On Cell Phone Forums
Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 224
  1. #31
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint


    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3f391458$0$159$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
    >
    > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:uc8_a.14216$vo2.2039@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > >
    > > >

    > > How many times do you have to be told it's not a rate increase? If it

    were
    > a
    > > rate increase, your plan, excluding taxes and surcharges would increase.
    > > Taxes and surcharges are a separate charge, outside of what the plan

    > costs.
    > >
    > > Bob
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Says you. But the lawsuite is based upon an entirely different premise.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse
    >

    Tom, I wasn't commenting on the lawsuit ... well maybe, on a side note I am,
    only because it's in this thread with a subject line saying "lawsuit against
    Sprint". What I'm referring to is Lawrence's consistant misuse of the phrase
    "RATE INCREASE". It's not a rate increase ...

    I'm the first one to hate it when someone posts an anology, but here's a
    good one to explain what a rate increase is, in simple terms.

    A grocery store sells coffee for $4.00 /lb. A sudden freak weather front
    moves into Columbia, and half of the coffee beans on the trees go bad.
    Coffee futures go through the roof and it costs more to buy current stocks
    of coffee beans from the distributors. The grocery store now charges $4.50/
    lb for coffee. That's a rate increase on the product.

    Our plans have not changed price. The overall cost has gone up because of an
    additional surcharge (WLNP), but the additional cost was not part of the
    plan we signed up for. Taxes and surcharges are not included in the plans
    offered by the providers. They are separate charges from the plans offered.

    Bob





    See More: lawsuit against Sprint



  2. #32
    Nomen Nescio
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint

    >but I do believe there is a substantial cost that SPCS is incurring with getting WLNP
    >implemented and it is something that has been authorized to pass on to the
    >customer ...


    "Authorized" means nothing. I have been "authorized" to sell you my 1974 Ford Pinto for
    $175,368.95. It's a straw man arguement. They've always been able to charge whatever they wanted.

    As far as recovering costs, why not do it on the utilization end?

    From all accounts, they are going to charge you for using it ($15-$30 lump sum) even after you have
    been paid for it.

    They'll more than make up for the costs by whacking people with the transfer fees when they
    actually use WLNP.

    The only people who are going to lose on WLNP are those who's customers leave them for other
    carriers.

    Companies should concentrate on preventing churn rather than nickel and diming. In the end, that
    will be 100x more profitable. The "I paid for it, I might as well use it" mentality could be a
    potential problem to those profiteering on the fee.




  3. #33
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint


    "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
    news:f7ff31e6061b73f95c80a1fc4d97b07b@dizum.com...
    > >but I do believe there is a substantial cost that SPCS is incurring with

    getting WLNP
    > >implemented and it is something that has been authorized to pass on to

    the
    > >customer ...

    >
    > "Authorized" means nothing. I have been "authorized" to sell you my 1974

    Ford Pinto for
    > $175,368.95. It's a straw man arguement. They've always been able to

    charge whatever they wanted.

    Yea, well ... I'll take it, but only if the gas tank is modified ... . As
    to the authorization, methinks that the government has a bit more influence
    saying it's ok, instead of you ...
    >
    > As far as recovering costs, why not do it on the utilization end?


    Good point. In saying that though, they already have the OK to do it now. So
    why not recapture those costs now, instead of having to wait.
    >
    > From all accounts, they are going to charge you for using it ($15-$30 lump

    sum) even after you have
    > been paid for it.


    Oh? When and where have these numbers been mentioned in any SPCS statement.
    I'd like a company cite to back up your statement here.
    >
    > They'll more than make up for the costs by whacking people with the

    transfer fees when they
    > actually use WLNP.


    And you know this how?

    >
    > The only people who are going to lose on WLNP are those who's customers

    leave them for other
    > carriers.


    Don't you get it? Every wireless carrier will be charging those fees in Nov.
    A few wireless providers are charging it now, to cover their costs to
    implement it.
    >
    > Companies should concentrate on preventing churn rather than nickel and

    diming. In the end, that
    > will be 100x more profitable. The "I paid for it, I might as well use it"

    mentality could be a
    > potential problem to those profiteering on the fee.



    Who says anyone is making a profit on this charge now? Although it hasn't
    been mentioned ... yet, I'm sure that each carrier has incurred a
    significant cost to have WNLP in place by November.

    Bob





  4. #34
    Nomen Nescio
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint

    >Bob::Thinking everyone here is making too big a stink on this WNP
    >situation::


    I respect your opinion, but I can't help wondering why if it is so insignificant, that Sprint is
    going through so much trouble over it.

    Apparently they think is is worth the lawsuits and bad publicitity, so it must be important to
    someone.

    I think people just don't like being lied to, and resent having a possible legitimate cost recovery
    measure used for profiteering.

    I think that if Sprint had shot the customers straight, offered them an out from the contract up
    front, and been fair with the estimates, very very few people would have complained. I just would
    have said "okay" and paid it.

    But, it's the "broken windows" theory that people are trying to prevent. $3.30 today, $5 tomorrow,
    $10 next month, $20 next year. The little things tend to become big things if they aren't
    addressed quickly. We've all seen it happen before. If the preceident is set that they can get
    away with it once, history has proven that they will try it again, in a more grand fashion. Like
    someone said, what's next "Air Conditioning Cost Recovery for OSHA mandates". Why not? Consumers
    have to be vigilant in today's business climate.

    I think that is where the stink eminates.




  5. #35
    Phillipe
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint

    In article <1I8_a.14244$vo2.5679@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > Our plans have not changed price. The overall cost has gone up because of an
    > additional surcharge (WLNP), but the additional cost was not part of the
    > plan we signed up for. Taxes and surcharges are not included in the plans
    > offered by the providers. They are separate charges from the plans offered.


    Finbe but the "Fee" Sprint charges is way in excess of what is needed to
    recover their cost. It is oversized because it contains a backdoor price
    increase



  6. #36
    Phillipe
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint

    In article <fp8_a.14223$vo2.11314@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > Phillipe, just what plan are you on right now? Is this charge really
    > affecting you that much?


    Fair is fair, and honesty is honesty. Do you really want to
    do business with a dishonest company??

    In my case, I was out of contract, so I called up RETENTION, to offset
    the $1.10 increase, I got a $5.99/month decrease, and a $100 credit.
    I'm ready for the next backdoor price increase.



  7. #37
    letsgoflyers81
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint


    O/Siris wrote:
    > *
    >
    > Now hold on. Whether or not we were wrong to allow (or not allow)
    > ETF-free
    > cancellations for it, we *never* characterized it as a tax-induced
    > fee. We
    > stated pretty plainly and clearly that it was a cost recovery fee we
    > were
    > allowed to charge. Not that we had to do so. The link to the
    > announcement
    > about this fee has been psoted many a time. Go look for yourself.
    > --
    > -+-
    > R
    > O/Siris
    > I work for Sprint
    > I *don't* speak for them *


    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. When I read the insert they say that it might
    not technically be a tax, but the surcharge is mandated by the FCC.
    Then I read it again and they say WLNP is mandated by the FCC,
    therefore it doesn't qualify for canceling without the ETF. Only after
    going around in circles, talking to sups, and going to
    cancellation/retention did they admit that although WLNP is mandated,
    the fee is not a tax nor enforced by the government. I don't care what
    an insert says if the reps claim the exact opposite even when you're
    looking right at it and reading it back to them. Many people will take
    the reps' word for it. And many that don't might not get someone to
    admit it to them and just say, "contact our legal department." Not
    many people will go through the time and trouble of suing for $150.
    That's what Sprint is counting on, for people to believe the lies of
    the CS reps and stay with Sprint paying an extra $1.10 per month or
    fork over $150 for leaving. This is either a case of gross negligence
    on behalf or the reps not being informed of what the WLNP fee is, or
    flat out fraud by Sprint by having the reps tell customers that it's a
    tax. I hope the lawsuits start coming and it costs Sprint millions.
    I'd pay a few bucks a month extra if it gets Sprint to engage in
    ethical business practices.

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




  8. #38
    Eric
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint

    <<2) My July bill specifically listed the WLNP surcharge under "Taxes."
    That's right, not "Surcharges & Fees," but "Taxes." A very big lie, and
    one for which I have documented paper evidence.>>

    My July bill clearly listed WLNP under "Surcharges and Fees", not under
    "Taxes". Odd how it is listed in different places on peoples' bills.




  9. #39
    letsgoflyers81
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint


    Phillipe wrote:
    > *In article
    > <fp8_a.14223$vo2.11314@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
    > "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > > Phillipe, just what plan are you on right now? Is this charge

    > really
    > > affecting you that much?

    >
    > Fair is fair, and honesty is honesty. Do you really want to
    > do business with a dishonest company??
    >
    > In my case, I was out of contract, so I called up RETENTION, to
    > offset
    > the $1.10 increase, I got a $5.99/month decrease, and a $100 credit.
    > I'm ready for the next backdoor price increase. *


    I wasn't out of contract. But I guess they saw my $125/mo plan and
    decided they wanted to keep me. All I got was a $60 credit. WLNP+E911
    for a year for me costs $54. The credit offset the surcharges for me,
    so I took it and dropped the issue with Sprint. Maybe if I was out of
    contract I could have gotten something better. I told them it wasn't
    about getting a better deal. It was about evening things up because
    they're trying to scam us, period.

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




  10. #40
    Lawrence G. Mayka
    Guest

    Re: lawsuit against Sprint

    "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_NoSpam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:uc8_a.14216$vo2.2039@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > How many times do you have to be told it's not a rate increase? If it were a
    > rate increase, your plan, excluding taxes and surcharges would increase.
    > Taxes and surcharges are a separate charge, outside of what the plan costs.


    How many times do you need to be told that Sprint's deceptive naming does not
    change the truth? The WLNP charge is not a tax, it is neither mandated nor
    calculated by the government, it is not an optional add-on for an offered
    service. It is simply a rate increase, nothing else.





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast