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.
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?
> 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.
If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
Treos for an end-user cost of $75.
Contracts certainly can be voided in the case of fraud, which is what is
happening in this situation. People badgering the customer service center,
making up sob stories, manufacturing problems until they get every service
credit and discount available.
The relevant section of Sprint's Contract:
>>>>
Our Right To Suspend Or Terminate Services
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.
<<<<
If New York's Ms. Bockstein wants to make a stand for the downtrodden
consumer, where is she when Verizon is disconnecting people (and charging
them ETF!) for using their so-called "unlimited" data plan to stream YouTube
videos? Gosh, could it be that Verizon's corporate headquarters is at 140
West St. in Manhatten? Nah. That would just be too transparent, wouldn't it?
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4697f5c3$0$4710$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> 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.
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.
>
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.
>>
>
>
"Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in
news:NYGdnc_zxZpTnwXbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@comcast.com:
> If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be
> abolished, I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have
> plenty of options for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist
> because the outlay is on the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs
> and (in my personal case) $600 Treos for an end-user cost of $75.
>
> Contracts certainly can be voided in the case of fraud, which is what
> is happening in this situation. People badgering the customer service
> center, making up sob stories, manufacturing problems until they get
> every service credit and discount available.
>
> The relevant section of Sprint's Contract:
>
>>>>>
> Our Right To Suspend Or Terminate Services
>
> 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.
> <<<<
>
> If New York's Ms. Bockstein wants to make a stand for the downtrodden
> consumer, where is she when Verizon is disconnecting people (and
> charging them ETF!) for using their so-called "unlimited" data plan to
> stream YouTube videos? Gosh, could it be that Verizon's corporate
> headquarters is at 140 West St. in Manhatten? Nah. That would just be
> too transparent, wouldn't it?
>
> 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?
Are you saying that cellular contracts haven't already been scrutinized?
Most of the language contained today is because of some form of government
scrutiny- see the State of California for starters.
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in
news:slrnf9gknn.7tk.nospam@debian.dns2go.com:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:31:13 -0400]:
>> In article <2e6g93l8rg8t7bertkqtsp44f7cukmu3oe@4ax.com>,
>> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> >Not every contract is legal.
>>>
>>> I guess the flip side to your logic is that not every contract is
>>> illegal. Who cares, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
>>
>> Are you saying that the Sprint contract is legal?
>>
>> Are you a lawyer?
>
> I'm sure Sprint's lawyers say it's legal.
>
As has every judge that has heard any action against Sprint, or any other
carrier.
Justin wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:31:13 -0400]:
>> In article <2e6g93l8rg8t7bertkqtsp44f7cukmu3oe@4ax.com>,
>> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> Not every contract is legal.
>>>
>>> I guess the flip side to your logic is that not every contract is
>>> illegal. Who cares, it has nothing to do with the discussion at
>>> hand.
>>
>> Are you saying that the Sprint contract is legal?
>>
>> Are you a lawyer?
>
> I'm sure Sprint's lawyers say it's legal.
And the Consumer Advocate thinks it isn't. That's why we have courts.
That's where a difinitive answer will be found unless Sprint makes some
settlement.
AG's, Consumer Advocates and the like have a lot of power to force
corporations to do things the way they want them to. They have more
power with smaller companies but they can still influence the big boys.
Even if something is perfectly legal they can get a corporation to
change it to avoid a lengthy and expensive court process.
From many years ago I know of a company who's marketing practices were
being investigated by the AG's offices of several states. At an
informal meeting of the parties involved, the Deputy AG leading the
meeting said that after due consideration the multi-state task force had
agreed that the marketing practices were NOT deceptive nor illegal...
and for a payment of $30,000 to each of the states involved to help
defry the expense of the investigation, the case would be dropped. So
even if they say you won you STILL haveto pay a hefty penalty!
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4698585c$0$4688
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>
> Justin wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:31:13 -0400]:
>>> In article <2e6g93l8rg8t7bertkqtsp44f7cukmu3oe@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Not every contract is legal.
>>>>
>>>> I guess the flip side to your logic is that not every contract is
>>>> illegal. Who cares, it has nothing to do with the discussion at
>>>> hand.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the Sprint contract is legal?
>>>
>>> Are you a lawyer?
>>
>> I'm sure Sprint's lawyers say it's legal.
>
> And the Consumer Advocate thinks it isn't. That's why we have courts.
> That's where a difinitive answer will be found unless Sprint makes some
> settlement.
>
> AG's, Consumer Advocates and the like have a lot of power to force
> corporations to do things the way they want them to. They have more
> power with smaller companies but they can still influence the big boys.
> Even if something is perfectly legal they can get a corporation to
> change it to avoid a lengthy and expensive court process.
But only if NY is willing to spend millions to get a few hundred dollars
for the 30 or so residents these letters affected. Talk about a PR
nightmare- the media gets a hold of that and nails the government for
financial mismanagement. Sprint would be in no hurry to settle- government
always trumps cellular carrier on the media hit list.
Bill Marriott wrote:
> If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
> I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
> for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
> the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
> Treos for an end-user cost of $75.
>
Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
> Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
> iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to
> use it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
That's a pretty unsustainable precedent, however. Apple and AT&T were
able to leverage a "perfect storm" of silence, mystery, and media
coverage to make the whole "experience" unprecedented. The at-home
activation was simply adding to the "this is like no other phone" hype-
kind of like why Toyota put push-button starters on the Prius- to hit you
over the head with the "this isn't a regular car" message.
We don't know how subsidized or unsubsidized the iPhone is, since there's
no "no-contact" price to compare it to.
Even buy-off-the-shelf prepaid phones are subsidized these days- desite
advances in technology and manufacturing, you still can't assemble,
package and sell a Nokia 6030, for example, for the $29 I can buy one for
at Walmart. The phone is sold pre-subsidized on the assumption it'll be
activated, with reasonable safeguards to protect the carrier and
"encourage" the buyer to use it only as intended (i.e. it comes locked,
includes free airtime, etc.)
Perhaps iPhone is sold the same way as a GoPhone: $499/$599 IS the
"subsidized price" and reasonable safeguards insure it's activation: it's
locked, and it's useless as a phone, iPod or web tablet until activated.
"Paul Miner" wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>>Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
>>iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
>>it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.
>
> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business
That's very different than the iPhone model in which there is no subsidy
*and* a requirement for a 2 year contract. I don't like that kind of
precedent one bit. Actually, considering how much of the device's
non-telephonic feature-set is locked down, without activation/contract, I
almost wonder why the FTC isn't up in arms over it (hacks duly noted).
> That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
> wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business and move
> them into a whole new business model of having customers purchase
> their device outright and then use it without a contract.
Oddly enough, that the business model Sprint used when they launched
nationwide. Of course, at the time, no one else had gone digital, so
there was no one else to take your $200 Sprint handset to- they were
essentially "locked" by incompatibility.
> I'm in favor
> of that, but then again, I'm not the type who always has to have the
> latest model, so perhaps it would
NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers 
