"FloydinTampa" <Flooydomit@Prodigy.net> wrote in
news:O6dmi.11426$bz7.8517@newssvr22.news.prodigy.n et:

>>
>> 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.

You mean other than a bad activation and two seperate port issues that
took more than a few days to correct?

>
>>
>>> 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.

I've read a bunch on it and have seen many stories that make no logical
sense to the point of being obvious bullshit. As a matter of fact, I
wouldn't be surprised to find thousands of "customers" claiming on the
internet to have received one of the roughly one thousand letters that
went out.

> 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.

Then let's do the math- let's say a thousand customers, just to be
generous- one thousand out of more than 150 million US cellular users
with a billing problem. Care to figure out the percentage without an
issue?

>>
>>> 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.

And I know fo bills that have gone out int hte customer's favor- we're
even.


>>
>>
>> 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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa Skippy- nobody anywhere has tied these customers to
unprofitable rate plans. Where did that come from?


> 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.
>
>
>