Cingular Wireless to Refund $18.5 Million to California Customersplus $12 million dollar fine

http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1494

This was related to the problems Cingular had when they first launched
service (as Pac Bell Wireless) and had big problems with network
congestion, as well as huge fees for terminating service.

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:25:55 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45fc32b6$0$27197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1494
>
>This was related to the problems Cingular had when they first launched
>service (as Pac Bell Wireless) and had big problems with network
>congestion, as well as huge fees for terminating service.

Old news.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:25:55 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <45fc32b6$0$27197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1494
>>
>> This was related to the problems Cingular had when they first launched
>> service (as Pac Bell Wireless) and had big problems with network
>> congestion, as well as huge fees for terminating service.
>
> Old news.
>


The screwing of the customers or the settlement?

In article <45fedbf9$1@kcnews01>,
James Clark <clark35.at.attglobal.net@mousepotato.com> wrote:

> John Navas wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:25:55 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> > wrote in <45fc32b6$0$27197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
> >
> >> http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1494
> >>
> >> This was related to the problems Cingular had when they first launched
> >> service (as Pac Bell Wireless) and had big problems with network
> >> congestion, as well as huge fees for terminating service.
> >
> > Old news.
> >
>
>
> The screwing of the customers or the settlement?

The big payoff for the lawyers.

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

James Clark wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:25:55 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <45fc32b6$0$27197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>> http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1494
>>>
>>> This was related to the problems Cingular had when they first
>>> launched service (as Pac Bell Wireless) and had big problems with
>>> network congestion, as well as huge fees for terminating service.
>>
>> Old news.
>>
>
>
> The screwing of the customers or the settlement?

The settlement was reached late on Thursday 3/15, and the news stories
were mostly released on 3/17. Where he got the idea that it was "old
news" is yet another mystery of the alternate universe that he lives in.


Here is the official CPUC news release:

"http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/NEWS_RELEASE/65619.htm"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE U.S. Supreme Court Docket #: 06A621

Media Contact: Terrie Prosper, 415.703.1366, news@cpuc.ca.gov

PUC SETTLEMENT REQUIRES CINGULAR WIRELESS TO REFUND
EARLY TERMINATION FEES TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS

SAN FRANCISCO, March 15, 2007 - The California Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) today approved a settlement agreement that requires
Cingular Wireless (now known as AT&T Mobility) to refund early
termination fees (ETFs) collected from its former customers from January
1, 2000 through April 30, 2002. Today's decision brings to an end
lengthy litigation arising from the PUC's original decision in this
case, which Cingular challenged in court.

The consumer refunds, including interest, total approximately
$18.5 million. In addition, Cingular is required to engage an
independent claims administrator to review claims for refunds of
additional ETFs paid by former customers to Cingular agents for which
records of payment no longer exist.

The PUC assessed a $12.14 million penalty, which already has been
paid by Cingular, and will be transferred from an escrow account to the
State Treasury.

"This settlement agreement demonstrates that the PUC takes its
enforcement responsibility seriously," said PUC Commissioner John Bohn.
"I support this settlement agreement because it will get reparations
back to affected consumers expeditiously."

The PUC required these refunds and imposed this penalty after
reviewing Cingular's practice of collecting ETFs from customers who
cancelled service after using their cell phones because they were not
satisfied with their service coverage. The PUC found that Cingular's ETF
practice was fundamentally unfair to its customers who were not informed
that network coverage might be less than adequate when signing a contract.

The all-party settlement approved by the PUC was entered into
between AT&T Mobility LLC (Cingular Wireless), Utility Consumer Action
Network, and the PUC's Consumer Protection and Safety Division.

As a result of the settlement adopted today, Cingular will
withdraw its petition to the U.S. Supreme court regarding this issue.

For more information on the PUC, please visit www.cpuc.ca.gov.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45ff188d$0$27195$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> James Clark wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:25:55 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <45fc32b6$0$27197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>> http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1494
>>>>
>>>> This was related to the problems Cingular had when they first launched
>>>> service (as Pac Bell Wireless) and had big problems with network
>>>> congestion, as well as huge fees for terminating service.
>>>
>>> Old news.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The screwing of the customers or the settlement?
>
> The settlement was reached late on Thursday 3/15, and the news stories
> were mostly released on 3/17. Where he got the idea that it was "old news"
> is yet another mystery of the alternate universe that he lives in.
>
>
I really hate to take sides in this silly crap, but, SMS, you stupid shit
for brains, it's "old news" because he had reported it a day or two before.
Damn people, if you know in advance that you're going to not like what
someone has to say, don't read it.

Kurt wrote:
> In article <45fedbf9$1@kcnews01>,
> James Clark <clark35.at.attglobal.net@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:25:55 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <45fc32b6$0$27197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>> http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1494
>>>>
>>>> This was related to the problems Cingular had when they first launched
>>>> service (as Pac Bell Wireless) and had big problems with network
>>>> congestion, as well as huge fees for terminating service.
>>> Old news.
>>>
>>
>> The screwing of the customers or the settlement?
>
> The big payoff for the lawyers.
>
Actually there is real money for the customers. Usually it is a $15
coupon towards an overpriced accessory. With a Verizon settlement a note
was enclosed with common expected questions. One was what do you do if
you no longer had Verizon Wireless service. Their answer: Enter into a
new contract!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave wrote:
> Kurt wrote:
>> In article <45fedbf9$1@kcnews01>,
>> James Clark <clark35.at.attglobal.net@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:25:55 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>> wrote in <45fc32b6$0$27197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1494
>>>>>
>>>>> This was related to the problems Cingular had when they first
>>>>> launched service (as Pac Bell Wireless) and had big problems with
>>>>> network congestion, as well as huge fees for terminating service.
>>>> Old news.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The screwing of the customers or the settlement?
>>
>> The big payoff for the lawyers.
>>
> Actually there is real money for the customers. Usually it is a $15
> coupon towards an overpriced accessory. With a Verizon settlement a note
> was enclosed with common expected questions. One was what do you do if
> you no longer had Verizon Wireless service. Their answer: Enter into a
> new contract!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In this case it was not a class action lawsuit, it was the state against
Cingular. The people charged the excessive termination fees will
actually receive relief, the $18.5 million isn't being spread among all
the customers that had service problems at the time. In a way it's
unfair, as most of Cingular's customers at the time would have canceled
service, rather than waited out their contract, as the service was
unbelievably bad, had they known that they could get their termination
fees back. The state gets $12 million, which in the scheme of things
isn't a lot, but it's something. It at least sends a message that such
behavior isn't acceptable, and the resulting publicity hurts more than
the money.

PCs Rule wrote:

> I really hate to take sides in this silly crap, but, SMS, you stupid shit
> for brains, it's "old news" because he had reported it a day or two before.
> Damn people, if you know in advance that you're going to not like what
> someone has to say, don't read it.

Sorry, I have him kill-filed so I didn't see his post of it. I guess
there were no follow-ups of his post from others.

Thanks for sharing your feelings about me.