"FloydinTampa" <Flooydomit@Prodigy.net> wrote in
news:GGLli.443$Dx2.122@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

> You need to
>> research this crap before you post it,
> No, you need to research this crap before you post.
> The woman that started all the fuss, and whose story created enough
> buzz to embarrass sprint into making public announcements about the
> issue, was terminated due to calling about erroneous charges on her
> billing.

A hundred calls a month? I think there's another side to this story that
would make more sense,

> Another person, if we are to believe internet reports, was
> terminated after being with sprint for only a month or so, and who had
> made numerous calls trying to get the service set up properly.

According to the press, Sprint had been looking at and working these
account for six months to a year before sending them the letter. A
customer on the network for only a month at the time of the letters would
not haver been on the radar.


> The problem with Sprint is that the actions and words of the CS people
> are not adhered to or overridden by computers/billing/management,
> which creates an ongoing problem that results in customers making "too
> many" calls trying to get their accounts straightened out.
> My experience is that the billing/plan "errors" are always in Sprints'
> favor,

How many people do you know that call a company and say, "I think you
didn't charge me enough this month"?

> so these are not just random errors,
> they are by design,

A pretty bold and inaccurate statement. In fact, a statement that has no
facts to support it.

> and
> now that customers are afraid to call and get them fixed they may opt
> to let the smaller issues slide, resulting in unwarranted taking on a
> large scale.

I'll spell this out again- you are wrong in portraying the call volume as
the sole reason tha these customers were let go. What is so hard to
comprehend in that statement?