New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
called customer service too often.
Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they will
lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State Consumer
Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those customers $200 each
- the amount the customers would have had to pay if they had
prematurely ended their two-year contracts with the company.
The Reston, Va.-based company, with operational headquarters in
Overland Park, Kan., said it will zero out the customers' accounts
and not charge any termination fees. But Mindy Bockstein, the board's
chairwoman and executive director, said that's not enough.
"These former Sprint customers will have to purchase new phones and
incur other expenses and inconveniences if they want to continue
receiving wireless service," Bockstein said. "Sprint Nextel should do
more to improve the quality of its customer service and this is a
good place to start."
[MORE]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:18:14 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>>
>> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
>> pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
>> called customer service too often.
>>
>> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they
>> will lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State
>> Consumer Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those
>> customers $200 each - the amount the customers would have had to
>> pay if they had prematurely ended their two-year contracts with
>> the company.
>>
>> The Reston, Va.-based company, with operational headquarters in
>> Overland Park, Kan., said it will zero out the customers' accounts
>> and not charge any termination fees. But Mindy Bockstein, the
>> board's chairwoman and executive director, said that's not enough.
>>
>> "These former Sprint customers will have to purchase new phones and
>> incur other expenses and inconveniences if they want to continue
>> receiving wireless service," Bockstein said. "Sprint Nextel should
>> do more to improve the quality of its customer service and this is
>> a good place to start."
>
> This reaction seems like little more than grandstanding. Which major
> carrier isn't providing heavily subsidized phones these days?
Seems only fair that if Sprint elects to terminate early they should pay
the customer the same penalty that th customer would pay if they elected
to quit. "But that's not in the contract," you correctly point out. One
of the jobs of the Consumer Advocate is to level the playing field where
a single customer has no negotiating juice. Let's see how they prevail.
I showed up for a dental appointment one Saturday and his office was
closed. When I called them on Monday they were very apologetic. I
pointed out that had I been the no show they would have charged me so
since they were the no show they should clean my teeth for free. They
did.
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4695966b$0$9007
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> "But that's not in the contract," you correctly point out. One
> of the jobs of the Consumer Advocate is to level the playing field where
> a single customer has no negotiating juice. Let's see how they prevail.
They won't prevail- all Sprint has to do is point to a number of similar
instances where other carriers have unilaterally ended the contract terms
with a subscriber (think network conversions) and then cry prejudice for
being singled out.
In <MOidnYR6tPEIBQjbnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@adelphia.com> Scott <how.do@you.do> writes:
>They won't prevail- all Sprint has to do is point to a number of similar
>instances where other carriers have unilaterally ended the contract terms
>with a subscriber (think network conversions) and then cry prejudice for
>being singled out.
Umm, Sprint _faced_ a class action suit when they
pulled that garbage.
There used to be an early GSM
offering by Sprint called "Sprint Spectrum".
They shut it down. Customers sued. Sprint settled
and paid off. Don't recall teh amounts, but it
was still a cost to them.
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in
news:f746e4$e51$1@reader2.panix.com:
> In <MOidnYR6tPEIBQjbnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@adelphia.com> Scott
> <how.do@you.do> writes:
>
>>They won't prevail- all Sprint has to do is point to a number of
>>similar instances where other carriers have unilaterally ended the
>>contract terms with a subscriber (think network conversions) and then
>>cry prejudice for being singled out.
>
> Umm, Sprint _faced_ a class action suit when they
> pulled that garbage.
>
> There used to be an early GSM
> offering by Sprint called "Sprint Spectrum".
>
> They shut it down. Customers sued. Sprint settled
> and paid off. Don't recall teh amounts, but it
> was still a cost to them.
>
>
See the recent conversion of ATT Wireless and Cingular conversions from
TDMA to GSM. In that conversion, customers got letters very similar to the
ones being discussed here. "Dear Customer, we are shutting down the TDMA
network on "x date" and will no longer be providing service." No action by
the State of New York. While the Sprint Spectrum case could be considered,
the inaction by the State of New York in these other instances sets the
precedent.
Scott wrote:
> "BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4695966b$0$9007
> $4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>
>
>
>> "But that's not in the contract," you correctly point out. One
>> of the jobs of the Consumer Advocate is to level the playing field
>> where a single customer has no negotiating juice. Let's see how
>> they prevail.
>
> They won't prevail- all Sprint has to do is point to a number of
> similar instances where other carriers have unilaterally ended the
> contract terms with a subscriber (think network conversions) and then
> cry prejudice for being singled out.
A network conversion falls under "assigns & successors" which most
contracts specify as being OK. To unilaterally terminate a customer
who's accounts are current is very different. If not liable for the
$200, which by the contract they are not, they maybe liable for other
damages. What kind? Well, let's say you had a really good plan that was
maybe grandfathered from a long time ago. If switching forced you into
paying more for the same service they might be liable for the extra
costs. Furthermore, if their plan included unlimited calling to other
Sprint customers and, because of that, they got all their friends and
family to sign up with Sprint, there may be damages for the increased
usage not just for the cancelled subscriber but for the friends and
family that now have to pay to call him. The feature set offered by
Sprint is advertised as being unique and if that's true, the sub may
have a claim for damages because he can no longer obtain those unique
services from another services (i.e. push-to-talk walkie-talkie service
on the Nextel network).
My point is that if the subsciber is in good standing, meaning bills
are paid timely and there's been no violation of the contract terms or
other binding covenants, the carrier's early termination could certainly
lead to claims for damages and legal fees from lots of angry customers.
In fact, Sprint might find it advantageous to just pay the
$200/cancelled sub if it buys them immunities from other causes of
action related to termination.
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4695abe7$0$8943
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
> A network conversion falls under "assigns & successors" which most
> contracts specify as being OK.
No- that would be a merger or buyout. The same company switching
techologies does not fall under that.
> To unilaterally terminate a customer
> who's accounts are current is very different.
Whose unilaterally terminating current customers? Although Cingular and
ATT effectively did that when they shut their TDMA netwroks in some
markets.
> If not liable for the
> $200, which by the contract they are not, they maybe liable for other
> damages. What kind? Well, let's say you had a really good plan that was
> maybe grandfathered from a long time ago. If switching forced you into
> paying more for the same service they might be liable for the extra
> costs.
Once the original contract expires, there is no agreement to break. A
grandfathered plan many times indicates the lack of a current contract.
> Furthermore, if their plan included unlimited calling to other
> Sprint customers and, because of that, they got all their friends and
> family to sign up with Sprint, there may be damages for the increased
> usage not just for the cancelled subscriber but for the friends and
> family that now have to pay to call him. The feature set offered by
> Sprint is advertised as being unique and if that's true, the sub may
> have a claim for damages because he can no longer obtain those unique
> services from another services (i.e. push-to-talk walkie-talkie service
> on the Nextel network).
>
> My point is that if the subsciber is in good standing, meaning bills
> are paid timely and there's been no violation of the contract terms or
> other binding covenants, the carrier's early termination could certainly
> lead to claims for damages and legal fees from lots of angry customers.
> In fact, Sprint might find it advantageous to just pay the
> $200/cancelled sub if it buys them immunities from other causes of
> action related to termination.
>
>
>
Did you miss the part where Sprint is waiving the final balance on many of
the accounts that are going to be cancelled?
On 2007-07-12, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
><http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>
> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
> pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
> called customer service too often.
>
> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they will
> lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State Consumer
> Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those customers $200 each
> - the amount the customers would have had to pay if they had
> prematurely ended their two-year contracts with the company.
Didn't someone just suggest exactly this here in the Sprint newsgroup?
Paul Miner wrote:
> They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.
I can assure you that if some company not only terminated my service for
such reasons but also tried to charge me the fee the contract specifies
for *my* breaking off the relationship, it would take me about thirty
seconds to tear some lawyer away from suing his own mother for watery
soup and to sic him on that company.
--
Postulate a group whose intent is to destroy the United States from within
via anarchy and bankruptcy. The actions of the United States Congress are
completely consistent with the actions one would predict from such a group.
On 2007-07-12, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Miner wrote:
>> They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.
>
> I can assure you that if some company not only terminated my service for
> such reasons but also tried to charge me the fee the contract specifies
> for *my* breaking off the relationship, it would take me about thirty
> seconds to tear some lawyer away from suing his own mother for watery
> soup and to sic him on that company.
If you have signed a Verizon agreement (I haven't looked at the others)
what you signed says:
AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE WILL APPLY IF YOU CHOOSE TO END YOUR SERVICE
BEFORE BECOMING A MONTH-TO-MONTH CUSTOMER, OR IF WE TERMINATE IT EARLY
FOR GOOD CAUSE.
That is, the ETF may apply if they terminate you, not just if you
terminate them. Verizon's "good cause" includes, but is not limited to,
the following:
You agree not to resell our service to someone else without our
prior written permission. You also agree your wireless phone won't
be used for any other purpose that isn't allowed by this agreement
or that's illegal. You agree that you won't install, deploy, or use
any regeneration equipment or similar mechanism (for example, a
repeater) to originate, amplify, enhance, retransmit or regenerate
a transmitted RF signal. WE CAN, WITHOUT NOTICE, LIMIT, SUSPEND, OR
END YOUR SERVICE OR ANY AGREEMENT WITH YOU FOR THIS OR ANY OTHER
GOOD CAUSE, including, but not limited to: (a) paying late more than
once in any 12 months; (b) incurring charges larger than a required
deposit or billing limit (even if we haven't yet billed the charges);
(c) harassing our employees or agents; (d) lying to us; (e) interfering
with our operations; (f) breaching this agreement; (g) "spamming," or
other abusive messaging or calling; (h) modifying your wireless phone
from its manufacturer's specifications; (i) providing credit information
we can't verify; (j) using your service in a way that adversely affects
our network or other customers; or (k) allowing anyone to tamper with
your wireless phone number.
That covers just about everything. The thing the Sprint customers are
being terminated for is probably covered by (c) or (e) (not that the
"good cause" they terminate you for needs to be listed). (h) probably
covers the things people do to their Verizon phones to restore features
that Verizon removed.
Oh, and then there's
WE EACH AGREE TO SETTLE DISPUTES (EXCEPT CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS) ONLY
BY ARBITRATION.
which kind of limits what your lawyer can threaten them with. They've
covered themselves pretty well.
> This reaction seems like little more than grandstanding. Which major
> carrier isn't providing heavily subsidized phones these days?
Perhaps, but to be fair, what about a Sprint Blackberry or Treo owner?
He might have paid $200-400 for his subsidized phone, and would have to
pay a similar amount to get essentially the same phone with a new carrier-
the Sprint CDMA model is incompatible with T-Mo's or Cingular's GSM, and
Verizon (like Sprint) refuses to activate phones sold by another carrier,
even if 100% compatible.
Now if Sprint is also willing to refund what a customer paid for their
high-end phone, fine, but I have a bit of a problem with this "firing
customers" idea when they're under contract. Sprint was happy to sign
them up and never gave them a customer service call limit. If they want
to terminate them after the contract is up, and/or stop them from renewing,
fine, but they didn't break any rules- CS is 24/7 and free according to
all the brochures.
I better way to handle the "problem" would've been to flag the accounts
so when they called CS about an often lodged complaint, the reps could
just explain "we've already tried to satisfy your needs on this
particular issue and were unable to. In the interests of customer
service we'd like to offer you the ability to end your contractual
commitment without any penalty should you choose to..."
If CS "stonewalled" these 2000 customers with the above script, they'd
get the message and cancel on their own.
Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:00:01 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
> <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-07-12, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> <http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>>>
>>> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp.
>>> to pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because
>>> they called customer service too often.
>>>
>>> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they
>>> will lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State
>>> Consumer Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those
>>> customers $200 each - the amount the customers would have had to
>>> pay if they had prematurely ended their two-year contracts with
>>> the company.
>>
>> Didn't someone just suggest exactly this here in the Sprint
>> newsgroup?
>>
>> I think it's a good idea.
>
> It doesn't make any sense to me. As of a few years ago, I believe it
> cost carriers over $400 to acquire a new customer and get them set up.
> If you turn that around and charge customers $400+ to start a new line
> of service, then yes, refund part of it if the customer is cut loose
> within a certain period, but with the current business model I see no
> justification at all for paying a (bad) customer to leave. They should
> be glad they aren't charged the ETF.
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?
Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:57:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <4695f669$0$3125$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> "BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> 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?
>>
>> And what if Sprint actually screwed up their bills so much that such
>> a level of calling was necessary and prudent?
>>
>> Shouldn't we as consumers be able, unilaterally, to say to Sprint et
>> al., "You are a bad business to do business with, you've proven it
>> time and again, so our contract is null and void"?
>
> Of course not. If you want a contract that's written that way, start
> your own wireless carrier and offer it.
>
>> Unilateral contracts are a nice concept for the corporation, but if
>> they push on that they'll get pushed back on. "We can do anything
>> we want, you just have to pay us money until we tell you you don't
>> have to"--that's not a contract, that's crazy.
>
> Agreed, but no one was forced to agree to it, were they? That goes for
> any of the wireless companies.
I think that's why the NY Consumer Advocate is getting involved. What
Sprint is doing is not in the contract and customers didn't agree to it
so it's just bullying. Believe me, as a business owner myself I'm all
for keeping government out of my affairs but when a business that is a
public utility takes advantage of a group of customers who have no
voice, that's when a Consumer Advocate should step in to protect those
who have no voice. Remember, judges can take any part of a contract
they feel is unfair and toss it out as "against public policy" and, by
law, any ambiguities are always interpreted against the party who wrote
the contract.
Paul Miner wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:37:49 -1000, "BruceR"
> <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Miner wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't make any sense to me. As of a few years ago, I believe it
>>> cost carriers over $400 to acquire a new customer and get them set
>>> up. If you turn that around and charge customers $400+ to start a
>>> new line of service, then yes, refund part of it if the customer is
>>> cut loose within a certain period, but with the current business
>>> model I see no justification at all for paying a (bad) customer to
>>> leave. They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.
>>
>> 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?
>
> I'm not defining bad, but Sprint apparently did. I believe it refers
> to someone who costs the company more to carry than they generate in
> revenue.
And now it will be up to the AG's and Consumer Advocates to decide if
there definition meets muster.
On the other hand, if I found it necessary to constantly call customer
service to resolve issues, I would probably be thrilled to get a free
early termination so I could hook up with a carrier more to my liking.
I like the idea a previous poster had where a constant caller could be
politely told, "Sir/Ma'am, we just don't seem to be able to satisfy your
needs and expectations so we'd like to offer you the opportunity to
switch to another carrier with no early termination fee."
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
> 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?
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:4695cf80$0$24432$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:
> Sprint was happy to sign
> them up and never gave them a customer service call limit.
True, but they signed them up expecting to act somewhat close to a normal
industry customer. Nobody would expect a customer that calls 40 times more
than average. More than ten times a day (on average), month after month?
My take is that they are these folks a favor- they are obviously too stupid
to own a cell phone if they need that much help.
> If they
> want to terminate them after the contract is up, and/or stop them from
> renewing,
>
> fine, but they didn't break any rules- CS is 24/7 and free according
> to all the brochures.
And costs the business about a dollar a minute. So, I see three options for
Sprint:
1. Continue to take the loss month after month and lose millions of
dollars a month.
2. Keep the customers and simply pass the costs of serving them to every
other subscriber through price increases.
3. Get rid of the dead weight.
Only one of the three options has any benefit to the customer base.
> I better way to handle the "problem" would've been to flag the
> accounts so when they called CS about an often lodged complaint, the
> reps could just explain "we've already tried to satisfy your needs on
> this particular issue and were unable to. In the interests of
> customer service we'd like to offer you the ability to end your
> contractual commitment without any penalty should you choose to..."
>
> If CS "stonewalled" these 2000 customers with the above script, they'd
> get the message and cancel on their own.
>
>
And they still lose money taking the time to explain that.
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4695f669$0$3125
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
> 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?
>
>
>
Read the media articles again- they are bad customers because of their
inability to take "no" for an answer. Asking for information off somebody
else's account, continuing to call after being told multiple times that
their issue was resolved, being told that there was nothing more that
Sprint could do for them and their problem... number of calls was simply a
flag and not the sole criteria for cancellation.
It wouldn't surpise me to find that a good number of the customers
cancelled were the type that continually hounded CS for two months of free
service to compensate them for the inconvenience of having to dispute a
$1.29 directory assistance charge or some other ridiculous request.
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in
news:469602b4$0$20595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>
> Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:57:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4695f669$0$3125$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>> "BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> 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?
>>>
>>> And what if Sprint actually screwed up their bills so much that such
>>> a level of calling was necessary and prudent?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we as consumers be able, unilaterally, to say to Sprint et
>>> al., "You are a bad business to do business with, you've proven it
>>> time and again, so our contract is null and void"?
>>
>> Of course not. If you want a contract that's written that way, start
>> your own wireless carrier and offer it.
>>
>>> Unilateral contracts are a nice concept for the corporation, but if
>>> they push on that they'll get pushed back on. "We can do anything
>>> we want, you just have to pay us money until we tell you you don't
>>> have to"--that's not a contract, that's crazy.
>>
>> Agreed, but no one was forced to agree to it, were they? That goes
>> for any of the wireless companies.
>
> I think that's why the NY Consumer Advocate is getting involved. What
> Sprint is doing is not in the contract and customers didn't agree to
> it so it's just bullying.
We can, without notice, suspend or terminate any Service at any time for
any reason, including, but not limited to: (a) late payment; (b)
exceeding an Account Spending Limit (“ASL”); (c) harassing/threatening
our employees or agents; (d) providing false information; (e)
interfering with our operations; (f) using/suspicion of using Services
in any manner restricted by or inconsistent with the Agreement; (g)
breaching the Agreement, including our Policies; (h) providing false,
inaccurate, dated or unverifiable identification or credit information,
or becoming insolvent or bankrupt; (i) modifying a Device from its
manufacturer specifications; or (j) if we believe the action protects
our interests, any customer's interests or our network.
I would point to (c), (e) and (j). Any one of the three applies here
and they all appear in T&C that each customer signs off on when they
start service.
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:46960462$0$24759
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>
> Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:37:49 -1000, "BruceR"
>> <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Miner wrote:
>>
>>>> It doesn't make any sense to me. As of a few years ago, I believe it
>>>> cost carriers over $400 to acquire a new customer and get them set
>>>> up. If you turn that around and charge customers $400+ to start a
>>>> new line of service, then yes, refund part of it if the customer is
>>>> cut loose within a certain period, but with the current business
>>>> model I see no justification at all for paying a (bad) customer to
>>>> leave. They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I'm not defining bad, but Sprint apparently did. I believe it refers
>> to someone who costs the company more to carry than they generate in
>> revenue.
>
> And now it will be up to the AG's and Consumer Advocates to decide if
> there definition meets muster.
I wonder what New Yourk's position is going to be if they find out that the
total number of state residents involced is fifteen or less?
>
> On the other hand, if I found it necessary to constantly call customer
> service to resolve issues, I would probably be thrilled to get a free
> early termination so I could hook up with a carrier more to my liking.
>
> I like the idea a previous poster had where a constant caller could be
> politely told, "Sir/Ma'am, we just don't seem to be able to satisfy your
> needs and expectations so we'd like to offer you the opportunity to
> switch to another carrier with no early termination fee."
>
So telling them over the phone is better than sending them a letter?
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-9A608F.19592912072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
> In article <B5adnaPPy5PlJgvbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> > fine, but they didn't break any rules- CS is 24/7 and free
>> > according to all the brochures.
>>
>> And costs the business about a dollar a minute. So, I see three
>> options for Sprint:
>>
>> 1. Continue to take the loss month after month and lose millions of
>> dollars a month.
>
> Wait a minute. What about the customers that DON'T call customer
> service?
>
> Sprint is obligated to average things out. It sounds like you're
> defending Sprint's desire not to have to take the bad with the good.
Read some of my other posts- call volume was not the sole criteria for
cancellation.
> They're perfectly happy to take no calls from many people;
> statistically, they're going to get some calls from most people, and
> many calls from some people.
>
> Sounds like they're just trying to chop off the bottom of the bell
> curve, hoping that the bell curve will stand by itself without that
> bottom part. I have news for them: someone will always be at the
> bottom of the bell curve. Sprint will always have "customers that
> call the most". The only difference is, "most" will move to a
> different point--at which point Sprint is then free to cut THEM off,
> too?
>
>
We're talking about less than .002% of their total customer base here-
about 1 out of every 50,000 customers. An average of around 20
customers for every state in the union. Everybody is jumping on this as
if millions of customers are effected and that the behavior of this
handful of customers has to be close to normal. Some of them were
calling an average of 15-20 times a day for months on end. Sprint was
obviously not able to meet their needs or expectations- what would
expect Sprint to do?
Wanna bet that Verizon unilaterally cancels more customers than that in
a month for data use violations? Or that AT&T will unilaterally cancel
more service than that as they shut down the remaining TDMA towers on
the network?
I'm actually a little disappointed in some here (including you, Elmo)
that have focused on the call volume and perverted it into the sole
reason these customers were cancelled. Much more information has been
reported than that, but it goes unmentioned. I wonder how long some of
you would survive if put into the situation of having to listen to the
same bitch from the same person 10-15 times a day for a couple of months
and having to just allow it to continue. You'll notice that I hav emade
no attempt to defend Sprint's care mechanism- that would be absurd. But
jeez- you all act like this business decision is the most heinous crime
committed against the flock of sheep known as today's consumer.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-A99747.19565912072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
> In article <duGdnXk7Z_XIIAvbnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> Read the media articles again- they are bad customers because of
>> their inability to take "no" for an answer. Asking for information
>> off somebody else's account, continuing to call after being told
>> multiple times that their issue was resolved,
>
> Oh, now, come on. It's the goal of any customer service rep to get
> off the phone; they are measured by that. And with cell companies,
> the companies themselves would look at a black page and say, "That's
> white"--and then claim that "the issue is resolved, we said it was
> white".
>
> Don't tell me that the cell company claiming that "the issue was
> resolved" has any credibility in this day and age. Fuck them.
>
>
OK- at least we now see your agenda. Now I understand your approach. It
probably pains you to see a cellular carrier with the balls to take the
same attitude.
On 2007-07-12, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
> True, but they signed them up expecting to act somewhat close to a normal
> industry customer. Nobody would expect a customer that calls 40 times more
> than average. More than ten times a day (on average), month after month?
> My take is that they are these folks a favor- they are obviously too stupid
> to own a cell phone if they need that much help.
Well, the real question is whether the contract provides for termination of
a customer who does that kind of thing.
> Only one of the three options has any benefit to the customer base.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-9A4324.21174412072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
> In article <J_qdnY42r5cDWQvbnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> > Don't tell me that the cell company claiming that "the issue was
>> > resolved" has any credibility in this day and age. Fuck them.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> OK- at least we now see your agenda. Now I understand your approach.
>> It probably pains you to see a cellular carrier with the balls to
>> take the same attitude.
>
> no, that's not it at all. They started the attitude: "Fuck you, give
> us money. No, we can't tell you how much from month to month; we'll
> just send you a random number and expect you to pay it.
Random number? C'mon now.
> And don't
> call us. And that random number goes up all the time because <boo
> hoo!> all those government regulations we have to abide by, so we just
> pass the cost on to you and call it "regulatory cost recovery"--even
> though it's just a cost of doing business, and to tell you that your
> plan costs $40/month is legit even though you can't pay any less than
> $46 plus tax beacause of these "fees" of ours.
And the fact that it is the most heavily taxed indistry around has no
bearing? How many states and communities have recently levied taxes of
up to 5% on cell bills because they see the cash cow potential in it?
> And we're not
> obligated to provide service, either; if it doesn't work, if your
> calls drop--too bad, fuck off and pay us our money.
And yet you can call Sprint and get credit for dropped calls without
even talkint to a person. Hmmmmm.
> And if you DARE
> to call ANY directory assistance number, even one that isn't ours?
> We'll still charge you an EXTRA buck and a half for the privilege of
> getting ANYONE'S directory assistance over our cell frequencies. Now
> fuck off and pay us our money."
>
> THOSE cell phone companies?
>
> It's not difficult to have an attitude against them. It was
> INEVITABLE that one of them would do something to cross the line.
So, would that be Verizon for cutting off customers without notice for
data violations, or AT&T for moving from TDMA to GSM and nto giving a
crap about those that didn't want to switch with them? This is far from
the first examp[le and strangely enough, the one affecting the least
number of customers. It's hilarious to see the outrage here when other
carriers (see above) did much worse with a much larger impact on people.
Where was your righteous outrage then? Where was the media then? The
truth- the media has no clue what is going on and only picked up on this
because of a bulletin board post. Interestingly enough, the great
majority of major media outlets have made it no more than a quick
byline.
>
> You can argue that it's not really crossing the line, but perception
> is reality--and the news organizations have decided to make shove this
> perception into reality as hard as they can, and force the cell phone
> company in question to eat shit.
>
> And I don't mind it one bit. Fuck them, pay the people their early
> termination fee.
>
>
> Read the media articles again- they are bad customers because of their
> inability to take "no" for an answer. ... continuing to call after being
> told multiple times that
> their issue was resolved,
Evidently, you haven't experienced having a billing/plan problem resurfacing
after the CS folks assure you that the problem is resolved. I have, on
several occasions, and it sometimes takes many calls to get the simplest
thing corrected. After this happens, you learn to distrust anything that
you are told from one or two agents, and may find yourself calling back
three, four, or even five times to try to get a consensus from them that the
problem is resolved. The penalty of not doing this, as I have found out,
can be substantial, such as when you try to get roaming added to your plan
before you go on vacation, only to find out that all the calls you made on
your vacation are billed at roaming rates.
I'm in the camp that says to spcs: "FIX YOUR CS SYSTEM SO WE DON'T HAVE TO
CALL SO MUCH!"
In article <UTAli.366$Dx2.129@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
"FloydinTampa" <Flooydomit@Prodigy.net> wrote:
> > Read the media articles again- they are bad customers because of their
> > inability to take "no" for an answer. ... continuing to call after being
> > told multiple times that
> > their issue was resolved,
>
> Evidently, you haven't experienced having a billing/plan problem resurfacing
> after the CS folks assure you that the problem is resolved. I have, on
> several occasions, and it sometimes takes many calls to get the simplest
> thing corrected. After this happens, you learn to distrust anything that
> you are told from one or two agents, and may find yourself calling back
> three, four, or even five times to try to get a consensus from them that the
> problem is resolved. The penalty of not doing this, as I have found out,
> can be substantial, such as when you try to get roaming added to your plan
> before you go on vacation, only to find out that all the calls you made on
> your vacation are billed at roaming rates.
> I'm in the camp that says to spcs: "FIX YOUR CS SYSTEM SO WE DON'T HAVE TO
> CALL SO MUCH!"
>
>
What about navas called CS multiple times just to find out how long was
the average wait to get a live rep?
> I wonder how long some of
> you would survive if put into the situation of having to listen to the
> same bitch from the same person 10-15 times a day for a couple of
months
> and having to just allow it to continue.
What make you think we're not married? ;-)
> You'll notice that I hav emade
> no attempt to defend Sprint's care mechanism- that would be absurd.
But
> jeez- you all act like this business decision is the most heinous crime
> committed against the flock of sheep known as today's consumer.
I'm mostly on your side- I'd let them go as well. I just think they
could've done it with a little more diplomacy.
Although, there's more than a little irony that the carrier noted for the
weakest customer service is the one terminating customers for overusing
customer service! ;-)
> So telling them over the phone is better than sending them a letter?
No, but letting it be the _customer's_ choice to leave, rather than being
forced by Sprint, would be a bettr outcome politically. I suspect the
vast majority would've opted to leave voluntarily, and Sprint would have
the desired result with no negative press (heck, it would've been easy to
spin it positively- the story would be "Sprint releases 2000 unsatisfied
customers without penalty" instead of "Sprint terminates 2000 customers
who complain too much."
Again, like you, I agree that Sprint is making the right move. I just
think they could've handled it better.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-355B47.00152713072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
>
> I don't disagree. I got caught in the Cingular blue/orange thing, and
> I still have a bad taste in my mouth.
>
> The point is, some things--through whatever set of circumstances--just
> bubble to the top like this, while others don't. That's just life, or
> haven't you noticed?
>
> It was inevitable that SOMETHING bubbled to the top, even if other,
> more egregious things managed to stay hidden.
>
> Now I'm seeing reports that lawmakers are taking an interest in cell
> providers--more specifically, at the spectrum and public access to
> it--at a different level:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../07/11/AR20070
> 71 100698.html
>
>
All good points, but don't too excited about the link- something like that
has happened every time a carrier has made the news.
> 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.
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.
NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers 
