"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:46960462$0$24759
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

>
>
> Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:37:49 -1000, "BruceR"
>> <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Miner wrote:
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> I'm not defining bad, but Sprint apparently did. I believe it refers
>> to someone who costs the company more to carry than they generate in
>> revenue.
>
> And now it will be up to the AG's and Consumer Advocates to decide if
> there definition meets muster.

I wonder what New Yourk's position is going to be if they find out that the
total number of state residents involced is fifteen or less?

>
> On the other hand, if I found it necessary to constantly call customer
> service to resolve issues, I would probably be thrilled to get a free
> early termination so I could hook up with a carrier more to my liking.
>
> I like the idea a previous poster had where a constant caller could be
> politely told, "Sir/Ma'am, we just don't seem to be able to satisfy your
> needs and expectations so we'd like to offer you the opportunity to
> switch to another carrier with no early termination fee."
>

So telling them over the phone is better than sending them a letter?

>
>