Can a phone which has been immersed in water be repaired?

"Zman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Upon reading your other lengthy post, the reason they want the phone back
> is
> to examine it and put this issue to rest. This is standard practice; I do
> it
> often with my customers when I am giving them a free phone in replacement
> for a phone they say is defective.
>

What is the issue? Three Sprint employees have examined it. The first one
found it had been immersed, the other two were unable to find any water
damage, Sprint's position is it has been immersed.

---

› See More: Can a phone which has been immersed in water be repaired?

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:53:03 -0500, Bill Marriott <[email protected]> wrote:

>b) Why should we answer? It will just start another 50-post thread in which
>you argue irrationally with everyone who comments. We are not customer
Unfortunately, that is exactly what the troll has managed to do. (right now
it's just 40 posts, but there no reason not to expect 60-80 posts before
everybody gives up arguing with the idiot)

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:mX%[email protected]:

>
> Can a phone which has been immersed be repaired and returned to
> service as a refurbished phone? Or is it just a lump of garbage?
>
>
>

Haven't read through all the other bashings (I mean resposnes),

but in the most simplistic terms, yes a "phone" can be refurished no
matter the damage or condition.

If the electronics are toasted, they can re-use the LCD display, battery,
case, etc. and refurbish for 50% or less the cost of a new phone.
Additonally, manufacturers are required by law to provide replacement
parts for servicing for a specified period of time. These parts can be
used to simply service a unit, or more often to provide quicker service
to the customer, swap it for another unit that was repaired and certified
(eg: refurbished) previously.

This reduces the turnaround time and flushes out the spare parts reducing
the overhead for the production run of each product line.

The downside is of course most electronics these days are not "user field
servicable". Not like your old RCA television from 1970, where you could
go to the electronics store and get new bulbs and tubes. So for a
consumer a damaged item is usually a lump of junk.

If this is not the answer you expected (eg: want), you can try asking
your question again; sometimes the magic 8 ball varies it's responses.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:16:36 GMT, AZ Nomad <[email protected]> wrote:


>On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:53:03 -0500, Bill Marriott <[email protected]> wrote:

>>b) Why should we answer? It will just start another 50-post thread in which
>>you argue irrationally with everyone who comments. We are not customer
>Unfortunately, that is exactly what the troll has managed to do. (right now
>it's just 40 posts, but there no reason not to expect 60-80 posts before
>everybody gives up arguing with the idiot)

Already 61 posts; I forgot to count another thread the troll has going.

Steven is asking in reference to his other thread.
He is trying to justify the handset, if it was in fact damaged from
immersion - which he denies, had no value to the vendor or manufacturer.

It had no value to the consumer, though my SIL dropped her cell phone in
a toilet 7 times before it quit working, and my father dropped his in a
pond once and it worked 3 days later after a good airing/drying out.

However the components that make up the phone have a value to a
manufacturer or repair facility in nearly all cases. For example, the
rubberizedoverlay for the buttons consists solely of silicon and plastic
-- impervious to most liquids.

The ciruit board under it, not so much. the plastic case, very reusable,
they can often buff out scratches easily.


"Zman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 99.99999999999% of the time it has become a soggy paper weight. I
> have only seen one survive in the last 7 years....
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:mX%[email protected]...
>>
>> Can a phone which has been immersed be repaired and returned to
>> service as
> a
>> refurbished phone? Or is it just a lump of garbage?
>>
>>
>
>
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I've yet to hear about a drenched phone that was covered under a
>> warranty.
>>
>
> Nor have I, but at least one person in another thread said they're
> covered under Sanyo's warranty to Sprint. I believe he's mistaken.
>
>
>

You are not giving the full story.
Sprint originally claimed your daughter's phone was inoperable due to
immersion damage. They later recanted and shipped a replacement with a
Return Kit. You opted to not return the damaged phone fearing they would
reasses it, claim it was damage caused by immersion (despite a 2 to 1
stacking of CSR tehcnicians in your favor) and charge you full price for
replacing the handset.

When you did not return the handset within the specified 10 days, Sprint
charged you for the new phone they sent you; which of course makes sense
since you obtained a second handset rather than swapping them out by
returning the defunct (to a consumer) unit as specified.

As I mentioned in another post, I broke my Samsung N400 display.
Obviously not covered under warranty. But I worked out a deal with Sprint
to do a handset exchange. So as to not incur the cost of a new [to me]
handset I had to relinguish the broken handset to complete the
"exchange".

To not give the old handset, which had no value to me, but did to them
woudl have resulted in a cash exchange in order to obtain a new handet
and still retain the broken one.

Regardless of warranty status.

Why did it have value? They could use a spare or slavaged LCD display to
refurbish the phone, thereby making it available for another exchange in
the near future.

Again, it was worthless to me as a consumer, but not to the reseller or
manufactuer.

Steph wrote:
>
> Steven is asking in reference to his other thread.
> He is trying to justify the handset, if it was in fact damaged from
> immersion - which he denies, had no value to the vendor or manufacturer.
>
> It had no value to the consumer, though my SIL dropped her cell phone in
> a toilet 7 times before it quit working, and my father dropped his in a
> pond once and it worked 3 days later after a good airing/drying out.
>
> However the components that make up the phone have a value to a
> manufacturer or repair facility in nearly all cases. For example, the
> rubberizedoverlay for the buttons consists solely of silicon and plastic
> -- impervious to most liquids.
>
> The ciruit board under it, not so much. the plastic case, very reusable,
> they can often buff out scratches easily.
>
> <snip>

Whether parts are salvageable, or not, is moot.

Sprint asked that the phone be returned, and it wasn't.

Notan

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And I believe you are simply trolling. You owe violated the
>> agreement for replacement of your phone and owe Sprint money.
>>
>
> There was no agreement for replacement of the phone for me to violate.
>
>

Again, from your own posting
You took delivery of a unit sent to you for exchange.
Then you activated it. There had to be at least 3 times when you were
made aware of the implications of this exchange.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprint Customer Solutions" <[email protected]>
To: "Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: Mcnicoll- Handset Problem (KMM20183982I123L0KM)


Dear Steven,

This email is in continuation to your correspondence regarding the
handset problem.

I am the supervisor at E-Care and this email has come up as an
escalation.

I am extremely sorry for the frustration you have experienced due to
the
behavior of the representative at the Sprint Store and Customer
service.

I have reviewed your account and noticed that the Sanyo 2300 phone was
activated on July 09, 2005 on the phone number NNN-NNN-NNNN. Since
this
phone is still under warranty, I am taking the following actions on
your
account:

1. I am sending a new Sanyo 2300 handset at the following address:

1851 South Sunkist Circle
De Pere, WI- 54115

The handset processing confirmation number is PK9J343.

2. I am applying the temporary credit of $189.99 (equal to the price of
the handset) on your account;

3. I am also sending the Return Kit for the Sanyo 2300 handset you
currently have so that you can return the same.

Upon receipt of the handset and the Return Kit, please take the
following actions:

1. Call us at 1-888-211-4727 from a landline phone to get the new
handset activated;
2. Return the Sanyo 2300 handset you currently have by keeping the same
in the Return Kit.
3. Write back to us with the tracking number of the Return Kit.

When the handset is received in the Warehouse, I will apply the
permanent credit of $189.99 to your account. However, if the handset
does not reach Warehouse within 10 days, your account will be charged
$189.99 (equal to the price of the new handset).

Please feel free to write back if you have any other questions. Have a
great day!

Nikki G.
E-Care
Sprint together with Nextel
"Where our customers come first!"

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Hemant Shah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I was listening to a radio show yesterday and the host was discussing
>> same topic. Couple of callers called and said that they put their
>> phones in an oven at 200 degrees for couple of hours and were able to
>> use the phone. One
>> caller mentions that he put his phone in his car near windshield
>> defroster and turned it on to remove the moisture, I think you can do
>> the same thing by
>> putting the phone on the vent in your home during winter to get rid
>> of moisture.
>>
>
> No, I can't do that because there isn't any moisture to get rid of.
> My phone was not immersed, it was never even slightly damp, Sprint's
> agent just declared it to have been immersed to avoid warranty
> coverage.

And yet they offerred you an exchange UNDER WARRANTY (or good faith).
But you did not complete the "exchange" portion, which would mean
relinguishing ownership of the item to be replaced. You took ownership of
a new/refurb sent to you, but failed to maintain a in-house stock of
quantity 1.

As for moisture, they have these VERY sensitive (IMHO) indicators inside
cell phones. If EVER exposed to water they permanently change, so no
matter how much drying you do - if the unit was EVER exposed to moisture,
it might continue to work or not, but it will always indicate it was
exposed at some point. As I said, my father's phone would show signs of
immersion, though it continues to work perfectly.

"Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You are not giving the full story.
> Sprint originally claimed your daughter's phone was inoperable due to
> immersion damage. They later recanted and shipped a replacement with a
> Return Kit. You opted to not return the damaged phone fearing they would
> reasses it, claim it was damage caused by immersion (despite a 2 to 1
> stacking of CSR tehcnicians in your favor) and charge you full price for
> replacing the handset.
>

That's not correct. Sprint did NOT recant, it is still their position that
the original phone was immersed and the warranty void.

"Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Again, from your own posting
> You took delivery of a unit sent to you for exchange.
> Then you activated it. There had to be at least 3 times when you were
> made aware of the implications of this exchange.
>

I posted the definition of "agreement" once, now you'll have to look it up
yourself.

Except to true pain in the asses in some cases.
But even those numbers are likely to reduce as those same PITAs then let
their account go overdue and get sent to collections.

The OP question was can a phone be repaired. As I detailed, the term
"repair" is ambigious. The unit has a value to the manufacturer to be
used as parts. The entire phone is not destroyed when exposed to
immersion, silicon, plastic, etc. pieces are impervious.

Can a consumer have such a phone "repaired"? It is normally cost-
prohibitive for a consumer to repair most micro sized electronics these
days, regardless of the failure. Sucks but true.

Again, in another post of mine, I admitted fault to breaking my phone's
display. I took issue with the inability to offer repair services and
forcing me to buy a new phone. I argued I was not asking for warranty
coverage and would pay the repair cost. The sprint store I was at, and
it's manager was unable to satisfactorily come up with a solution for
repairing the N400, despite me showing a half-dozen pages from Samsung
and sprint directing user's to a Sprint CS for repair.

In the end the Manager did a no cost exchange and I relinguished the
phone with a broken display. Who ate the true cost? I assume Sprint; and
rightfully so. They were specified as a repair center for a phone they
were still selling at the time. I offerred to pay any price to fix the
existing phone.

So they sentit back to Samsung and it was probably outfitted with a new
display and given as a refurb to someone else with a true warranty
replacement need (or total equipment protection plan).

"Zman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> No manufacturer or provider will cover a water-damaged phone under
> warranty.
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Zman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > 99.99999999999% of the time it has become a soggy paper weight. I
>> > have only
>> > seen one survive in the last 7 years....
>> >
>>
>> That's what I thought. But in another thread I've been told that
>> such phones have value to Sprint because they can send them back to
>> Sanyo and
> be
>> reimbursed under the warranty Sanyo extends to Sprint. Sprint then
> provides
>> them to users as refurbished phones. It seemed unlikely to me,
>> that's why
> I
>> asked the question. But it's just a guess on my part, is it on yours
>> as well or do you have some expertise?
>>
>>
>
>
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Zman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> No manufacturer or provider will cover a water-damaged phone under
>> warranty.
>>
>
> I didn't think so. That means Sprint was not cheated in any way by my
> decision to return the phone at the end of the warranty period instead
> of immediately as they desired.
>
>
>

And you were not wronged in any way to have a charge for the value of
that phone (on Sprint books) applied to your account until the time you
return the phone at which time it might be credited back to your account
at it's depreciated stock value.

If on the other hand you argue it had no value to either consumers or
resellers/manufactuers it would be because it WAS water damaged. But of
course, if it was not damaged via immersion as you maintained, then you
knowingly are liable for the cost.

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Zman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Upon reading your other lengthy post, the reason they want the phone
>> back
>> is
>> to examine it and put this issue to rest. This is standard practice;
>> I do it
>> often with my customers when I am giving them a free phone in
>> replacement for a phone they say is defective.
>>
>
> What is the issue? Three Sprint employees have examined it. The
> first one found it had been immersed, the other two were unable to
> find any water damage, Sprint's position is it has been immersed.
>
>
>

Actually per the message from Sprint to you dated May 10, 2006 which you
posted, Sprint conceeded it was covered under warranty and they hoped to
get you operational and happy as quick as possible.

Catch-22 time.
So, let's say the phone was damaged via immersion.
Therefore it is NOT covered under warranty, you would not be eligible for
a free replacement, ergo your daughter just cost you an additional $189
to get a working Sanyo 2300 handset.

Sprint's cost $0
Your cost $189

Okay, the phone failed for various manufacturing reasons, not related to
immersion or other water damage. Phone is covered under warranty for
repair/replacement. Sprint opts to expedite the process and ships you a
new/refurb unit and a Return Kit box requiring you to return the
exchanged unit within 10 days to their stock.
Your cost $0
Sprint's cost $x for shipping to and from total of 3 packages
Sanyo's cost $ "sunken" into product line

.... but you didn't return the failed unit.
You also argue it was not afflicted with water damage due to immersion.
Sprint applied the cost of the new/refurb unit they sent you to your
account.
Your cost $189
Sprint's cost $x for shipping (see above)
$y to Sanyo for additional handset lost from inventory
(from May 10, 2006 until you decide to send the defunct unit back)
Sanyo's cost $z loss of one unit that is not refurbished

Nice job Steven, in normal catch-22 situations the outcome is always the
same. In your case you managed to screw everybody; I hope you at least
grounded your daughter.

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> b) Why should we answer? It will just start another 50-post thread in
>> which you argue irrationally with everyone who comments. We are not
>> customer service representatives who will acquiesce and pretend to
>> like it, just to keep a customer; or issue you a new phone just to
>> make you quiet. We're just regular everyday consumers who like to
>> "stick it to the big corporations" as much as the next guy, but won't
>> be bludgeoned into changing our minds.... and who tried to show you
>> the error of your ways. (Not one person agreed with your ultimate
>> decision, did you notice?)
>>
>
> Who do you presume to speak for?
>
I'll come forward and let Bill speak for me.
I agreed with everything, that is 100% of what he wrote.
So he speaks for at least himself and one other, that is sufficient for
the proper use of "we".

Don't worry, I will speak up if Bill misrepresents my opinion on this
matter; but until then he has my permission to continue to represent my
opinion in his postings.

Do you think you will find someone to agree with 100% of your opinion?