Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > Cellular Communications > US Networks > alt.cellular.verizon
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-26-2008, 04:58 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
> Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>
> "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him $0.75
> per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
> complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
> irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
> about
> his problem."
>
> http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...military-eh-he...


While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer contributes to
his or her own problem.

In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed overseas by
converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to the states he
never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a ton of calls at
$0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow deduce telepathically
he wanted to turn his service back on.

Sprint obviously could've handled this in a more consumer-friendly way by
rerating his bill after the fact, but they had no obligation to. They did,
however, offer to forgive half the bill and agreed to setup a payment plan.

However, that's not nearly as a good a Consumerist story as "Evil
Corporation Screws Patriotic Defender of Freedom." ;-)



Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-26-2008, 07:25 PM
Joel Koltner
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org...
> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer contributes to
> his or her own problem.


The author is unfortunately not as clear of a story teller as he could be too.

> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed overseas by
> converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to the states he
> never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a ton of calls at
> $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow deduce telepathically
> he wanted to turn his service back on.


Actually, I suspect he figured that since his original "deactivation" letter
specified he'd be back in March, that Sprint would store that fact in their
database and re-activate the phone (on its regular plan) at that point -- the
navy man didn't realize that even while his phone was "inactive" it
technically could still make phone calls, albeit at $0.75/minute. This
strikes me as an entirely reasonable assumption (most people would think that
if they "deactivated" their phone it wouldn't make phone calls anymore!), and
I think that if the navy man can produce a copy of that letter, Sprint should
admit that it was a communications error (that no one told the navy man that
his assumption was incorrect) and charge him whatever he'd have been billed
back on his regular plan.

> Sprint obviously could've handled this in a more consumer-friendly way by
> rerating his bill after the fact, but they had no obligation to.


If this ends up in small claims court I suspect there's a good very chance the
court will feel differently about Sprint's obligations. While it surely is
documented somewhere all the terms and conditions of temporarily deactiving a
phone, unless Sprint can demonstrate that they informed the navy man of the
specifics it's likely the court will go with the "reasonable person's"
interpretation of what should have been expected.

---Joel



Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 05:57 AM
Tim Smith
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
> > Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
> >
> > "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him $0.75
> > per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
> > complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
> > irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
> > about
> > his problem."
> >
> > http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...military-eh-he...

>
> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer contributes to
> his or her own problem.
>
> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed overseas by
> converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to the states he
> never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a ton of calls at
> $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow deduce telepathically
> he wanted to turn his service back on.
>


Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
what it says:

1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006 through
March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged, and paid,
$30/month during this suspension).

2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
assumed this meant his service was restored.

3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the normal
rate he expected for his plan.

4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
$0.75/minute plan.

How exactly did he contribute to the problem?

> Sprint obviously could've handled this in a more consumer-friendly way by
> rerating his bill after the fact, but they had no obligation to. They did,
> however, offer to forgive half the bill and agreed to setup a payment plan.


So you think Sprint is in the right to suddenly, without warning, and
without being asked, change his plan?

If he had used his phone *during the time he requested suspension* and
they had billed him $500, you'd have a good point, but this clearly has
nothing to do with that.

--
--Tim Smith

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 06:15 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
following in
news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:

> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>> > Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>> >
>> > "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>> > $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>> > complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>> > irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>> > about
>> > his problem."
>> >
>> > http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>> > e...

>>
>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>
>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>

>
> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
> what it says:
>
> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>
> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>
> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>
> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
> $0.75/minute plan.
>
> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?


By not looking at the bill for nine months?

>




Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 06:34 AM
Richard B. Gilbert
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

The Bob wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
> following in
> news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:
>
>> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>>>> Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>>>>
>>>> "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>>>> $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>>>> complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>>>> irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>>>> about
>>>> his problem."
>>>>
>>>> http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>>>> e...
>>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>>
>>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>>

>> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
>> what it says:
>>
>> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
>> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
>> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>>
>> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
>> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>>
>> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
>> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>>
>> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
>> $0.75/minute plan.
>>
>> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?

>
> By not looking at the bill for nine months?
>
>
>


Err. . . . What might the bill have told him? According to the story
above, he was being billed at his normal and expected rate!

If I get a normal bill, I write a check for the amount of the bill. If
the amount is not the normal and expected amount I will want to know why
before paying it!

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 09:27 AM
BruceR
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers



The Bob wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
> following in
> news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:
>
>> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>>>> Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>>>>
>>>> "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>>>> $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>>>> complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>>>> irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>>>> about
>>>> his problem."
>>>>
>>>> http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>>>> e...
>>>
>>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>>
>>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>>

>>
>> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
>> what it says:
>>
>> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
>> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
>> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>>
>> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked.
>> He assumed this meant his service was restored.
>>
>> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
>> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>>
>> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
>> $0.75/minute plan.
>>
>> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?

>
> By not looking at the bill for nine months?


Who told you he didn't look at his bill for 9 months? Or did you just
make that up? He claims that during that 9 months he was billed
correctly (which he presumably knew from looking at the bill) and as
expected and then, after 9 months, they raised him to the 75 cent rate.



Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 09:51 AM
The Ghost of General Lee
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

On Tue, 27 May 2008 01:34:00 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

>The Bob wrote:
>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
>> following in
>> news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
>>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>>>>> Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>>>>> $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>>>>> complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>>>>> irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>>>>> about
>>>>> his problem."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>>>>> e...
>>>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>>>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>>>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>>>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>>>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>>>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>>>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>>>
>>> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
>>> what it says:
>>>
>>> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
>>> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
>>> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>>>
>>> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
>>> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>>>
>>> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
>>> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>>>
>>> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
>>> $0.75/minute plan.
>>>
>>> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?

>>
>> By not looking at the bill for nine months?
>>
>>
>>

>
>Err. . . . What might the bill have told him? According to the story
>above, he was being billed at his normal and expected rate!
>
>If I get a normal bill, I write a check for the amount of the bill. If
>the amount is not the normal and expected amount I will want to know why
>before paying it!


That's not exactly what was said. First, the customer said,

"When I returned in May, vice March, I turned on my cell phone and the
service was restored. I have used my cell phone since May 2007 with a
radical phone bill, from $60-150 a month, but the statements reflected
time I went over my minutes, so I complied and have been paying my
bill."

So he used the phone for several months and got "radical" phone bills,
to which he (possibly mistakenly) attributed to minutes used over his
limit. Then he says his bill jumped after that point. By his own
admission, those bills prior to the $500 one were not "normal."

And early in his letter, he stated he incurred large charges during
his training in MS because he wasn't on a national plan, but there was
no reference made to him switching to a national plan. Perhaps he did
at that time I don't know what Sprint's local rate plans are like,
but at $30/mo., it appears they switched him over to a low cost local
plan for the time he was gone. It sounds to me like he doesn't really
know how rate plans work and how they can differ.

I'm not trying to defend Sprint, because I know a lot of people truly
have real issues with them that were not of their making. But I'm
betting on this one, there is a LOT of information that was
conveniently left out.


Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 02:13 PM
Bill Kearney
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

> But I'm
> betting on this one, there is a LOT of information that was
> conveniently left out.


A news story leaving out facts? NO, say it ain't so!

I agree, there's undoubtedly more to the story and, no doubt, there's plenty
of blame on both sides. It's just fashionable to flog the soldier aspect of
it against the evil corporation. David and Goliath, etc. It's pathetic,
but apparently it's what keeps the drooling masses entertained.


Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 02:47 PM
Larry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in
news:6uGdnc1wwcs4AKbVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@comcast.com:

> If I get a normal bill, I write a check for the amount of the bill. If
> the amount is not the normal and expected amount I will want to know why
> before paying it!
>


.....and if ANY company sends me a monthly bill for $70, I write the check
and the check is cashed, that company and I have COMPLETED OUR TRANSACTION
FOR THAT MONTH at FULL PAYMENT. The company has agreed to accept my check
for $70 as full payment for the $70 bill they sent me.

Any jury will tell Sprint to stick their bogus charge up their corporate
asses. This guy needs a LAWYER! Sprint will pay for the lawyer as part of
the judgement against it.


Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 02:51 PM
danny burstein
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

In <Xns9AAB63874FB6Bnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253> Larry <noone@home.com> writes:


>....and if ANY company sends me a monthly bill for $70, I write the check
>and the check is cashed, that company and I have COMPLETED OUR TRANSACTION
>FOR THAT MONTH at FULL PAYMENT. The company has agreed to accept my check
>for $70 as full payment for the $70 bill they sent me.


>Any jury will tell Sprint to stick their bogus charge up their corporate
>asses. This guy needs a LAWYER! Sprint will pay for the lawyer as part of
>the judgement against it.


Those rambling claims of yours above are so out of touch
with reality that you should consider getting a job
writing press releases for your local politicians.

They're not quite good enough for national level.



--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 05:38 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

At 26 May 2008 21:57:46 -0700 Tim Smith wrote:

> > In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed overseas

by
> > converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to the states he
> > never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a ton of calls at
> > $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow deduce

telepathically
> > he wanted to turn his service back on.>

>
> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
> what it says:
>
> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006 through
> March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged, and paid,
> $30/month during this suspension).
>
> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>
> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the normal
> rate he expected for his plan.
>
> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
> $0.75/minute plan.
>
> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?



With only one side of the story presented, I admittedly read between the
lines a little. He said he had a local/regional plan, IIRC, so he was
accustomed to a few roaming charges on each bill. I suspect he used his
phone very little in those nine months, assuming he was roaming, and
dismissed the $0.75/min. charges as roaming charges. Then when he finally
returned to his home area, returned to a typical several hundred
minutes/month usage pattern and got whacked with the $500 bill.


> > Sprint obviously could've handled this in a more consumer-friendly way

by
> > rerating his bill after the fact, but they had no obligation to. They

did,
> > however, offer to forgive half the bill and agreed to setup a payment

plan.
>
> So you think Sprint is in the right to suddenly, without warning, and
> without being asked, change his plan?



I don't think they did- I think the guy just never bothered to confirm the
plan ever came off of suspention, and his sporadic "roaming" use didn't
lead him to suspect his minute charges were suspention minutes rather than
roaming.

> If he had used his phone *during the time he requested suspension* and
> they had billed him $500, you'd have a good point, but this clearly has
> nothing to do with that.



I think Sprint failed him on two counts- first, not lifting the suspension
in March, which is probably a systemic issue, (but if so, they should've
drilled into him he needed to call them to lift it when he was back) and
again when they refused to rerate the $500 month at normal rates- I think
it'd have been good CS to rerate him, since, unlike, say, with
international roaming, Sprint didn't incur any real "costs" with those
$0.75 minutes. However, from Sprint's POV, he "accepted" the extra nine
months of suspended service by using the phone and paying the bill, so I
see their side of it as well.

Like of these victim stories, we only have his word that he wasn't told he
had to call in March to lift the suspension, or that he wasn't informed
when he suspended it that suspended phones could still be used at a higher
rate.



Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 05:59 PM
Dean
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

Where do you make the jump from 'paying his bill for nine months' to "...not
looking at the bill for nine months"??

Dean


"The Bob" <nospam@bob.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AAAECA6C489Dbob@216.196.97.136...
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
> following in
> news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:
>
>> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>>> > Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>>> >
>>> > "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>>> > $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>>> > complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>>> > irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>>> > about
>>> > his problem."
>>> >
>>> > http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>>> > e...
>>>
>>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>>
>>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>>

>>
>> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
>> what it says:
>>
>> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
>> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
>> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>>
>> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
>> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>>
>> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
>> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>>
>> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
>> $0.75/minute plan.
>>
>> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?

>
> By not looking at the bill for nine months?
>
>>

>
>




Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 06:08 PM
Dean
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

Mea culpa. I stand corrected---my bad.

I just re-read the linked article, and came across this passage:

" ....the best that Sprint could offer me was for me to pay my exuberant
(sic) bill and would give me a whopping 10% off the rest of the bills for
the remainder of my contract".

I'm assuming he meant "exorbitant" bill.

IMHO, that's a pretty fair offer. Now, upon reflection, the subject of the
OP appears to be a little greedy. What, exactly, did he expect Sprint to
do??

Dean


"The Bob" <nospam@bob.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AAAECA6C489Dbob@216.196.97.136...
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
> following in
> news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:
>
>> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>>> > Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>>> >
>>> > "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>>> > $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>>> > complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>>> > irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>>> > about
>>> > his problem."
>>> >
>>> > http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>>> > e...
>>>
>>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>>
>>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>>

>>
>> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
>> what it says:
>>
>> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
>> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
>> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>>
>> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
>> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>>
>> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
>> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>>
>> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
>> $0.75/minute plan.
>>
>> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?

>
> By not looking at the bill for nine months?
>
>>

>
>




Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 09:39 PM
Tim Smith
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

In article <g1hjt4$uoh$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> With only one side of the story presented, I admittedly read between the
> lines a little. He said he had a local/regional plan, IIRC, so he was
> accustomed to a few roaming charges on each bill. I suspect he used his
> phone very little in those nine months, assuming he was roaming, and
> dismissed the $0.75/min. charges as roaming charges. Then when he finally
> returned to his home area, returned to a typical several hundred
> minutes/month usage pattern and got whacked with the $500 bill.


That seems unlikely to me. He noticed that his bills were high during
the nine months. The natural thing you do when you think you are on a
"normal" plan and get a high bill is look to see how many minutes you
used over your plan minutes.

My recollection of Sprint bills during that timeframe is that they
pretty clearly broke down the minutes into in-plan minutes and minute
over plan. Thus, when he says that the high bill was due to going over
his minutes, I think that means he saw his normal in-plan minutes
listed, and extra minutes listed. (And that is the kind of usage
pattern you'd expect on someone who has just returned from active
deployment and is now back in unrestricted communication with friends
and family, but is still far away from home).

Also, consider that he says the bills ran $60-$150/month during the nine
months. If he was on a plan that was $30/month for 0 minutes, plus
$0.75/minute used, that would imply he was using the phone for 40-160
minutes per month.

If he were using the phone that little (well under the included minutes
in even the sparsest regular plan, isn't it?), and thought he was still
on a regular plan, getting a large bill would have been an immediate tip
off that something was wrong. You only dismiss a larger than normal
bill when you think that you were using a larger than normal number of
minutes. Even if he misread the bill and thought that the minutes he
was being charged $0.75 were overage minutes, surely he would have
noticed that (1) it is odd to have overage minutes at all when he is not
using the phone much, and (2) *all* of his minutes are overage minutes.

Thus, I think the only hypothesis consistent with the story we've been
given is that he was using the phone quite a lot in those nine months
after returning, and was being billed on a "normal" plan (that is, one
with a bunch of included minutes, plus per minute charged on overage
minutes), and that after nine months, Sprint screwed up and switched him
to $0.75/minute.

Here's what I suspect happened. He says Sprint earlier had suggested he
change plans, because he was paying a lot for long distance. I suspect
the plan he changed to was the Sprint Basic plan (or whatever the
equivalent was then). That's currently $30/month for 200 minutes, and
$0.45/minute for overage minutes.

When he left, they did not deactivate it. That explains why he
continued to get charged $30/month on his "deactivated" plan.

When he got back, the phone was working, because the plan never had
stopped.

He then starts using the phone for 250-500 minutes per month
(approximately--I'm rounding here), generating bills in the $60-$150
range. All is well for nine months, and then, for some reason, Sprint
finally gets around to actually processing his deactivation request,
which they handle by switching him to a $0.75/minute pay as you go plan
(which is a sensible way for them to handle this--it keeps his account
active for when he comes back they just have to change plans back, and
makes him pay $0 while he is deployed and unable to use the phone...the
only problem is that they are nearly two years late in doing this!).

That same month, perhaps due to heavy use around the holidays, he has an
even higher usage, around 650 minutes, and blammo--he gets a $500 bill
instead of the $230 that he would have expected based on the previous
nine months.


--
--Tim Smith

Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 10:44 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

At 27 May 2008 13:39:18 -0700 Tim Smith wrote:

> That seems unlikely to me. He noticed that his bills were high during
> the nine months. The natural thing you do when you think you are on a
> "normal" plan and get a high bill is look to see how many minutes you
> used over your plan minutes.


It's possible, but we're both just speculating without the victim here to
clarify.

He also said he originally had a local/regional plan, IIRC, so perhaps he
anticipated paying for roaming. I guessed he wrote off the $0.75/minute
fees as roaming minutes.

> My recollection of Sprint bills during that timeframe is that they
> pretty clearly broke down the minutes into in-plan minutes and minute
> over plan. Thus, when he says that the high bill was due to going over
> his minutes, I think that means he saw his normal in-plan minutes
> listed, and extra minutes listed. (And that is the kind of usage
> pattern you'd expect on someone who has just returned from active
> deployment and is now back in unrestricted communication with friends
> and family, but is still far away from home).



I assumed perhaps he had other ways to talk to family, (calling cards?) or
else why was he using a local-only plan when stationed on a base away from
home?>

> Also, consider that he says the bills ran $60-$150/month during the nine
> months. If he was on a plan that was $30/month for 0 minutes, plus
> $0.75/minute used, that would imply he was using the phone for 40-160
> minutes per month.
>
> If he were using the phone that little (well under the included minutes
> in even the sparsest regular plan, isn't it?), and thought he was still
> on a regular plan, getting a large bill would have been an immediate tip
> off that something was wrong. You only dismiss a larger than normal
> bill when you think that you were using a larger than normal number of
> minutes. Even if he misread the bill and thought that the minutes he
> was being charged $0.75 were overage minutes, surely he would have
> noticed that (1) it is odd to have overage minutes at all when he is not
> using the phone much, and (2) *all* of his minutes are overage minutes.



Again, not if he's on a local plan deployed away from home. He said "While
I was attending my job training in Mississippi, they even informed me that
my bill was adding up greatly because the plan I was under was not nation-
wide. That representative even compensated the ridiculous amount that had
built up." (But he didn't mention switching plans to a national plan-
perhaps he never bothered to if he was being shipped overseas anyway? Again,
we're both just guessing.)


> Thus, I think the only hypothesis consistent with the story we've been
> given is that he was using the phone quite a lot in those nine months
> after returning, and was being billed on a "normal" plan (that is, one
> with a bunch of included minutes, plus per minute charged on overage
> minutes), and that after nine months, Sprint screwed up and switched him
> to $0.75/minute.


Seeing that the reps (according to the victim) told him he failed to call
them and switch back to a regular plan, it seems VERY unlikely to me that
they just switched him Back to a suspension plan 9 months after magically
switching him off. Besides, he never accused them of doing that- his seems
to Be complaining that they failed to switch him off back in March like he
originally asked.

> Here's what I suspect happened. He says Sprint earlier had suggested he
> change plans, because he was paying a lot for long distance. I suspect
> the plan he changed to was the Sprint Basic plan (or whatever the
> equivalent was then). That's currently $30/month for 200 minutes, and
> $0.45/minute for overage minutes.
>
> When he left, they did not deactivate it. That explains why he
> continued to get charged $30/month on his "deactivated" plan.
>
> When he got back, the phone was working, because the plan never had
> stopped.
>
> He then starts using the phone for 250-500 minutes per month
> (approximately--I'm rounding here), generating bills in the $60-$150
> range. All is well for nine months, and then, for some reason, Sprint
> finally gets around to actually processing his deactivation request,
> which they handle by switching him to a $0.75/minute pay as you go plan
> (which is a sensible way for them to handle this--it keeps his account
> active for when he comes back they just have to change plans back, and
> makes him pay $0 while he is deployed and unable to use the phone...the
> only problem is that they are nearly two years late in doing this!).
>
> That same month, perhaps due to heavy use around the holidays, he has an
> even higher usage, around 650 minutes, and blammo--he gets a $500 bill
> instead of the $230 that he would have expected based on the previous
> nine months.



It's certainly possible, but again, we're all just guessing. On the bright
side, if you're right, he that much closer to being out-of-contract, since
the meter was running and he wasn't suspended all that time.



Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 11:51 PM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

"Dean" <dean173@yahoo.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:483c3e21$0$15168$607ed4bc@cv.net:

> Where do you make the jump from 'paying his bill for nine months' to
> "...not looking at the bill for nine months"??
>


How? By realizing that once again, this anti-Sprint site has posted yet
another fabricated story.

Late last year, they posted one about a group of soldiers that had received
outrageous roaming charges upon returning to the States from Iraq and being
temporarily being deployed to West Point. The problem was that the dates
used in the story made it physically impossible for the situation to occur
as posted.

In the story being discussed here, there is no "oh, we just discovered
these charges you owe" possibility. The account would have been charged
$0.75/minute or it wouldn't have. Once minutes are rated, they're done.
Once the bill is paid, they're done. The only exception to this would be
roaming minutes, but those are not mentioned in this story. So, either the
guy didn't look at his bill for many months or the story is fabricated.
You choose.

The only thing worse than a fanboi is the rabid retard willing to believe
anything negative about a comapny they hate without being able to sort
truth from fiction.

>



Reply With Quote
Reply


« =?windows-1252?Q?www=2Eelectronics=2Dmac=2Dsony=2Ecom__Motorola_Z6cx_World_Ed?==?windows-1252?Q?ition_Phone_=28Verizon_Wireless=29__Shop_price=3A=80119=2E00?= | Ipod with Quranic Features »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers AllenHarkleroad alt.cellular.t-mobile 16 05-27-2008 11:51 PM
Just be happy you don't have Sprint - They are screwing active dutysoldiers AllenHarkleroad alt.cellular.cingular 0 05-25-2008 02:21 PM
Re: Bye-Bye to ATT/Cingular, and hello to Sprint High-Speed data Mij Adyaw alt.cellular.cingular 4 01-25-2007 03:36 AM
Re: Bye-Bye to ATT/Cingular, and hello to Sprint High-Speed data Mij Adyaw alt.cellular.verizon 4 01-25-2007 03:36 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45