>
> A hundred calls a month? I think there's another side to this story that
> would make more sense,
In defense of it's widely publicised outrageous behavior with regard to the
termination of at least three of the customers whose direct statements I
have been following over the past week, sprint had no choice but to announce
these claims of "100 calls a month". If you believe them, you probably
haven't ever had to deal with broken promises from their customer service
department.

>
>> 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.
None the less, a short time customer was indeed terminated for excess calls.
Read up on it.
If you say that you think that a new customer on their network shouldn't
have been on the radar, then
I agree with you.

>> 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"?
Probably not many, however I was talking about my personal experience. You
can also read about hundreds of other people who have problems with
overbilling and unfilled promises of service.
>
>> 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.
I have my last 9 years of billing to support the overcharges, again, always
in sprints favor. I'm sure I'm not alone.
>
>
> 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?
I agree with you there again. I believe that they wanted to get rid of
low-profit customers. But if they wanted to release customers that had
low-profit plans, either through retention deals or by taking advantage of
offered specials, then they should have waited until those customers were
out of contract and then informed them that their previous plans were not
going to be continued at the same price, giving them a chance to secure a
new plan or move on if that is what they decided to do. IMHO, bad planning
and poor customer service were the reason for the low profit and also the
numerous calls from many of those customers that were released. Of course,
I don't have access to the internal workings of sprint, only deducing from
their public behavior and what I read on the internet.