Bill Marriott wrote:
>> 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.

All well and good but they could just drop them at the expiration of the
contract. A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
Regardless of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an
unbalance in the contract that should be rectified.