NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

> 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.

---

› See More: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Paul Miner <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Paul Miner <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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?
>


Great post.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in news:elmop-
[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Paul Miner <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:31:13 -0400]:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Paul Miner <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>,
>> Paul Miner <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4698585c$0$4688
[email protected]:

>
>
> Justin wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote on [Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:31:13 -0400]:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Paul Miner <[email protected]> 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.

At 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400 George 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'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.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

At 14 Jul 2007 15:54:51 +0000 Paul Miner wrote:

> 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 wouldn't affect me.

I think the model should change to a monthly discount for contract, sort
of like a magazine subscription- Reader's Digest is $4 if I pick it up
from the newsstand, but $2/issue if I commit to a year's subscription.

So, that $40 500-minute plan could be $50 with no contract, $40 with one-
year or $30 with two. And/or they could "perk" contract plans- free night
calls start at 7PM instead of 9PM for two-year contracts, etc.

This would also allow everyone to use the same plans and activate at
home. You call to activate your unsubsidized (or lightly-subsidized
phone) and choose from contract, no-contract, pre-paid, hybrid, or
balance-controlled plans depending on your needs (or credit score!)

This would also protect carriers from the "Amazon effect" where people
continually jump ship from a carrier they are happy with because a "new
customer deal" (like "free phone and $200 cash back") with an independent
dealer like Amazon is better than any handset upgrade discount any
carrier is willing to give.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-07-14, Elmo P. Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Sprint guy may just be hedging his bets; the FCC is making noises
> about moving that direction with the new spectrum that's coming up in
> February 2009 when they shut down analog TV transmission.

Specifically, you won't be able to force people to use locked phones on 700
MHz, the band in question; I've never heard anything said about contracts.

Of course, the FCC wants people to be able to use any carrier with a given
phone. Surely they're intelligent enough to know there are TECHNICAL reasons
why a GSM (AT&T, T-Mo) phone won't work on a CDMA (Verizon, Alltel, SPrint)
carrier?

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-07-14, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think the model should change to a monthly discount for contract, sort
> of like a magazine subscription- Reader's Digest is $4 if I pick it up
> from the newsstand, but $2/issue if I commit to a year's subscription.

That's also something Sprint used to do. I initially signed up with Sprint
in Mentor, Ohio, in 2000, and paid $10/month extra for the privilege of not
having a contract. Once we determined that the phone worked everywhere we
needed, I locked myself into a contract and lost the $10/month surcharge.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2007-07-14, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's a pretty unsustainable precedent, however

The idea of extending or starting a contract when you paid full price for the
phone is insane.