Way to go bill! It is about time someone said the truth! I work in
cellular sales and it is amazing the lies people tell to get what they want.
My boss told me when I started....80% of customers are liar's! I thought he
was crazy. Now I know he is right. Water damage, um how did that happen?
Come on, these safety systems are to protect businesses.


"Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
news:xJadnRKLF_0tvAXbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Sprint is terminating the contracts of scam artists who are trying to
> defraud them by gaming the system. These are the bottom 0.005% of
> customers.... abusers who apparently think it's fun to compete with each
> other for the most discounts. Fraud is a basis for cancelling a contract
> (and worse) whether it's unilateral or not. I'm glad to see them go, as
> they're the ones who are making it harder for honest customers with
> legitimate gripes.
>
> Just look at the guy in this newsgroup a couple months back whose daughter
> clearly dropped her phone in the toilet and was trying to jerk them around
> with not paying his bill EVEN WHEN THEY SENT HIM A FREE REPLACEMENT PHONE
> and he did NOT have insurance! Some of the people are so pathetic they
> don't even realize what they're doing is wrong. Not even when not a single
> person in the newsgroup came to his defense. But you know what, I bet not
> even that guy got a letter, because you had to call more than 90 TIMES in
> a six-month period to get one. That's calling to complain EVERY OTHER DAY.
>
> If your girlfriend was that high-maintenance, you'd dump her in a
> heartbeat, engagement ring or not!
>
> As for unilateral, I hope you're not suggesting that you should sit down
> and negotiate each contract case-by-case with the teenager at your local
> Sprint shop. You agree to "unilateral" contracts every time you use a
> computer, install software, buy a video game, register for a web site,
> watch a DVD or even visit Disneyland. Unless you're at an higher
> management level, you really don't even have the ability to negotiate an
> employment contract. Sign what they give you, take it or leave it.
>
> As for Sprint's cell service, it's a standard agreement and you're free to
> pick a company that doesn't require a contract or go with someone that
> offers the terms you want. For example, Verizon with its $45 "unlimited"
> data plan (as long is it's only email and web browsing with no MP3s or
> streaming media and under 100MB any given day).
>
> When I got my phone, the Sprint rep took me through the contract and I
> clearly understood what I was getting into. Bottom line: I was getting a
> $600 smartphone for just $75 in exchange for me promising to pay my bills
> and stay with Sprint for 24 months. If you think about it, that's more
> than $20/month "invisible" credit on my bill. If I didn't like that I
> could have gone with an AT&T GoPhone or any one of a number of other
> no-contract alternatives. And look at it this way... if I DID cancel my
> service before the time was up, and paid $150, Sprint would still be
> screwed out of $375 for the phone. That's not even accounting for the cost
> of acquiring me and paying for people to answer all the calls I made to
> customer service trying to scam discounts.
>
> Sprint zero'd out their balance, gave them 30 days notice, didn't charge
> an ETF, and didn't take their thieving butts to court for fraud. All
> consistent with a terms of service contract that I think is the fairest of
> all the cellular carriers. [Show me a TOS that is better] And if you
> called in and had a legitimate reason for the calls you made, they
> reversed the decision. I don't see what the fuss is about.
>
> The only hogs here are the greedy crooks who weren't happy with the perks
> they already scammed for their plans and had to call "one more time" for
> the free ringtones. This will turn out like the woman who "found" the
> thumb in her Wendy's chili. Dishonest people who are taking advantage of
> our innate distrust of large companies for their personal financial gain.
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-0B76A8.19581713072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <os0g93l38u53ghkab65bls47bbkrqsecr6@4ax.com>,
>> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> >Why should
>>> >only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
>>>
>>> Because that's what the customer agreed to.
>>
>> Not every contract is legal.
>>
>> Do the cell phone companies REALLY want their unilateral terms
>> scrutinized so carefully?
>>
>> Especially when powerful politicians want to buy votes?
>>
>> Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. When you get outright hoggy with
>> your contract, you're inviting something--anything--to happen.
>>
>
>