lawsuit against Sprint

Steven J Sobol wrote:
> O/Siris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Phillipe wrote:
>
>>> An moral obligation is not the same as a legal requirement.
>>
>> You've just got this hobby, don't you, of responded to what is not
>> said?
>
> It took you this long to figure that out?

I'm an eternal optimist.

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

---

› See More: lawsuit against Sprint

HEY GUYS

this post is getting really LOOOONG

could some one do us a favor and sumerize the whole story short and
lets us know what is going on

7 pages off long postes is not ez to read...

how could I get a better plan by this WLPN?

I got 300 ATM
Unlimited night and w from 8pm
unlimited PCS to PCS
vision
for 40 + tax...

could I change to something good like 600 air time any how

I would appreciate your help
thanx

--
Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

dataman wrote:
> HEY GUYS
>
> this post is getting really LOOOONG
>
> could some one do us a favor and sumerize the whole story short and
> lets us know what is going on
>
> 7 pages off long postes is not ez to read...
>
> how could I get a better plan by this WLPN?
>
> I got 300 ATM
> Unlimited night and w from 8pm
> unlimited PCS to PCS
> vision
> for 40 + tax...
>
> could I change to something good like 600 air time any how
>
> I would appreciate your help
> thanx

The short story is that we're supposed to try to save you, but what you get
from us really depends upon your "value" to us. That sounds really cold,
but it really *does* come down to what we think it will do for us to give
you that.

Please don't think I'm putting you down. I have the exact same plan, plus
$5 for Voice Command. And I barely use 100 minutes every month. I'm not
allowed to call up my own account (OK, Philly, that's another internal
policy I'm revealing, but I doubt it's a revelation to anyone), but I doubt
I have very much value, either. If I were a consumer and tried this, I
*might* a small adjustment. More likely, they'd probably just cancel me.

It doesn't hurt to call us and see what the rep says. Just don't use the
magic word "cancel." If I'm right about our value, then the rep just might
go ahead and cancel you. Unless, of course, that's exactly what you want.

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Are you a lawyer, or "legal secretary"? My best guess is that you're
>> the latter...(and no, that is not a diss on you....my father told me
>> never to diss a person who is working....regardless of his
>> profession).
>
> Your father sounded like a wise man.
>
> But, no, I am not a legal secretary. You are wrong.
>
> It happens.

Nomen? This is second post of your I would swear was sent quite a few days
ago. But it's showing up in my newsreader with today's date.

Is it my ISP's Usenet server, or is everyone else suddenly old posts new
again like this?
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:CSg3b.281744$uu5.63269@sccrnsc04...

>
> Nomen? This is second post of your I would swear was sent quite a few
days
> ago. But it's showing up in my newsreader with today's date.
>
> Is it my ISP's Usenet server, or is everyone else suddenly old posts new
> again like this?
> --
> -+-
> RØß
> O/Siris
> I work for Sprint
> I *don't* speak for them

It's not just your newsserver Rob. Yesterday, my newserver through Earthlink
burbed up about 100 previously posted messages, showing them as new ...

Bob

Bob Smith wrote:

> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
> news:CSg3b.281744$uu5.63269@sccrnsc04...
>
>>
>> Nomen? This is second post of your I would swear was sent quite a
>> few
> days
>> ago. But it's showing up in my newsreader with today's date.
>>
>> Is it my ISP's Usenet server, or is everyone else suddenly old
>> posts new again like this? -- -+- RØß O/Siris I work for Sprint I
>> *don't* speak for them
>
> It's not just your newsserver Rob. Yesterday, my newserver through
> Earthlink burbed up about 100 previously posted messages, showing
> them as new ...
>
> Bob

Same here via BellSouth. Most annoying...

burris

>Is it my ISP's Usenet server, or is everyone else suddenly old posts new
>again like this?

It's not just you. I got almost every post made to this newsgroup in the past 30 days redelivered
and marked as "new". I have no idea what happened. Usenet hiccupped somewhere.

I've lost all context of what's what new and what's old.

I'm going to lay off replying for awhile (hold the applause) until the old posts drop off and I can
follow the threads again.

"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Is it my ISP's Usenet server, or is everyone else suddenly old posts new
> >again like this?
>
> It's not just you. I got almost every post made to this newsgroup in the
past 30 days redelivered
> and marked as "new". I have no idea what happened. Usenet hiccupped
somewhere.
>
> I've lost all context of what's what new and what's old.
>
> I'm going to lay off replying for awhile (hold the applause) until the old
posts drop off and I can
> follow the threads again.

Nomen, if all these new posts have the same time stamp, just do a resort on
date and mark those as read. Either that or reset your news server and mark
everything as read ...

Bob

"Joel Horner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1fznd7k.15q1lqf7fgelxN%[email protected]...
> Bob Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Which contract are you talking about Joel? The one from 3 to 4 years ago
> > (you've been with SPCS at least that long haven't you?) or the one you
are
> > currently on? When you did ask, was it before this June? I'm only asking
as
> > this new surcharge started in June ...
>
> New device...Treo. December, 2002.

Damn, my newsserver is burping up old posts again ... Just got 30+ old ones
....

Bob

Bob Smith wrote:
>
> "Joel Horner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1fznd7k.15q1lqf7fgelxN%[email protected]...
> > Bob Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Which contract are you talking about Joel? The one from 3 to 4 years ago
> > > (you've been with SPCS at least that long haven't you?) or the one you
> are
> > > currently on? When you did ask, was it before this June? I'm only asking
> as
> > > this new surcharge started in June ...
> >
> > New device...Treo. December, 2002.
>
> Damn, my newsserver is burping up old posts again ... Just got 30+ old ones
> ...

It's not just yours... Mine's doing the same thing.

Larry

Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> Is it Jane Soccermom's fault for not reading the insert closely, or
> Sprint Customer Service's fault for intentionally lying?
>
> I don't know. Maybe a little of both. But please don't act like
> Sprint hasn't tried to frame this charge to neophytes (and even some
> people on this group) as a tax-induced fee, because indeed they have.
> Repeatedly.

Sorry, Nomen, I was not trying to place blame upon anyone else at all. I
was simply pointing out that our official releases on this issue have been
accurate in stating that this is a charge we could choose to impose, and
did, in fact, choose.

What we told you at *2 is being addressed.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

letsgoflyers81 wrote:
>
> Yes, the insert very clearly states that it's not a tax or mandated
> fee but what the reps say is a different story. I've had at least 3
> reps tell me that it's a tax.

I know. That's a *very* valid criticism. That's where we fell down. Hard.

Brass is trying to address this.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

In article <[email protected]>,
"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >
> > Is it Jane Soccermom's fault for not reading the insert closely, or
> > Sprint Customer Service's fault for intentionally lying?
> >
> > I don't know. Maybe a little of both. But please don't act like
> > Sprint hasn't tried to frame this charge to neophytes (and even some
> > people on this group) as a tax-induced fee, because indeed they have.
> > Repeatedly.
>
> Sorry, Nomen, I was not trying to place blame upon anyone else at all. I
> was simply pointing out that our official releases on this issue have been
> accurate in stating that this is a charge we could choose to impose, and
> did, in fact, choose.
>
> What we told you at *2 is being addressed.

Given that the *2 folks are VERY tightly controlled and fired if they
average more than 5 minutes per call, some manager at *2 apparently is
to blame. We await your report. No one here believes its a coindcidence
that *2 folks all came up with the same lie on their own.

We await your filling in the details.

Also explain why the charge is so much larger than your actual costs
(going by Sprints worst case estimates of costs).

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> Very true, but those aren't my numbers ...
>
> Bob
>
>

You don't take responsibilty for you posting. They are your numbers if they
originate in your post. At least the reference is yours.

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Incidentally, using 18mil -vs- 26mil, the number becomes $0.46/customer.
If
> you break it down over 5 months rather than 12 months, it is $1.11
> per/customer. Almost exactly what they are charging, except they are
> charging it PER LINE!
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>

WHERE IS BOB? I thought for sure he could dispute these numbers.

Tom Veldhouse