Waived ETF Update

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:iIEuf.4690$V.81@fed1read04...
>>I completely agree with this assessment. Sprint is responsible for
>>termination of the roaming coverage that they had previously advertised and
>>that the customer had previously used.
>>
>>
>
> Responsible how? The roaming partner terminated the agreement, not Sprint.
> At least try to get the facts straight.

Contractors are responsible for what their subcontractors do (or don't do).

--
John Richards

---

› See More: Waived ETF Update

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> The response is completely relevant, because Sprint allows waving of
>> the ETF if Sprint makes a change that "has a material adverse effect
>> on you". Agreement, Item 9, Paragraph 4, Line 2 (to quote
>> DecaturTXCowboy). Whether you like it or not, dropping roaming
>> service fits this description.
>
> They didn't drop roaming- it was unilaterally pulled as an option by the
> company they were reselling for.

Makes no difference, the net effect is the same to the customer.
Sprint used its roaming capability as a selling point, so when that
capability goes away for whatever reason, the ETF should be waived.

--
John Richards

>No thanks- I'm totally in awe of your logic and ability to attempt a debate
>with very limited knowledge. Of course, the coverage you are now
>referencing is nothing more than connecting coverage to Sioux Falls, but you
>go ahead and believe that the coverage wasn't built for that reason and was
>provided to serve all of the little 900 member communities in its path..

OK, you could be right about I-29 in SD. I'd be interested in your
explanation of the ND coverage on US-281 between Jamestown, population
15,000, and Ellendale, population 1,600. I guess it must be a feeder
for Fargo. By the way, you can check out population density charts on
the ND state website and find that the population density along that
route ranges from 0-5 to 6-10 people per square mile.

>I wish I could be so naive about the role of business in society and have
>such a misguided opinion of their responsibilities to the general consumer.
>I'm still trying to figure out where good customer service came to be
>defined as the customer's misperceptions of a product overruling everything
>else, including common sense. This thread is a perfect example of
>technological advances outpacing the thinking capacity of the common
>consumer.

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

>And Joey- no need to reply. All you'll do is cement my opinion that
>personal responsibility for one's actions and commitments is a thing of the
>past.

My family calls me Joey all the time, so for me, it's a name of
affection. Too bad, because I'm quite sure you were attempting to use
that name to disrespect me...

Joe Huber
[email protected]

John Richards wrote:
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected]...
>>> The response is completely relevant, because Sprint allows waving of
>>> the ETF if Sprint makes a change that "has a material adverse effect
>>> on you". Agreement, Item 9, Paragraph 4, Line 2 (to quote
>>> DecaturTXCowboy). Whether you like it or not, dropping roaming
>>> service fits this description.
>>
>> They didn't drop roaming- it was unilaterally pulled as an option by
>> the company they were reselling for.
>
> Makes no difference, the net effect is the same to the customer.
> Sprint used its roaming capability as a selling point, so when that
> capability goes away for whatever reason, the ETF should be waived.

The OP had been a Sprint PCS customer long before F&CA was born. How
could they use something they didn't have at the time as a selling
point?

Further, the OP consistently referred to "no service." The loss of a
roaming partner might, due to a PRL update, cause this (though I haven't
seen it when in an area with an AMPS signal).

Regardless, if that roaming partner was/is still in business (they are)
you should not get a "no service" message when the phone is on forced
analog roam. He was asked to do that and report back what happened. He
avoided that issue. One call to 6-1-1 might have cleared up some
confusion, and possibly offered a temporary solution (and I believe the
loss is indeed temporary).

I suspect Sprint just took the path of least resistance and let him out
of the ETF. It wouldn't be the first time, and probably not the last.

Further, Sprint are in the process of buying Alamosa PCS (the affiliate
that controls a much larger superset of the area in question), and might
be more-receptive to waiving Alamosa customers' ETFs (for the
time-being).


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:
> The OP had been a Sprint PCS customer long before F&CA was born. How
> could they use something they didn't have at the time as a selling
> point?

Technically, that's not quite correct. When I changed my telephone
number I had to renew a 2 year contract that included the new (at the
time) F&C plan.

> He was asked to do that and report back what happened. He
> avoided that issue.

I thought I answered for you. It varied (possible due to the "under
construction" changes). Sometimes I got a voice recording telling me
service was unavailable, sometimes a prompt asked for a credit card.
Never called 611, just the Sprint *2 for CS.

> I suspect Sprint just took the path of least resistance and let him out
> of the ETF. It wouldn't be the first time, and probably not the last.

Honoring a published, stated, or signed usually *is* the path of least
resistance.

> Further, Sprint are in the process of buying Alamosa PCS (the affiliate
> that controls a much larger superset of the area in question), and might
> be more-receptive to waiving Alamosa customers' ETFs (for the
> time-being).

I believe is was actually Brazos Telecom, not Alamosa as initially
though. Thanks to the guy that provided the correct info.

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Cowboy will have a high opinion
> of Sprint and as a result, Sprint may gain additional customers. On the
> other hand, if they pissed Cowboy off, then he would tell his bull riding
> buddies not to use Sprint service. Do you see how the end result is to
> Sprint's advantage? It is simple ethics and Sprint acted in an ethical
> manner. Kudos to Sprint.

Always have and always will have a high opinion of Sprint. The calls are
indeed clearer (less background noise) than Cingular's GSM. Which might
be an advantage of Cingular - at least I'll know when I lost the call.
With Sprint, it was so quiet when neither party was talking, I had to
check the phone's display to see if I was still connected. <G>

As I commented in the past in the Cingular NG responding to an OP on
opionions of Cingular...

<snip>
Customer service, rate plans, types of phones are all secondary to if
your phone works where you most need it. Having the coolest phone, 200
gadzillion day time minutes...isn't going to do you much good if you
can't place or receive calls.

Given all the carriers you are looking at, there's really not much
difference in basic functionality and pricing. Make the coverage area
requirements your starting point, and then look at the secondary
compelling features you need.

Scott wrote:

> There is no other roaming partner option in the area in question, as
> mentioned in the original thread about this subject. Now what would you
> propose Sprint do? After all, you are convinced that this is their fault-
> what is their option now? How do they fix something that they didn't own in
> the first place, did not guarantee and do not have a like product available
> to substitute?

It doesn't matter who dropped the roaming partnership or who didn't
renew it...or who was at fault. I never suggested that Sprint had an
obligation to "fix something" to provide coverage. All I wanted was out
of my contract without an ETF.

Joseph Huber wrote:

> Easy...build some towers and provide native coverage.

NOT easy and NOT done in a six month time frame

> Why did Sprint offer roaming coverage for that area in the first place?

Because they had a roaming partner in place and both partenrs could
advertise a larger foot print.

> If Sprint shouldn't have offered roaming coverage in the first place.

I agree, but Sprint offered the roaming WHILE the roaming agreemtn was
in place.

> stinkin' high horse.

16 hands ain't THAT high. And horses don't stink...OK, mebbe a tad
"gamey" smelling. Nuthin' better than the scent of a man that's been
trail riding all day.

Yes, Sprint PCS has the final say, not me, fortunately for you in this
case. It certainly does not seen to me that you had no hassles, or you
would not have made all these postings on your hassling them to waive
the etf.
If forty percent of your calls were roaming then you were with the
wrong carrier to start with.

Sprint PCS did not make any changes that "has a material adverse effect
on you".
I get the feeling that we will be hearing from you when cingular
finally gets around to upgrading from gsm to wcdma and your phone won't
work anymore.

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Yes, Sprint PCS has the final say, not me, fortunately for you in
> this case. It certainly does not seen to me that you had no hassles, or
> you would not have made all these postings on your hassling them to
> waive the etf.

That was no hassels when I called the termination number listed in teh
Agreement. Calls to CS and getting transferred to someeon that does
terminations might have been diffferent. And I was not hassling them, I
think you miss-understood what I meant.

> If forty percent of your calls were roaming then you were with the
> wrong carrier to start with.

To start with, I didn't need the roaming. Circumstances changed.

Sprint PCS' product is their coverage and the features of their
network. It is not someone else's coverage. Sprint PCS' delivery of
it's product was and is continuous. If Sprint PCS no longer has a
roaming agreement with one of many carriers, (and I still think that
Sprint PCS' total roaming billed minutes is less than one percent,) it
is a very insignificant problem. Except for those people who caused
their own problem by choosing the wrong carrier in the first place.

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Sprint PCS did not make any changes that "has a material adverse
> effect on you".

English must not be your first written language, huh?

> I get the feeling that we will be hearing from you when cingular
> finally gets around to upgrading from gsm to wcdma and your phone won't
> work anymore.

By that time, I'll be ready for a new phone anyway. Not holding my breath.

Sprint PCS supported it's product quite well. Sprint PCS coverage did
not change. It is not in control or responsible for a third party's
network, services or coverage. If that third party no longer allows
Sprint PCS customers to roam on it, then the only thing that I think
Sprint PCS would be obligated to do, and I think they will, is drop the
extra charge for roaming. Roaming is such a small part of their billing
that the new plans don't charge extra any more.

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>> The OP had been a Sprint PCS customer long before F&CA was born. How
>> could they use something they didn't have at the time as a selling
>> point?
>
> Technically, that's not quite correct. When I changed my telephone
> number I had to renew a 2 year contract that included the new (at the
> time) F&C plan.
>

So now we're into "technicalities." Lovely. And since you've stated that
you paid for F&CA (which means it was an add-on), how exactly did you
"have" to subscribe to it? And how did you survive with Sprint before
F&CA? You did state that (at least) 40% of your calls were roaming
calls, right?


>> He was asked to do that and report back what happened. He
>> avoided that issue.
>
> I thought I answered for you. It varied (possible due to the "under
> construction" changes). Sometimes I got a voice recording telling me
> service was unavailable, sometimes a prompt asked for a credit card.
> Never called 611, just the Sprint *2 for CS.
>

For someone who claimed to be a wireless "professional" you sure do seem
clueless about mobile telephone service. WTF did you think calling *2
was going to accomplish in an AMPS-only area?


>> I suspect Sprint just took the path of least resistance and let him
>> out of the ETF. It wouldn't be the first time, and probably not the
>> last.
>
> Honoring a published, stated, or signed usually *is* the path of least
> resistance.
>

????? Are you feeling so guilty you cannot even ***** "contract?"


>> Further, Sprint are in the process of buying Alamosa PCS (the
>> affiliate that controls a much larger superset of the area in
>> question), and might be more-receptive to waiving Alamosa customers'
>> ETFs (for the time-being).
>
> I believe is was actually Brazos Telecom, not Alamosa as initially

No. You are confusing a Sprint affiliate with a roaming partner. Not the
same thing.


> though. Thanks to the guy that provided the correct info.

Uh, I was the person who brought up Brazos, cowboy.

And for the record, your painting of the ETV-waiving as if it were just
a simple phone call ain't flying. You posted over a month-ago that
Sprint was giving you a hassle over the ETF. So just because you got
lucky now doesn't mean it was a walk in the park.

Did you "forget" about writing this:
==========================
On 11/28/05 DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
"Called Sprint CS to see what would be involved in porting my number and
then cancelling my Sprint service. As expected, I was told there would
be an ETF. The policy is, if Sprint still provides service in at your
billing address, then you pay the ETF. That's to be expected.

I kept pointing out that I signed a contract based on Sprint's coverage
maps (even though it was a roaming area) and Sprint no longer provides
the service that I signed up for. Let's not go in to defending Sprint
and saying roaming areas are not their responsibility. Good thing I have
a copy of
Spint's coverage map at the time I signed the contract. This is a unique
situation no one could have anticipated.

After going around and around repeating ourselves, I politely thanked
her and hung up the phone.

I'm not even going to bother calling Sprint again. Perhaps I can fast
track this whole mess by filing a complaint with the BBB and have the
issue escalated to someone above the drone level."
==========================

So at first you were on the phone going "around and around," with
Sprint--and Sprint was holding their ground. According to your own
comments you weren't even going to "bother calling Sprint again." Am I
supposed to believe your claim--now--that it was cake-walk, or your
claim back then that Sprint's policy was to not waive ETFs if Sprint
still provides service "at your billing address?" And how's the BBB
thing workin' out for ya'? You know, the "fast track" option. <g>


--
Mike