Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:00:01 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-07-12, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> <http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>>>
>>> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp.
>>> to pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because
>>> they called customer service too often.
>>>
>>> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they
>>> will lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State
>>> Consumer Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those
>>> customers $200 each - the amount the customers would have had to
>>> pay if they had prematurely ended their two-year contracts with
>>> the company.
>>
>> Didn't someone just suggest exactly this here in the Sprint
>> newsgroup?
>>
>> I think it's a good idea.
>
> It doesn't make any sense to me. As of a few years ago, I believe it
> cost carriers over $400 to acquire a new customer and get them set up.
> If you turn that around and charge customers $400+ to start a new line
> of service, then yes, refund part of it if the customer is cut loose
> within a certain period, but with the current business model I see no
> justification at all for paying a (bad) customer to leave. They should
> be glad they aren't charged the ETF.

They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where was
the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?