Got a good idea to stuck it to sprint with there unlimited nons...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:41:02 -0500, Eric wrote:

> <<Any comments are welcomed.>>
>
> Not only do you have two typos plus bad grammar in your subject header,
> your idea is ridiculous. If you are that upset at Sprint, just cancel.
> It is understandable that one would be upset with Sprint over this, but
> not worth it to hatch such a stupid, time-consuming plot like this.
Yes sorry about that I have had a late night and didn't double check the
header until after I posted it. I am not upset with Sprint I just think it
is horrible for them to become two faced over this issue. Unlimited vision
was a great idea and brought a lot of users in because of it but they went
and changed their sales pitch after people started to use it as it was
sold to them. Some people will point it out that in the contracts there is
some small passage about using the phone/laptop combo and is odd how it is
placed in the server section but what about all the 2g web users who were
automatically upgraded to vision? Anyway I agree it could be an issue for
others but maybe could rate limit th connection so not to overload their
connections completely. Really is a bad business model to sell a service
and then get upset when people try to use what they have paid for.

---

› See More: Got a good idea to stuck it to sprint with there unlimited nons...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:41:58 -0500, Eric wrote:

> <<I am not upset with Sprint I just think it is horrible for them to
> become two faced over this issue. Unlimited vision was a great idea and
> brought a lot of users in because of it but they went and changed their
> sales pitch after people started to use it as it was sold to them. >>
>
> Yes, I agree that Sprint should have done more research before offering
> "unlimited" Vision... knowing that people would use their phones as a
> modem. All I think we are saying is that to do what you proposed may
> seem like a way to get back at them, but it is also intentionally
> hurting other users who have nothing to do with this issue.
>
> I think the best course of action is either court, or cancel -- I know
> that they are waiving the cancellation fee for many users (and not just
> for reasons of WNP) -- and find an alternate provider who may offer what
> you are looking for.
>
> Eric
Yeah sadly I love sprint's service so far. I love my phone and I also love
how well it works, esp while traveling on interstates. I have been
tracking some reports on sprint's crack down ever sense it started
becoming a topic of discussion since dec? of last year. From what I have
seen they are slowly going from a, "It is ok" stance then to a "Only
limited use with laptop" stance and finally to a "We have see xyz amount
of data on your line you must be using a laptop" stance. Like most users I
realize sprint's network is limited and I try to only use the connection
sparingly but if sprint keeps going down their path soon anything over
25MBs of a month might be considered non phone usage. Even tho that is
a lot of text to transfer it is still less then 1MB a day. I would
hate to be in a bind where I have to grab some needed data while on
vacation just to stumble over that limit, getting promptly cut off. All I
am saying is if sprint wants us to believe that only laptop users can grab
xyz amount of bandwidth in a month. Why not show them that even their
phones can do it? Show them that using bandwidth as a "laptop marker" is
not a valid check.

Central wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:41:02 -0500, Eric wrote:
>
> > <<Any comments are welcomed.>>
> >
> > Not only do you have two typos plus bad grammar in your subject header,
> > your idea is ridiculous. If you are that upset at Sprint, just cancel.
> > It is understandable that one would be upset with Sprint over this, but
> > not worth it to hatch such a stupid, time-consuming plot like this.
> Yes sorry about that I have had a late night and didn't double check the
> header until after I posted it. I am not upset with Sprint I just think it
> is horrible for them to become two faced over this issue. Unlimited vision
> was a great idea and brought a lot of users in because of it but they went
> and changed their sales pitch after people started to use it as it was
> sold to them. Some people will point it out that in the contracts there is
> some small passage about using the phone/laptop combo and is odd how it is
> placed in the server section but what about all the 2g web users who were
> automatically upgraded to vision?

???? I use the wireless web option and was NOT automatically upgraded to
Vision.