Results 1 to 15 of 82
- 12-31-2005, 04:07 PM #1DecaturTxCowboyGuest
Last month I posted an issue where Sprint lost a roaming agreement with
Brazos Telecom resulting in a 60 mile wide by 20 miles area loss of
roaming coverage for me.
As expected, the Sprint drones alluded to their "policy" of not waiving
the ETF if you still get coverage at your billing address. Never mind
the fact the Service Agreement specifically allowed for it.
Spoke with a very professional and courteous lady in the terminations
department who was apologetic to the issue and waived the ETF.
I should call Sprint back and have her name escalated to her manager for
her professionalism.
› See More: Waived ETF Update
- 01-01-2006, 08:50 AM #2Jerome ZelinskeGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what? Your billing
address I assume gets actual Sprint PCS coverage. Not only did you
still get coverage there, but in all of Sprint PCS' coverage area. How
is not losing any of your Sprint PCS coverage, grounds for waiving the
ETF? You were paying for Sprint PCS coverage, not roaming coverage.
Roaming is a bonus, gravy, not guaranteed. I would guess that less than
1 percent of all Sprint PCS billed minutes are roaming. Did you find
one carrier that covers, on their own, not roaming, all the areas that
you want to use your phone? If not, then you best get two phones with
service from two carriers.
- 01-01-2006, 10:15 AM #3pkaytes@DELETECAPSAND [email protected]Guest
Re: Waived ETF Update
ON Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:50:31 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
<[email protected]> WROTE:
> The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what? Your billing
>address I assume gets actual Sprint PCS coverage. Not only did you
>still get coverage there, but in all of Sprint PCS' coverage area. How
>is not losing any of your Sprint PCS coverage, grounds for waiving the
>ETF? You were paying for Sprint PCS coverage, not roaming coverage.
>Roaming is a bonus, gravy, not guaranteed. I would guess that less than
>1 percent of all Sprint PCS billed minutes are roaming. Did you find
>one carrier that covers, on their own, not roaming, all the areas that
>you want to use your phone? If not, then you best get two phones with
>service from two carriers.
Here's a story from the other side of things....a few years back, I
purchased a Sprint phone/service on a Mother's Day promotion, so I had
to buy and activate before a certain date to get the promotion. I was
told that there were no towers near where I lived as Sprint was just
coming into the area, but that one would be coming online "any day
now." This was at a Radio Shack about a half mile from my house, and
the tour was right across the street from the store, the salesman
showed me the tower and then the Sprint map that had the tour marked
for future service. So I bought the phone and the agreement, content
to roam for a few days and then have PCS service.
Well, a month down the line, I'm still roaming, and even standing in
front of the store and looking at the tower, still no PCS signal. The
tower hadn't been activated. Again, I was promised any day now.
Another month passes and I'm building up roaming charges and the RS
person is still full of promises. So I call Sprint to find out what
the deal is, and they looked up the tower and said yes, any day now.
To make a long story short, I asked to be let out without the ETF, I
had been promised PCS service two months previous, didn't have it, and
after all the promises didn't have any faith it would happenand had
amassed roaming charges. The rep wouldn't let me out of my contract
because it was a month down the line. When I insisted that for that
month I wasn't getting the service I had payed for, and thus Sprint
wasn't holding up their end of the contract, the rep explained to me
that as long as the phone was working and I was able to make and
receive calls, Sprint had delivered. Well that finally took me from
annoyed to angry, cited the PCS advertisements, the salesman's
promises, the PCS placards in the store that wasn't getting PCS
service either, the freaking contract that said PCS right on it,
argued that I shouldn't have to pay because Sprint was off schedule
for tower expansion, would never have bought the service if I knew it
would be months before I had full service at my residence, etc. etc.
No dice, I was stuck. I was so angry that I was willing to pay the ETF
to be able to tell Sprint to shove the phone and their service (and
would have made it back in not having to pay the roaming fees anyway),
but at the time there was no national cell carrier in the area that I
lived, just locals, and I travelled a lot. What I was able to
negotiate, after elevating the call a few levels, was a credit back on
the roaming charges I had and would incur until the tower went live.
Good thing, too, as it took over 6 months before that tower went live
and I was able to get PCS. But it did finally go live.
That was in Michigan. Since then I've moved twice (Long Island and
New Jersey) and the Sprint service has been flawless, I often get
signals where friends of mine have dead phones, even those on Verizon.
Especially in theaters that are usually lousy for cell reception
anyway (I'm a technical theater professional, I'm not talking about
using my phone during a performance).
Paul
(Still using that phone, a Sanyo 5300)
- 01-01-2006, 12:21 PM #4DecaturTxCowboyGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what? Your billing
> address I assume gets actual Sprint PCS coverage. Not only did you
> still get coverage there, but in all of Sprint PCS' coverage area. How
> is not losing any of your Sprint PCS coverage, grounds for waiving the
> ETF? You were paying for Sprint PCS coverage, not roaming coverage.
> Roaming is a bonus, gravy, not guaranteed.
Sprint's Termination Department apparently does not agree with you. And
THAT is the final determination. ETF was waived with NO hassles.
> I would guess that less than
> 1 percent of all Sprint PCS billed minutes are roaming.
At least 40% of my calls were roaming on the Free & Clear $5 roaming
package.
> Did you find
> one carrier that covers, on their own, not roaming,
Cingular covers it just fine.
- 01-01-2006, 10:34 PM #5DecaturTxCowboyGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what?
For waving the ETF if Sprint makes a change that "has a material adverse
effect on you". Agreement, Item 9, Paragraph 4, Line 2
Sprint honored their Agreement and waived the ETF.
- 01-01-2006, 11:06 PM #6ScottGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
"DecaturTxCowboy" <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>> The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what?
>
> For waving the ETF if Sprint makes a change that "has a material adverse
> effect on you". Agreement, Item 9, Paragraph 4, Line 2
But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no change-
the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement. Your need to hold
them responsible for the decision of an unaffiliated company is rather sad
and the quote above does not apply to this situation.
>
> Sprint honored their Agreement and waived the ETF.
>
I'm guessing that you tried to shove your flawed logic down their throats as
you have done here. It was much cheaper for them to be rid of you than pay
the salaries to deal with you.
Have fun with Cingular- I see that the data network seems to be imploding in
various parts of the country. That's the kind of carrier I'd want- one that
has limited coverage and a less than stable network.
- 01-02-2006, 06:49 AM #7DecaturTxCowboyGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
Scott wrote:
> But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no change-
> the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement.
Not relevant as such a change by Sprint not differentiated in their
Agreement
> I'm guessing that you tried to shove your flawed logic down their throats as
> you have done here.
You guessed wrong. I simply stated I wanted to terminate my contract
under the Agreement terms and she did it. No argument or jumping through
hoops of logic on my part. Only thing being shoved down anyone's throat
is a flawed interpretation of Sprint's Agreement, as you are doing now.
> It was much cheaper for them to be rid of you than pay
> the salaries to deal with you.
$15 per hour wages x 2 (typical call center overhead per employee) x 5
minutes = $2.50, I don't think so.
> Have fun with Cingular- I see that the data network seems to be imploding in
> various parts of the country.
A temporary situation that is being corrected. Vision has had its own
outages also.
> That's the kind of carrier I'd want- one that
> has limited coverage and a less than stable network.
Better coverage than I had over the past several months. My rodeo
partner has had Cingular for years and it covers all the cities we do
the rodeos in as well as the travel routes.
- 01-03-2006, 05:49 AM #8Pete MGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
I agree with you Cingular has better coverage than Sprint, not only that GSM
sphons have much better sound quality than CDMA
phones. I was with Sprint for 5-years, but recently I have switched to
Cingular, after I talked on my brother's Cingular phone.
"DecaturTxCowboy" <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott wrote:
>> But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no
>> change- the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement.
>
> Not relevant as such a change by Sprint not differentiated in their
> Agreement
>
>> I'm guessing that you tried to shove your flawed logic down their throats
>> as you have done here.
>
> You guessed wrong. I simply stated I wanted to terminate my contract under
> the Agreement terms and she did it. No argument or jumping through hoops
> of logic on my part. Only thing being shoved down anyone's throat is a
> flawed interpretation of Sprint's Agreement, as you are doing now.
>
>> It was much cheaper for them to be rid of you than pay the salaries to
>> deal with you.
>
> $15 per hour wages x 2 (typical call center overhead per employee) x 5
> minutes = $2.50, I don't think so.
>
>> Have fun with Cingular- I see that the data network seems to be imploding
>> in various parts of the country.
>
> A temporary situation that is being corrected. Vision has had its own
> outages also.
>
>> That's the kind of carrier I'd want- one that has limited coverage and a
>> less than stable network.
>
> Better coverage than I had over the past several months. My rodeo partner
> has had Cingular for years and it covers all the cities we do the rodeos
> in as well as the travel routes.
- 01-03-2006, 10:30 AM #9TinmanGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
Pete M wrote:
> I agree with you Cingular has better coverage than Sprint,
Unqualified, that's an absurd comment. If you live in an area that has
better Cingular coverage then great. If not, Sprint may be better. In
this case it's a situation of the loss of an AMPS roaming partner. How
many phones does Cingular sell that are even capable of AMPS?
In my experience, and I travel frequently, Cingular would not cut-it.
Perhaps it's because I don't follow the rodeo circuit <g>, but that has
been my experience.
> not only
> that GSM sphons have much better sound quality than CDMA
> phones. I was with Sprint for 5-years, but recently I have switched to
> Cingular, after I talked on my brother's Cingular phone.
>
Cingular has been known to squeeze the living hell out of voice, so I
wouldn't put much faith in that experience. And phone quality varies.
If my brother has a better-sounding Sprint phone than my Sprint phone
what should I do, "switch" to Sprint or realize that it just might be
the phone?
--
Mike
- 01-03-2006, 06:32 PM #10Joseph HuberGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 22:06:48 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no change-
>the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement. Your need to hold
>them responsible for the decision of an unaffiliated company is rather sad
>and the quote above does not apply to this situation.
So, if one of your suppliers decides to not renew with you, and this
makes you unable to deliver your product to your customer, that makes
you not responsible for the commitments made to your customers??? It
sure doesn't work that way in my industry.
Sprint's coverage, which is the product that Sprint is offering,
changed, to Cowboy's detriment, from that which existed when he signed
up. It's irrelevant as to why it changed. It's too bad that one of
Sprint's partners backed out, but Sprint is responsible for the final
product, and for having contingencies when such unfortunate things
happen. Sprint did ultimately change the coverage, by choosing not to
find another roaming partner in that area.
Joe Huber
[email protected]
- 01-03-2006, 06:33 PM #11Mij AdyawGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
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.
"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 22:06:48 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no
>>change-
>>the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement. Your need to hold
>>them responsible for the decision of an unaffiliated company is rather sad
>>and the quote above does not apply to this situation.
>
> So, if one of your suppliers decides to not renew with you, and this
> makes you unable to deliver your product to your customer, that makes
> you not responsible for the commitments made to your customers??? It
> sure doesn't work that way in my industry.
>
> Sprint's coverage, which is the product that Sprint is offering,
> changed, to Cowboy's detriment, from that which existed when he signed
> up. It's irrelevant as to why it changed. It's too bad that one of
> Sprint's partners backed out, but Sprint is responsible for the final
> product, and for having contingencies when such unfortunate things
> happen. Sprint did ultimately change the coverage, by choosing not to
> find another roaming partner in that area.
>
> Joe Huber
> [email protected]
- 01-03-2006, 07:27 PM #12ScottGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 22:06:48 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no
>>change-
>>the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement. Your need to hold
>>them responsible for the decision of an unaffiliated company is rather sad
>>and the quote above does not apply to this situation.
>
> So, if one of your suppliers decides to not renew with you, and this
> makes you unable to deliver your product to your customer, that makes
> you not responsible for the commitments made to your customers??? It
> sure doesn't work that way in my industry.
If that were the case, then yes. However, the loss of this roaming
agreement (a non-guaranteed part of the service, BTW) did not impact the
ability of Sprint to provide its native coverage
>
> Sprint's coverage, which is the product that Sprint is offering,
> changed, to Cowboy's detriment, from that which existed when he signed
> up.
Sprint's coverage remained the same- non-guaranteed roaming coverage
changed.
>It's irrelevant as to why it changed. It's too bad that one of
> Sprint's partners backed out, but Sprint is responsible for the final
> product, and for having contingencies when such unfortunate things
> happen.
Actually, no they are not, no more than they are responsible for the
maintenance and upkeep of that system.
>Sprint did ultimately change the coverage, by choosing not to
> find another roaming partner in that area.
>
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?
I love it when the entitlement children get involved- everything is a
god-given right and the big corporate monster is always out to screw the
customer.
- 01-03-2006, 07:29 PM #13ScottGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
"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.
- 01-03-2006, 08:01 PM #14Joseph HuberGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:27:46 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> 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?
Easy...build some towers and provide native coverage. Why did Sprint
offer roaming coverage for that area in the first place? To entice
customers to sign up with Sprint so that Sprint. could make money,
period! Hey, making money is good! It pays my salary. At some
point, Sprint must have seen some benefit to providing coverage in
that area, or they wouldn't have enetered into a roaming agreement in
the first place.
If Sprint wasn't willing to make the committment to provide service to
those customers that joined because of the roaming coverage, they
shouldn't have offered roaming coverage in the first place, and passed
on the revenue.
Hiding behind the "roaming coverage isn't guaranteed" fine print after
the salesperson shows the customer the coverage map to assure him that
Sprint is a good choice for coverage is sleazy. Fortunately, Sprint
took the high road and let Cowboy out of his agreement when Sprint
failed to live up to it's part of the agreement. I respect them for
that.
>I love it when the entitlement children get involved- everything is a
>god-given right and the big corporate monster is always out to screw the
>customer.
Oh please, get off your stinkin' high horse. I never said any such
thing.
Joe Huber
[email protected]
- 01-03-2006, 08:06 PM #15Joseph HuberGuest
Re: Waived ETF Update
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:29:53 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Responsible how? The roaming partner terminated the agreement, not Sprint.
>At least try to get the facts straight.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the vendor who sells the
final product is ultimately responsible for supporting that product?
Do you work in an industry that doesn't operate this way?
Joe Huber
[email protected]
Similar Threads
- RingTones
- T-Mobile
- Sprint PCS
- Nokia
- Sony Ericsson
Desnudar fotos
in General Cell Phone Forum