Unhappy new Sprint customer...

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Wait, so you put the lock on yourself, specifically for the purpose of
> preventing a porting from taking place, and then you wonder why the port
> didn't go through?!

Heh-heh, some people are their own worst enemy.

--
John Richards

---

› See More: Unhappy new Sprint customer...

John Richards <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Wait, so you put the lock on yourself, specifically for the purpose of
>> preventing a porting from taking place, and then you wonder why the port
>> didn't go through?!
>
> Heh-heh, some people are their own worst enemy.
>

So ... does this prove Darwin wrong or eventually, will he prove Darwin
right?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at [email protected].

You obviously have not read the whole thread. After the lock was removed,
and Sprint acknowledged it was removed, is when all the trouble started.
Even then, Sprint couldn't get their act together! They told me it should
work, it didn't, and they said I would have to wait three additional days!
That is a "Sprint" issue! Nothing to do with me, Nextel, or my Number
Guard.

Bill Crocker


"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Crocker wrote:
>> That's not what happened in my case. I was the one that put the number
>> lock on my Nextel account.
>
> Wait, so you put the lock on yourself, specifically for the purpose of
> preventing a porting from taking place, and then you wonder why the port
> didn't go through?!
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
>

You obviously have not read the whole thread. After the lock was removed,
and Sprint acknowledged it was removed, is when all the trouble started.
Even then, Sprint couldn't get their act together! They told me it should
work, it didn't, and they said I would have to wait three additional days!
That is a "Sprint" issue! Nothing to do with me, Nextel, or my Number
Guard.

Bill Crocker


"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Crocker wrote:
>> That's not what happened in my case. I was the one that put the number
>> lock on my Nextel account.
>
> Wait, so you put the lock on yourself, specifically for the purpose of
> preventing a porting from taking place, and then you wonder why the port
> didn't go through?!
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
>

I'm sure this is not the first time a pending Sprint customer, had Number
Guard enabled on their previous phone. The Sprint people are the ones that
assured me, I had to do nothing, they would handled it all! They didn't
even bother to ask if I had it. When they discovered I did, and it was an
obstacle, to completing the transition, they didn't even bother to call me
back! Customer service is non-existent!

And, as I said previously, after Number Guard was removed my Nextel, and
Sprint acknowledged it was no longer a problem, it was still going to take
them three more days to get things working! That is inexcusable!

Mike, I don't appreciate being called an idiot! I had this plan with Nextel
for over two years, and to be honest, had completely forgotten anything
about Number Guard, and honest mistake on my part. Sprint is in this
business, and does this every day! It should have been fresh on their
minds, and one of first things they should have asked me when all this
started. I'm sure, if you had been in my shoes, you would feel differently.
If nothing else, even if it was my fault, it was an example of Sprint's lack
of customer service, and ability to solve problems, and service customers.
Enough said.

Bill Crocker


"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Richards wrote:
>> "Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Wait, so you put the lock on yourself, specifically for the purpose
>>> of preventing a porting from taking place, and then you wonder why the
>>> port didn't go through?!
>>
>> Heh-heh, some people are their own worst enemy.
>
> Really. And even if the guy asked SPCS if he needed to do anything first,
> it's still his own fault. What idiot needs to be told that a *LOCK* needs
> to be removed by them before the number can be ported.
>
> Tune in next week, in an auto repair newsgroup near you, when this guy
> complains that someone refused to let him know he needed to leave his keys
> in order to get his car repaired. "Yea I locked up the car, but I figured
> they'd get around that on their own."
>
> --
> Mike
>

I'm sure this is not the first time a pending Sprint customer, had Number
Guard enabled on their previous phone. The Sprint people are the ones that
assured me, I had to do nothing, they would handled it all! They didn't
even bother to ask if I had it. When they discovered I did, and it was an
obstacle, to completing the transition, they didn't even bother to call me
back! Customer service is non-existent!

And, as I said previously, after Number Guard was removed my Nextel, and
Sprint acknowledged it was no longer a problem, it was still going to take
them three more days to get things working! That is inexcusable!

Mike, I don't appreciate being called an idiot! I had this plan with Nextel
for over two years, and to be honest, had completely forgotten anything
about Number Guard, and honest mistake on my part. Sprint is in this
business, and does this every day! It should have been fresh on their
minds, and one of first things they should have asked me when all this
started. I'm sure, if you had been in my shoes, you would feel differently.
If nothing else, even if it was my fault, it was an example of Sprint's lack
of customer service, and ability to solve problems, and service customers.
Enough said.

Bill Crocker


"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Richards wrote:
>> "Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Wait, so you put the lock on yourself, specifically for the purpose
>>> of preventing a porting from taking place, and then you wonder why the
>>> port didn't go through?!
>>
>> Heh-heh, some people are their own worst enemy.
>
> Really. And even if the guy asked SPCS if he needed to do anything first,
> it's still his own fault. What idiot needs to be told that a *LOCK* needs
> to be removed by them before the number can be ported.
>
> Tune in next week, in an auto repair newsgroup near you, when this guy
> complains that someone refused to let him know he needed to leave his keys
> in order to get his car repaired. "Yea I locked up the car, but I figured
> they'd get around that on their own."
>
> --
> Mike
>

The point is, they had to restart the process after your monkey wrench
halted the machinery. Perhaps a restart is not as reliable as if it had
been done right from the start.

--
John Richards



"Bill Crocker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> You obviously have not read the whole thread. After the lock was removed,
> and Sprint acknowledged it was removed, is when all the trouble started.
> Even then, Sprint couldn't get their act together! They told me it should
> work, it didn't, and they said I would have to wait three additional days!
> That is a "Sprint" issue! Nothing to do with me, Nextel, or my Number
> Guard.
>
> Bill Crocker

Bill Crocker wrote:
> I'm sure this is not the first time a pending Sprint customer, had
> Number Guard enabled on their previous phone. The Sprint people are
> the ones that assured me, I had to do nothing, they would handled it
> all!

Of course they said that, and it's perfectly logical. By "all" they
meant porting the number, and that your Nextel account would then be
cancelled after that occurred. It makes little business sense to, as
SOP, send someone back to a competitor to cancel service. And don't
assume they deal with porting locked numbers all the time--they more
than likely do not (porting itself is only a year old).

And the lock was your own doing. It worked exactly as it was supposed
to. I'd be a heck of a lot more pissed off if the transfer *did* go
through. You "forgot" you placed the lock, and have admitted to that
fact. Don't you think you had something to do with this train wreck?


> They didn't even bother to ask if I had it. When they
> discovered I did, and it was an obstacle, to completing the
> transition, they didn't even bother to call me back! Customer
> service is non-existent!

But it was you who caused the problem in the first place. Had you
removed the lock, as only you could do, before trying to port the number
the process would--in all likelihood-- have gone smoothly. The process
veered off course from your own doing. Once off course, naturally things
can get more complicated.

And, yes, customer service can be improved. You can say that about
almost any company today. But wise consumers don't make matters worse,
like forgetting they locked their own phone number.


>
> Mike, I don't appreciate being called an idiot!

I didn't call you an idiot; I asked a rhetorical question (albeit,
sarcastically). But you do get points for admitting to placing the lock
yourself, and then forgetting about it. Nor do I think you are an idiot.
I do think your view is clouded, and you aren't looking at this
objectively.


--
Mike

It still does not excuse any of the problems that occurred after the Number
Lock was removed.

Bill Crocker


"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Crocker wrote:
>> I'm sure this is not the first time a pending Sprint customer, had
>> Number Guard enabled on their previous phone. The Sprint people are
>> the ones that assured me, I had to do nothing, they would handled it
>> all!
>
> Of course they said that, and it's perfectly logical. By "all" they meant
> porting the number, and that your Nextel account would then be cancelled
> after that occurred. It makes little business sense to, as SOP, send
> someone back to a competitor to cancel service. And don't assume they deal
> with porting locked numbers all the time--they more than likely do not
> (porting itself is only a year old).
>
> And the lock was your own doing. It worked exactly as it was supposed to.
> I'd be a heck of a lot more pissed off if the transfer *did* go through.
> You "forgot" you placed the lock, and have admitted to that fact. Don't
> you think you had something to do with this train wreck?
>
>
>> They didn't even bother to ask if I had it. When they
>> discovered I did, and it was an obstacle, to completing the
>> transition, they didn't even bother to call me back! Customer
>> service is non-existent!
>
> But it was you who caused the problem in the first place. Had you removed
> the lock, as only you could do, before trying to port the number the
> process would--in all likelihood-- have gone smoothly. The process veered
> off course from your own doing. Once off course, naturally things can get
> more complicated.
>
> And, yes, customer service can be improved. You can say that about almost
> any company today. But wise consumers don't make matters worse, like
> forgetting they locked their own phone number.
>
>
>>
>> Mike, I don't appreciate being called an idiot!
>
> I didn't call you an idiot; I asked a rhetorical question (albeit,
> sarcastically). But you do get points for admitting to placing the lock
> yourself, and then forgetting about it. Nor do I think you are an idiot. I
> do think your view is clouded, and you aren't looking at this objectively.
>
>
> --
> Mike
>

It still does not excuse any of the problems that occurred after the Number
Lock was removed.

Bill Crocker


"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Crocker wrote:
>> I'm sure this is not the first time a pending Sprint customer, had
>> Number Guard enabled on their previous phone. The Sprint people are
>> the ones that assured me, I had to do nothing, they would handled it
>> all!
>
> Of course they said that, and it's perfectly logical. By "all" they meant
> porting the number, and that your Nextel account would then be cancelled
> after that occurred. It makes little business sense to, as SOP, send
> someone back to a competitor to cancel service. And don't assume they deal
> with porting locked numbers all the time--they more than likely do not
> (porting itself is only a year old).
>
> And the lock was your own doing. It worked exactly as it was supposed to.
> I'd be a heck of a lot more pissed off if the transfer *did* go through.
> You "forgot" you placed the lock, and have admitted to that fact. Don't
> you think you had something to do with this train wreck?
>
>
>> They didn't even bother to ask if I had it. When they
>> discovered I did, and it was an obstacle, to completing the
>> transition, they didn't even bother to call me back! Customer
>> service is non-existent!
>
> But it was you who caused the problem in the first place. Had you removed
> the lock, as only you could do, before trying to port the number the
> process would--in all likelihood-- have gone smoothly. The process veered
> off course from your own doing. Once off course, naturally things can get
> more complicated.
>
> And, yes, customer service can be improved. You can say that about almost
> any company today. But wise consumers don't make matters worse, like
> forgetting they locked their own phone number.
>
>
>>
>> Mike, I don't appreciate being called an idiot!
>
> I didn't call you an idiot; I asked a rhetorical question (albeit,
> sarcastically). But you do get points for admitting to placing the lock
> yourself, and then forgetting about it. Nor do I think you are an idiot. I
> do think your view is clouded, and you aren't looking at this objectively.
>
>
> --
> Mike
>

I think you may be wrong here, think it is a Nextel issue. My understanding
is that FCC regulations require that a request to port be handled in a
timely fashion, first request must be responded to within a few hours. If
there is something wrong with the request, such as a wrong SSN or wrong
account number, or, as in your case a lock,
then problem must be fixed and port is re-requested, then the carrier can
take (I think) up to 4 days to reply to request.


"Bill Crocker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You obviously have not read the whole thread. After the lock was removed,
> and Sprint acknowledged it was removed, is when all the trouble started.
> Even then, Sprint couldn't get their act together! They told me it should
> work, it didn't, and they said I would have to wait three additional days!
> That is a "Sprint" issue! Nothing to do with me, Nextel, or my Number
> Guard.
>
> Bill Crocker
>
>
> "Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bill Crocker wrote:
>>> That's not what happened in my case. I was the one that put the number
>>> lock on my Nextel account.
>>
>> Wait, so you put the lock on yourself, specifically for the purpose of
>> preventing a porting from taking place, and then you wonder why the port
>> didn't go through?!
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
>> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
>>
>
>

Bill Crocker wrote:
> You obviously have not read the whole thread.

You mean this thread?

http://tinyurl.com/5qr9u

Yeah, I've read it.

> After the lock was removed,
> and Sprint acknowledged it was removed, is when all the trouble started.

The "trouble" per your post was that the there was going to be a delay
DUE to the lock. I quote YOU ( http://tinyurl.com/5eh2r ):

> I called Sprint, and they determined that my Nextel account could
> not be ported, because I had a lock on the number."

> Long story short, I had Nextel un-lock the numbers, so they could be
> ported over to Sprint. That was successful. Then they told me the
> phones would not work until Tuesday, 12/21!"

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Placing a lock on your account means
there's going to be some time involved because now, the port has to be
done manually to make sure things go smoothly. Manual intervention
between Sprint, Nextel and the porting authority means delays will happen.


> That is a "Sprint" issue! Nothing to do with me, Nextel, or my Number
> Guard.

You said in a follow-up post ( http://tinyurl.com/65mfh ) that this lock
was intentionally placed by you. Seems like you sabotaged yourself and
are refusing to own up to it. If you had left well enough alone with
your account and NOT placed the lock, things would have gone far more
smoothly.




--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Bill Crocker wrote:
> I'm sure this is not the first time a pending Sprint customer, had Number
> Guard enabled on their previous phone.

Doesn't matter. A number guard isn't part of the FCC-mandated
procedures for porting. How is Sprint or any other carrier supposed to
know if a paranoid cell subscriber has set up additional roadblocks
(that probably violate FCC porting regs too, I might add) to
intentionally booby trap the porting process?

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Bill Crocker wrote:
> It still does not excuse any of the problems that occurred after the Number
> Lock was removed.

There is no need to excuse anything, Bill, except your refusal to see
what's in front of you. You intentionally set up a procedure to halt
porting on your account. The halt happened. That then requires a lot
of manual intervention to overcome (just because Nextel says they
removed your little trap doesn't mean it happened immediately).



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> Nextel recently lost the battle with the FCC, regarding their interference
> problem with public safety communications (particularly police, and fire).
> They have been given an order by the FCC, to completely change their
> operating frequency within a designated period of time (not sure how long
> that is). As you can imagine, the cost associated with doing this, would be
> prohibitive! I think Nextel saw this as an easy way out...take the money
> and run, rather than have to deal with that. Sprint has already commented,
> that Nextel's infrastructure is showing it's age, and can not be easily
> upgraded. It sounds like the plan is to assimilate the Nextel user base,
> into the Sprint system, over time. When it gets closer to the deadline,
> they'll probably seduce the hold-outs with some kind of super deal on a
> video phone, or something.
>
> Bill Crocker
>

That's an interesting story. In the long run, it might even prove true.
However it still looks like a leap of faith to me. There's no
documentation to back up your speculation.

You may turn out to be right. But you certainly haven't put anything
forward that suggests this is a foregone conclusion.

--
RØß
O/Siris
~+~
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
-Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792-