Is the SprintPCS website in need of an update?

About 2 weeks ago http://www.sprintpcsinfo.com reported that SprintPCS
will no longer charge an activation fee for an ESN swap for existing
customers. i.e. If you buy or get a new phone for your existing number
you would not be charged an activation fee, after all your account is
already active.

However the TOS on their website still on May 15, 2004 says:

(click on terms and conditions at bottom of first page, and search for
activation fee)

"Phone Activation Fee. You may be required to pay a non-refundable phone
activation fee when you activate a new Number, have us switch a Number
to a different phone, have your current Number changed, we activate a
different phone on your existing account or your Service Plan says so."

and

"Lost or Stolen Equipment. If your phone or other equipment is lost or
stolen, you must notify us by calling PCS Customer Service Solutions.
You are responsible for all charges for Services provided to the Number
for the lost or stolen equipment before you notify us of the loss or
theft. We will deactivate Services to the Number upon notification to us
of any loss or theft. You may be required to provide evidence of the
loss or theft (for example, a police report or sworn statement). If the
equipment is later found, we may require that you exchange it for
another phone or other equipment before we reactivate Services (if we do
reactivate Services), as well as require you to pay a reactivation fee."



So which is correct? The new information or the web site?

---

› See More: Is the SprintPCS website in need of an update?

"Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> About 2 weeks ago http://www.sprintpcsinfo.com reported that SprintPCS
> will no longer charge an activation fee for an ESN swap for existing
> customers. i.e. If you buy or get a new phone for your existing number
> you would not be charged an activation fee, after all your account is
> already active.
>
> However the TOS on their website still on May 15, 2004 says:
>
> (click on terms and conditions at bottom of first page, and search for
> activation fee)
>
> "Phone Activation Fee. You may be required to pay a non-refundable phone
> activation fee when you activate a new Number, have us switch a Number
> to a different phone, have your current Number changed, we activate a
> different phone on your existing account or your Service Plan says so."
>
> and
>
> "Lost or Stolen Equipment. If your phone or other equipment is lost or
> stolen, you must notify us by calling PCS Customer Service Solutions.
> You are responsible for all charges for Services provided to the Number
> for the lost or stolen equipment before you notify us of the loss or
> theft. We will deactivate Services to the Number upon notification to us
> of any loss or theft. You may be required to provide evidence of the
> loss or theft (for example, a police report or sworn statement). If the
> equipment is later found, we may require that you exchange it for
> another phone or other equipment before we reactivate Services (if we do
> reactivate Services), as well as require you to pay a reactivation fee."
>
>
>
> So which is correct? The new information or the web site?

They would both be correct, because the website says you MAY be required.
This gives them the ability to charge, or in this case not charge for the
service under the TOS. Right now, they are not charging for it.

"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > About 2 weeks ago http://www.sprintpcsinfo.com reported that SprintPCS
> > will no longer charge an activation fee for an ESN swap for existing
> > customers. i.e. If you buy or get a new phone for your existing number
> > you would not be charged an activation fee, after all your account is
> > already active.
> >
> > However the TOS on their website still on May 15, 2004 says:
> >
> > (click on terms and conditions at bottom of first page, and search for
> > activation fee)
> >
> > "Phone Activation Fee. You may be required to pay a non-refundable phone
> > activation fee when you activate a new Number, have us switch a Number
> > to a different phone, have your current Number changed, we activate a
> > different phone on your existing account or your Service Plan says so."
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Lost or Stolen Equipment. If your phone or other equipment is lost or
> > stolen, you must notify us by calling PCS Customer Service Solutions.
> > You are responsible for all charges for Services provided to the Number
> > for the lost or stolen equipment before you notify us of the loss or
> > theft. We will deactivate Services to the Number upon notification to us
> > of any loss or theft. You may be required to provide evidence of the
> > loss or theft (for example, a police report or sworn statement). If the
> > equipment is later found, we may require that you exchange it for
> > another phone or other equipment before we reactivate Services (if we do
> > reactivate Services), as well as require you to pay a reactivation fee."
> >
> >
> >
> > So which is correct? The new information or the web site?
>
> They would both be correct, because the website says you MAY be required.
> This gives them the ability to charge, or in this case not charge for the
> service under the TOS. Right now, they are not charging for it.


There is at least one more. If you log onto the sprintsite, with your
number, etc, and go to the personal info section, on the left
side--once you're there go to the bottom, where, the title is
something like "contact cards"; if you print out the acrobat thing, it
prints out the old referal card from some years back--this states that
you can make something like $200 a month for new customer referrals,
even lets you print out cards which state this(used to be aqble to
pick up these forms in the stores)---on this same screen, there is the
more current referral program---I called c/s pointing this out some 2
months ago--still there--if I had the time I would raise a fuss, since
it is all currently published, but WTH.

> "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

> > >
> > >
> > > So which is correct? The new information or the web site?
> >
> > They would both be correct, because the website says you MAY be required.
> > This gives them the ability to charge, or in this case not charge for the
> > service under the TOS. Right now, they are not charging for it.

Well thats EXACTLY what causes confusion and generates needless extra
calls to *2. If they are not charging now, even for replacements of lost
phones, great, but say that. Ambiguity serves no useful purpose.

"Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So which is correct? The new information or the web site?
> > >
> > > They would both be correct, because the website says you MAY be
required.
> > > This gives them the ability to charge, or in this case not charge for
the
> > > service under the TOS. Right now, they are not charging for it.
>
> Well thats EXACTLY what causes confusion and generates needless extra
> calls to *2. If they are not charging now, even for replacements of lost
> phones, great, but say that. Ambiguity serves no useful purpose.

I'm not looking at it as ambiguity, Phil. After all, how many people are
going to call in when a charge DOESN'T appear on their bill? What this does
is allow them to offer things like they do now, without a complete rewrite
of the TOS. Can you imagine the confusion that would be caused by, "Which
Service Agreement did you sign?" If you think things are bad now, plug
something like that into the equation of trying to help you- I don't see
thevalue of it.