Talk:CREDO Mobile

Untitled

This article warrants supervision. The weasle word designation is a good start. Robmoney (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, you can mark specific words in the article as weasel words as well. Or can you say which words are weaselly right here? Thanks, Rich Peterson4.246.232.196 (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really see a lot of weasel words in this article. By the way, is there any estimate of the actual percentage of revenues that Working Assets donates to these causes? That would be a useful stat.Ndriley97 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I attempted to end a small edit war by moving the disputed paragraph on CREDO Mobile's cost-effectiveness to the "Criticism" section and tagging it as original research. Perhaps someone can cite a source. 2-2-2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.105.43 (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Attempted to source paragraph on cost-effectiveness but failed; as CREDO representative notes below, wireless plans seem to change all the time. Lacking sources for verification, the original research more properly belongs in this discussion section. 2-21-08.

Original Research January 2008

The plans offered by Credo are inferior to the Sprint plans. For example, the Sprint Plans have free nights beginning at 7, Credo free nights begin at 9, Sprint lets you roam for free to Verizon and other carriers when you are outside a Sprint area, Credo charges 69 cents per minute for this service, Sprint gives you free mobile to mobile calling to the large base of Sprint subscribers, Credo only to the smaller number of Credo subscribers. The phones also cost more with Credo - for example, a Katana II costs $49 with a 2-year plan from Credo, $29.99 from Sprint (as of 1.21.08.) Given that Credo donates only 1% of what you pay to its various selected causes, if you take the $19 differential in the phone price and donate it the charity of your choice, you will have given more to charity than would have been donated until you reached $1900 in Credo charges, and you get the better monthly plan offered by Sprint. Assuming a $40 per month plan, it would take 4 years to reach the $1900 mark. And, 10 minutes of off-network roaming, which is free on Sprint, would cost you $6.90 on Credo; you would have to bill $690 before that amount would be donated by Credo to charity. The bottom line is that under most scenarios, you and your favorite charity may come out ahead by buying a similarly priced Sprint plan and making a donation to the charity of your choice.

Statement from CREDO

As an employee of CREDO Mobile, I thought it would be helpful to clarify the information about our rates. Please feel free to view the range of plans at http://www.credomobile.com.

As a company with a 20+ year history, our mission has always been to offer comparable plans to the major carriers, but then add something more: donations to progressive nonprofit organizations (1% of the phone bill is donated) and a way to align your conscience with your consumer choices.

Comparing wireless rate plans can be difficult (and they change all the time) but CREDO Mobile has rate plans that compare to Sprint PCS and the other major carriers.

CREDO Mobile's most popular rate plan is comparable to Sprint’s plan at the same price point.

As of 2/14/08: For $29.99 per month, both provide 250 minutes of peak use and unlimited night and weekend minutes.

Sprint PCS and CREDO Mobile charge an additional $5 for a 7 p.m. night/weekend start time.

But CREDO Mobile also offers free mobile-to-mobile calling, while Sprint PCS charges an extra $5 per month for the same feature.

CREDO Mobile offers a range of phones, often at promotional prices. We believe that with a variety of options, customers can and do get the plan they’re looking for at a comparable price. 65.163.232.101 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) CREDO

Response to Statement from Credo

The Credo response does not tell the whole story.

While Credo is correct that at the $29.99 level both Sprint and Credo charge $5 extra for nights and weekends beginning at 7, it is only at that very low level plan. If you go up to the 39.99 plan and all of the plans above, you get nights beginning at 7 on Sprint in the basic price, but not with Credo (i.e., 39.99 gets you 450 anytime minutes on both Sprint and Credo, with unlimited mobile to mobile on both, but with nights beginning at 7 on Sprint and 9 on Credo.) Of course, the universe of people that can be called mobile to mobile on Sprint is larger than the universe on Credo due to the larger subscriber base of Sprint.

The Credo response also did not refer to another very significant difference. All Sprint plans give free roaming to Verizon or other CDMA carriers when you are out of a Sprint area (or in a Sprint area but without a viable Sprint signal.) Credo charges 69 cents per minute to roam, plus 25 cents per minute for long distance when roaming, totaling 94 cents per minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.220.111 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Warrantless Wiretapping

This is Claudine, a representative from CREDO Mobile. In response to the criticism on our work on wireless wiretapping: Throughout our ongoing campaign against warrantless wiretapping and against immunity for telecom companies, Working Assets has been emphatic about the fact that none of us are safe from being spied on unless the Bush administration is held accountable for breaking the law. We target AT&T and Verizon not because their customers are more likely to be targets of warrantless wiretapping, but because these are the two telecom providers named as active participants in the National Security Agency's illicit data mining and wiretapping. (Bellsouth was the third, but it's now part of AT&T.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.232.101 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What are your thoughts now that the Obama admin is doing the same thing, Claudine? Is it all just fine because a supposedly progressive politician is doin' the snoopin'? Ndriley97 (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Enough is enough. The subsection on the Criticisms section over the company's rates vs. Sprint's is blatant original research. That blurb has been tagged for several months before and no one had offered any secondary source on the issue and no one seems interested in doing so. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor it is a place where people can publish their own thoughts or findings. As such, I've removed the section and will continue to remove it until someone provides sources that comply with WP's policies. hateless 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

CREDO or Working Assets?

This article has a self-reference redirect of Working Assets, which results in ambiguous identification of the entity. The correct legal name of the company is Working Assets Funding Service, Inc. doing business as Working Assets. Working Assets provides the services CREDO Mobile (formerly Working Assets Wireless), CREDO Long Distance (formerly Working Assets Long Distance) and the Working Assets credit card [|Working Assets about]. See also Florida Public Service Commission Docket Number 070681 Acknowledgment of name change on IXC Registration No. TI063 from Working Assets Funding Service, Inc. d/b/a Working Assets Long Distance to Working Assets Funding Service, Inc. d/b/a Credo Long Distance, effective November 5, 2007[[1]].

Does it make more sense to leave the title as CREDO as the company is generally known by the services it provides or to redirect from Credo_(company) to Working Assets? --BoboLink81 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Inc. 500

It is significant that Working Assets Funding Service made the Inc. 500 five consecutive years between 1992-1997 and ranked as high as 42 in 1995. If there are no complaints I will add this.--BoboLink81 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Terrible sentence

"...CREDO Action started an initiative called Pollworkers for Democracy, in which hired volunteers to staff polling places and ensure fair voting practices."

Besides the fact that it's grammatically incorrect, what is a "hired volunteer?" Historian932 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove stub tag?

I may add a few references and then delete the stub tag. This doesn't look like a stub to me... opinions? - Sara FB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree.75.43.217.16 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an ADVERTISEMENT clearly written by EMPLOYEES

Article is in need of either a total rehaul or even deletion. The entire thing is a scripted sales brochure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.62.125 (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Stubbing is preferable to deletion

I agree that this article is written in a clearly promotional way, indicated even by content on this talk page. It's been marked as problematic for 2 months now, so I think a major overhaul is justified. Deletion of the article, however, would be far from ideal. It should be stubbed, with basic information included in the lead section. This way it can more easily be started over with proper citations included.

Further information: WP:CS

It should be ok to keep some of the few pieces of information that are cited, but all that is not except for the basics should be deleted in order to make it verifiable and get rid of the promotional bias noted beforehand (on behalf of 70.231.130.234) Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Credo announced today it is going out of business, with no explanation as to why. Does anyone have any information on that?

Burressd (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)