service.
>
> I also happen to think their customer service has improved in the past few
> years. I'm sure there are both valid horror stories as well the opposite.
> In my case there are two company stores close to me, one in the local mall,
> filled with the moron's, and a full service center including repairs outside
> of the mall and down the street. The latter is a pleasure to do business
> with and has been there for years, and through several mergers and such.

I don't like Cingular's inflexibility. They recently refused to let me
upgrade a crappy cheap LG phone to at least another cheap one (that
works better) until my contract is up, even though I've got a Treo with
a data plan on the same account.

The irony is that the LG phone is so crappy, my wife won't even use it.
Never has. So they lose all the potential additional minutes and
features billings because they won't give us a phone she likes.

I don't like companies that doesn't empower their support people to
think and make decisions based on how real service should work.
All I got were apologies, and "our hands are tied bu policy".


Aside from the iPhone, I'd dump them in a second when my contract
expires in May. The only way we can fight back is to take our business
elsewhere.

I may move my wife to another carrier if I decide to go iPhone.
In any event I won't be signing any contracts until the iPhone is well
in place and they begin discounting it.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

> Aside from the iPhone, I'd dump them in a second when my contract
> expires in May. The only way we can fight back is to take our business
> elsewhere.
>
> I may move my wife to another carrier if I decide to go iPhone.
> In any event I won't be signing any contracts until the iPhone is well
> in place and they begin discounting it.

I'm starting to think it's worth it to pay the extra money to buy a new
phone outright rather than being locked into a contract just for the
discount on a device. Cingular has screwed me over so many times, I just
don't want to be forced into a commitment if I decide to bolt when they pull
some new scam.

"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:hcKqh.2$W63.1@newsfe08.lga...
>> Aside from the iPhone, I'd dump them in a second when my contract
>> expires in May. The only way we can fight back is to take our business
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> I may move my wife to another carrier if I decide to go iPhone.
>> In any event I won't be signing any contracts until the iPhone is well
>> in place and they begin discounting it.
>
> I'm starting to think it's worth it to pay the extra money to buy a new
> phone outright rather than being locked into a contract just for the
> discount on a device. Cingular has screwed me over so many times, I just
> don't want to be forced into a commitment if I decide to bolt when they
> pull some new scam.


Is that true, if you bring your own phone you don't have to sign a contract?

In article <hcKqh.2$W63.1@newsfe08.lga>, "Ric" <no@way.com> wrote:

> > Aside from the iPhone, I'd dump them in a second when my contract
> > expires in May. The only way we can fight back is to take our business
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > I may move my wife to another carrier if I decide to go iPhone.
> > In any event I won't be signing any contracts until the iPhone is well
> > in place and they begin discounting it.
>
> I'm starting to think it's worth it to pay the extra money to buy a new
> phone outright rather than being locked into a contract just for the
> discount on a device. Cingular has screwed me over so many times, I just
> don't want to be forced into a commitment if I decide to bolt when they pull
> some new scam.

That's going to be my strategy. You end up paying dearly when you do the
contract.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

In article <0001HW.C1D1094B01BA53B1F0203648@news.giganews.com >,
SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:50:47 -0500, ACP wrote
> (in article <_92dnWC1lZZbCTbYnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d@giganews.com>) :
>
> > Is that true, if you bring your own phone you don't have to sign a
> > contract?
> >
> >
>
> I don't know about Cingular, but other carriers such as Verizon Wireless and
> Sprint both require a contract even if you aren't taking a discounted phone.
> It makes absolutely no sense to me. I have a perfectly good Sprint Treo 650
> here that I'd love to use but I'm not going to sign a contract and be stuck
> with an early termination fee just so I can play on their network at minimal
> cost to them.
>
> Without the contract I would have signed up months ago. Instead I picked up
> a GSM device and dropped my ever-lasting Cingular SIM in it.
>
> NOW: To address the previous poster's message before this (paying full retail
> for a phone). In many events the subsidy/discount is so nice that it pays to
> take it and sign a contract. The way I look at it is this, even if I have to
> pay the ETF I'm usually still cheaper than if I paid the unlocked fee early
> on. If I stay within the contract terms then the phone is even cheaper. If
> I terminate early I'm still ahead of the game (or at least pretty close to
> the unlocked price.)

And an unlocked phone is worth a lot more in resale.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-39B5CD.16570313012007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <OcSdnX6LxcaMzDTYnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Michael Paris" <mparis27@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In all reality who cares, it's not a big issue, if you don't like
>> Cingular
>> soon to be called at&t, leave and cut a deal with another carrier if
>> you're
>> off contract, or leave when it's done. My only bitch with Cingular is
>> cost,
>> I think they are overpriced, but then again, so is VW. Them changing
>> their
>> name won't make a difference in service.
>>
>> I also happen to think their customer service has improved in the past
>> few
>> years. I'm sure there are both valid horror stories as well the
>> opposite.
>> In my case there are two company stores close to me, one in the local
>> mall,
>> filled with the moron's, and a full service center including repairs
>> outside
>> of the mall and down the street. The latter is a pleasure to do business
>> with and has been there for years, and through several mergers and such.
>
> I don't like Cingular's inflexibility. They recently refused to let me
> upgrade a crappy cheap LG phone to at least another cheap one (that
> works better) until my contract is up, even though I've got a Treo with
> a data plan on the same account.
>
> The irony is that the LG phone is so crappy, my wife won't even use it.
> Never has. So they lose all the potential additional minutes and
> features billings because they won't give us a phone she likes.
>
> I don't like companies that doesn't empower their support people to
> think and make decisions based on how real service should work.
> All I got were apologies, and "our hands are tied bu policy".
>
>
> Aside from the iPhone, I'd dump them in a second when my contract
> expires in May. The only way we can fight back is to take our business
> elsewhere.
>
> I may move my wife to another carrier if I decide to go iPhone.
> In any event I won't be signing any contracts until the iPhone is well
> in place and they begin discounting it.
>
> --
> To reply by email, remove the word "space"

I dumped Cingular a year ago--after having been with ATTWS for 7 years with
never a problem--and I never looked back.

I got a better deal with Sprint, and unlike my TDMA phones, my service
worked fine from the first day.

Cingular lost millions of customers due to their inflexible attitude. It
reminded me back when phone companies disconnected you for having "illegal
extension phones" on your line.

"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1D133B501C44492F0407648@news.giganews .com...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:07:04 -0500, jeremy wrote
> (in article <cpPqh.8875$wq.7757@trndny07>):
>
>> I dumped Cingular a year ago--after having been with ATTWS for 7 years
>> with
>> never a problem--and I never looked back.
>>
>> I got a better deal with Sprint, and unlike my TDMA phones, my service
>> worked fine from the first day.
>>
>> Cingular lost millions of customers due to their inflexible attitude. It
>> reminded me back when phone companies disconnected you for having
>> "illegal
>> extension phones" on your line.
>
> See my previous message about Sprint if you want to see inflexible. They
> won't give me service without a contract, even if I'm *not* buying a phone
> but already own one. Go figure.
>

Does anyone give service to new customers without contracts? My gripe with
Cingular was that I was already out-of-contract when they bought ATTWS and
then they tried to twist my arm into re-upping on a minimum two-year
contract--as though I were a new customer.

I guess every carrier has critics, Sprint included, but all I can say was
that Sprint went the extra mile to get my account, including no activation
charges, 7 PM n/w, no roaming charges, free m2m and their reps were quite
accommodating when I called. Just like the old AT&T. Cingular left a
really bad taste in my mouth, but Sprint has been as courteous as could
be--and this is a year after I made the switch.

My daughter has Cingular and she love them. I take one look at her bill and
am glad I switched out . . .

At 15 Jan 2007 19:52:58 +0000 jeremy wrote:
>

> Does anyone give service to new customers without contracts?

Sort of- Cingular used to if you asked, but if they don't any longer,
there are two options- Cingular's "Go Phone" (a hybrid plan with monthly
billing) or you could use Consumer Cellular (www.savecell.com) a Cingular
MVNO reseller who offers post-paid monthly service with no contracts.
Neither offers a good a "deal" perhaps as Cingular contract service, but
there are options.

> My gripe with
> Cingular was that I was already out-of-contract when they bought ATTWS
and
> then they tried to twist my arm into re-upping on a minimum two-year
> contract--as though I were a new customer.

To them, you were! ;-)




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in
news:0001HW.C1D1CE8F00020212F0203648@news.giganews .com:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:52:58 -0500, jeremy wrote
> (in article <uYQqh.1512$dV1.1506@trndny02>):
>
>>
>> Does anyone give service to new customers without contracts? My
>> gripe with Cingular was that I was already out-of-contract when
>> they bought ATTWS and then they tried to twist my arm into
>> re-upping on a minimum two-year contract--as though I were a new
>> customer.
>>
>> I guess every carrier has critics, Sprint included, but all I can
>> say was that Sprint went the extra mile to get my account,
>> including no activation charges, 7 PM n/w, no roaming charges, free
>> m2m and their reps were quite accommodating when I called. Just
>> like the old AT&T. Cingular left a really bad taste in my mouth,
>> but Sprint has been as courteous as could be--and this is a year
>> after I made the switch.
>>
>
> Sprint's online and telephone service *is* spectacular. Their
> in-store service leaves something to be desired though.

<snip>

In a recent Consumer Reports, they evaluated cell phone service in
different cities in the US. In the Seattle area, Sprint was the worst.
The order of service was T-Mobile, Verizon, Cingular and Sprint.

Sprint did do better in a very few other cities - Miami, Minneapolis-St
Paul, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco and was most highly rated in
Washington DC (2nd on the list).


Sherry

"Sherry" <sherdh@excite.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98BA4884974C6TansyRagwortNetscape@216.196. 97.142...
> SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in
> news:0001HW.C1D1CE8F00020212F0203648@news.giganews .com:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:52:58 -0500, jeremy wrote
>> (in article <uYQqh.1512$dV1.1506@trndny02>):
>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone give service to new customers without contracts? My
>>> gripe with Cingular was that I was already out-of-contract when
>>> they bought ATTWS and then they tried to twist my arm into
>>> re-upping on a minimum two-year contract--as though I were a new
>>> customer.
>>>
>>> I guess every carrier has critics, Sprint included, but all I can
>>> say was that Sprint went the extra mile to get my account,
>>> including no activation charges, 7 PM n/w, no roaming charges, free
>>> m2m and their reps were quite accommodating when I called. Just
>>> like the old AT&T. Cingular left a really bad taste in my mouth,
>>> but Sprint has been as courteous as could be--and this is a year
>>> after I made the switch.
>>>
>>
>> Sprint's online and telephone service *is* spectacular. Their
>> in-store service leaves something to be desired though.
>
> <snip>
>
> In a recent Consumer Reports, they evaluated cell phone service in
> different cities in the US. In the Seattle area, Sprint was the worst.
> The order of service was T-Mobile, Verizon, Cingular and Sprint.
>
> Sprint did do better in a very few other cities - Miami, Minneapolis-St
> Paul, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco and was most highly rated in
> Washington DC (2nd on the list).
>
>
> Sherry

I was careful to note that my particular experiences might not be typical.
But I was so incensed over the arm-twisting from Cingular that I would
gladly put up with inferior service from a carrier that didn't play those
head games. Fortunately for me, Sprint gave me excellent customer service,
a good rate plan and I've had no problem with the service itself, which has
proven to be much more reliable here in Philadelphia than I ever got with
ATT/Cingular TDMA.

Right after Cingular took over the operation of the AT&T TDMA network, I
began experiencing my phone shutting itself off whenever I drove outside my
home rate area. Cingular denied that they were responsible for that, but I
don't believe them. If I'd turn the phone back on, it would shut off again
within a few minutes.

I also began experiencing inability to log on to the tower, even locally.
I'd turn my phone on and wait 5 minutes before I could find a tower. I read
many other stories where customers slowly had the nooses tightened around
them, with slow, methodical and progressively-worse service cutbacks. No
one will ever convince me that this was all just a coincidence.

No matter. Switching out was the best move I could have made. I will NEVER
consider Cingular/AT&T as a wireless provider again. I wouldn't use them if
they offered me the service for free. And, from what I've read, there are
millions of us former ATTWS customers that are as embittered as I am over
the way Cingular treated us.

I understand that Cingular was glad to see us go, as we represented an
overall lower profit versus the rest of their customers. So there is no
love lost.

Cingular seems to have deliberately cut back TDMA access, trying to twist
their customers' arms to re-up as new GSM customers. I don't think their
plan worked. The mere fact that they would subject their customers to
increased risk by denying them the access to the service that THEY PAID FOR
speaks volumes about Cingular.

They may be using the AT&T brand now, but they will never have the
commitment to SERVICE that Ma Bell did!

jeremy wrote:

> Cingular seems to have deliberately cut back TDMA access, trying to twist
> their customers' arms to re-up as new GSM customers. I don't think their
> plan worked.

Part of it is that they need the spectrum for GSM users, which represent
over 95% of their customers, and even more of their total minutes.

The arm-twisting was a calculated move. They knew that they'd lose some
customers, but that others would sign up as GSM customers with new
contracts at higher rates. The only way to force this to happen was to
accept the fact that some customers would leave. It's not as if the
customers that left found any cheaper rates elsewhere, the low AT&T
Wireless rates are gone forever. I guess that Verizon and Sprint could
also kick customers like me off the lower rate plans if they wanted to.

"jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:

> Right after Cingular took over the operation of the AT&T TDMA network, I
> began experiencing my phone shutting itself off whenever I drove outside my
> home rate area. Cingular denied that they were responsible for that, but I
> don't believe them. If I'd turn the phone back on, it would shut off again
> within a few minutes.

I would've believed them. I don't believe there is anything a TDMA
network or tower can do to tell a subscriber handset to power
off. Your phone was very likely gone flakey and timing was
coincidental.

But I'd hate to trouble you with the facts since you've already made
up your mind. :-)

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:84sleag7o8.fsf@ripco.com...
> "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
>
>> Right after Cingular took over the operation of the AT&T TDMA network, I
>> began experiencing my phone shutting itself off whenever I drove outside
>> my
>> home rate area. Cingular denied that they were responsible for that, but
>> I
>> don't believe them. If I'd turn the phone back on, it would shut off
>> again
>> within a few minutes.
>
> I would've believed them. I don't believe there is anything a TDMA
> network or tower can do to tell a subscriber handset to power
> off. Your phone was very likely gone flakey and timing was
> coincidental.
>
> But I'd hate to trouble you with the facts since you've already made
> up your mind. :-)
>
> --
> Todd H.
> http://www.toddh.net/

Well, we had 3 lines, all Panasonic Versio phones, none of which had any
problem previously.

One day I took all three phones with me on a trip and they ALL shut down
within 10 minutes of leaving the Home Rate Area!

It all began when the display was changed from AT&T to CINGULAR on
everyones' phones.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45ad158d$0$69041$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>
>> Cingular seems to have deliberately cut back TDMA access, trying to twist
>> their customers' arms to re-up as new GSM customers. I don't think their
>> plan worked.
>
> Part of it is that they need the spectrum for GSM users, which represent
> over 95% of their customers, and even more of their total minutes.
>
> The arm-twisting was a calculated move. They knew that they'd lose some
> customers, but that others would sign up as GSM customers with new
> contracts at higher rates. The only way to force this to happen was to
> accept the fact that some customers would leave. It's not as if the
> customers that left found any cheaper rates elsewhere, the low AT&T
> Wireless rates are gone forever. I guess that Verizon and Sprint could
> also kick customers like me off the lower rate plans if they wanted to.


I'll tell you what really got my goat:

The fact that they played their little game and jeopardized their customers'
safety, and that they were so cold-hearted about it.

Remember, I continued to pay monthly charges for my service, and had they
offered me an upgrade to GSM that would not result in my having to pay new
setup charges, new handset charges, and 25% higher rates than I had been
getting, I'd have switched.

Instead they cheerfully took our money and quietly turned the response
down--to the point that we had to WAIT to log into towers to make calls, or
have our phones shut off for no apparent reason. And when we called for
service, they had a scripted response--"UPGRADE!"

The carrier that boasted of the lowest number of dropped calls was going out
of its way to repeatedly drop calls for a big segment of their
newly-acquired customer base. I have a high sense of principle about such
mean-spirited tactics, and I will never give them a single cent worth of my
future business. And, judging from some of the news articles I've read,
there are millions of other ex-customers who won't favor them with their
future business either.

Only in America can big companies throw away customers, as though they were
just trash! Cingular, literally, threw us away. And their senior
executives pat each others backs over it!

Sprint, on the other hand, was delightful to work with. Despite all the
negative comments I've seen about them, my experience was nothing but
positive. No unexplained dropped calls. No phone shut-downs. No billing
errors. No roaming charges. No charges for m2m. No service outages.
Courteous customer service reps. It's been a year now, and the difference
between the two carriers is striking.

AND, my Sprint phones hop over to Verizon when there is a "hole" in the
Sprint network. No roaming, either. And in areas served by only AMPS my
Sprint phone can make and receive calls, unlike most of Cingular, whose
phones don't work on AMPS.

I have gone from having been very frustrated and angry, to very satisfied,
and happy.

jeremy wrote:

> AND, my Sprint phones hop over to Verizon when there is a "hole" in the
> Sprint network. No roaming, either. And in areas served by only AMPS my
> Sprint phone can make and receive calls, unlike most of Cingular, whose
> phones don't work on AMPS.

Note that you can roam onto Cingular's AMPS network with both Sprint and
Verizon tri-mode phones. Cingular users, other than the few percent that
haven't switched to GSM, can't use the Cingular AMPS network. Cingular
is chomping at the bit waiting for 2008 so they can turn off AMPS.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45ad4dcb$0$68961$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jeremy wrote:
>
>> AND, my Sprint phones hop over to Verizon when there is a "hole" in the
>> Sprint network. No roaming, either. And in areas served by only AMPS my
>> Sprint phone can make and receive calls, unlike most of Cingular, whose
>> phones don't work on AMPS.
>
> Note that you can roam onto Cingular's AMPS network with both Sprint and
> Verizon tri-mode phones. Cingular users, other than the few percent that
> haven't switched to GSM, can't use the Cingular AMPS network. Cingular is
> chomping at the bit waiting for 2008 so they can turn off AMPS.

I wasn't aware that Cingular even HAD an AMPS network!

Did Cingular ever sell AMPS service? Bag phones?

jeremy wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45ad4dcb$0$68961$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> AND, my Sprint phones hop over to Verizon when there is a "hole" in the
>>> Sprint network. No roaming, either. And in areas served by only AMPS my
>>> Sprint phone can make and receive calls, unlike most of Cingular, whose
>>> phones don't work on AMPS.
>> Note that you can roam onto Cingular's AMPS network with both Sprint and
>> Verizon tri-mode phones. Cingular users, other than the few percent that
>> haven't switched to GSM, can't use the Cingular AMPS network. Cingular is
>> chomping at the bit waiting for 2008 so they can turn off AMPS.
>
> I wasn't aware that Cingular even HAD an AMPS network!

Huge AMPS network. Every area where Cingular has 800 MHz TDMA they have
AMPS. These AMPS networks are all still up, and can't be taken down
until 2008. I was just using one of Cingular's AMPS networks in December.