> 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?

They're a "bad" customer because at that level they are obviously trying to
game the system. Let's be real. There's dozens of web sites out there
sharing techniques:

- how to get the "employee referral" pricing when the only employee you know
is the guy at the Sprint store who is trying to sell you a phone
- how to get the "loyalty discount" when you are a brand-new customer
- direct telephone extensions for the retention department and other
internal groups
- actual discount codes CSR reps can put into their system
- scripts to use to get reps to cave in
- ways to cause problems in order to have something to complain about
- how to get "dropped call" credits by the bushel

and so on and so forth. Every one of them tells you, "Don't give up. Keep
calling until you find the one rep who will give you the credit."

It's not about customers trying to resolve legitimate problems. It's about
scam artists and the sport they have with each other to get the best
pricing. By all accounts, Sprint has mailed 1,000 of these letters. Let's
see, they have 20 million subscribers? That's firing the worst 0.005% of
customers. I have *no* trouble believing they deserved it.

And, on the off chance someone did have a legitimate reason to be calling so
much, they provided a telephone number where you could talk to a real human
being about it. Apparently -- read consumerist.com -- one guy did call in.
They didn't stonewall him; they looked up his record and reversed their
decision.

Mindy Bockstein, the NY agency director, is simply practicing demagoguery
here for her own selfish ends, not too different from that prosecutor in the
unfortunate Duke incident.