Repairs for Sanyo 4900 near NY/NJ/CT

Wayne.B <[email protected] > wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:03:42 GMT, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Wayne.B <[email protected] > wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The key pad on my 4900 has gone defective. Does anyone know what the
>>> warranty period is on these phones, and is there a repair location in
>>> the NY/NJ/CT area?
>>
>>Are you saying that none of the keys function at all ?
>
> =========================================
>
> The right hand column of numbers (3,6,9,#) has stopped responding.
>
> Everything else is OK but too many number that I can not dial.
>

So why not take it apart and clean the contacts ?
If nothing else,you should get some electronic parts cleaner,hose the keys
down,let it air dry for an hour or so,then see what happens.

---

› See More: Repairs for Sanyo 4900 near NY/NJ/CT

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:45:51 GMT, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote:
>So why not take it apart and clean the contacts ?
>If nothing else,you should get some electronic parts cleaner,hose the keys
>down,let it air dry for an hour or so,then see what happens.

======================================

Inexperience on my part with (presumably) membrane type keypads.

Right now the phone works very well for everything but dialing new
numbers and I'd hate to make things worse with a bonehead move.

Have you ever tried it?

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> One
> such issue was broken screens.
>=20

No, in fact, it was not. No specific issue was, in fact, discussed. You w=
ere=20
the one who leapt from a discussion of an 8100 with a shattered screen over=
to=20
some secret document detailing that this is a known issue with the 8100. I=
n=20
fact, there is no such thing.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 05:14:04 GMT, O/Siris <robjvargas@sprīntpcs.cōm>
wrote:

>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> One
>> such issue was broken screens.
>>
>
>No, in fact, it was not. No specific issue was, in fact, discussed. You were
>the one who leapt from a discussion of an 8100 with a shattered screen over to
>some secret document detailing that this is a known issue with the 8100. In
>fact, there is no such thing.


You are twisting the post I see. The post said Sprint knows which
phones there are known issues with. Since no Sprint employee will
share that with us it is correctly described as secret. We don't know
if it is a known issue with the 8100 or not, and you won't tell us
either, so your post here, like so many others is USELESS,
and a TROLL.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:37:54 -0400, TechGeek
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> *The warranty period is one year, but even under warranty, Sprint
>> has secret rules about whats covered and what isnt and they tend
>> to cry "abuse" more than you might expect.
>>
>> Luckily if you check the SprintPCS website under promotions, they
>> are now offering a Great deal on 4900s. *
>
>Secret rules? I'd call it more like common sence. Don't get the phone
>wet, don't bang it around etc..

What Sprint calls "common sense" is called failure to honor warranty
by customers, as with Sprint the rule is "If the screen broke, you
must have done something wrong".

The secret rules are the many phones with "known issues" that
"IF THE CUSTOMER COMPLAINS" will be replaced. And in some cases
(like the Samsung Black 8500) it's a safety issue, but still no
recall.

Again a Sprint employee covering up.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:54:49 GMT, O/Siris <robjvargas@sprīntpcs.com>
wrote:

>Show me one time a non-safety recall was ever announced as you say it
>should have been. In fact, non of these issues are recalls. We have an
>internal department that simply decides whether a certain fault merits
>warranty replacement. If the fault never occurs, so be it. Let the
>customer be happy.

Again, a useless post, twisting the issue in a failed attempt
to coverup Sprint's customer unfriendly posture on bad phones.

The Black Samsung 8500 was not recalled when it was discovered it
could not do analog roaming. In fact it continued to be sold. Someone
could end up not being able to make a 911 call and that IS A SAFETY
ISSUE.

That is why the Federal Government ends up getting involved. If the
fox guards the henhouse, bad things happen. Your internal department
decides these things on cost issues, not safety issues.

Agreeing to replace a phone "IF THE CUSTOMER COMPLAINS"
is not the same thing as a recall. Many models of Sprint phones fall
under that heading.

Actually Renaldo, if you will read that thread again... there is a post
by me that states:

"There have been "known issues" with phones screens breaking or bleeding
without physical abuse or the screens not being "strong enough" which
will qualify for a warranty replacement. The 8100 is not one of those
phones."

So I did tell you the 8100 didn't have that issue. No, the warranty
list still isn't a secret, because we tell customers openly when they
have a legitimate issue... NOT IN A PUBLIC FORUM!!!


Renaldo <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 05:14:04 GMT, O/Siris <robjvargas@sprīntpcs.cōm>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >> One
> >> such issue was broken screens.
> >>
> >
> >No, in fact, it was not. No specific issue was, in fact, discussed. You were
> >the one who leapt from a discussion of an 8100 with a shattered screen over to
> >some secret document detailing that this is a known issue with the 8100. In
> >fact, there is no such thing.
>
>
> You are twisting the post I see. The post said Sprint knows which
> phones there are known issues with. Since no Sprint employee will
> share that with us it is correctly described as secret. We don't know
> if it is a known issue with the 8100 or not, and you won't tell us
> either, so your post here, like so many others is USELESS,
> and a TROLL.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

Renaldo, you are REALLY good at blowing things WAY OUT OF PROPORTION!!!
Most of the warranty issues are software issues like ringer volume or
the phone freezing up or something... things that are fixed with a
simple software upgrade, the phones aren't blowing up! It's not a life
or death situation. Once again, we don't recall them because it's not
every phone in that model, and Sprint doesn't necessarily know which
ones ARE having the problem. We don't manufacture the phones, Samsung,
Sanyo, Hitachi, etc etc do. Why aren't the warranty issues listed on
THEIR website??? Especially if it is a hardware not a software failure.


Renaldo <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:54:49 GMT, O/Siris <robjvargas@sprīntpcs.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Show me one time a non-safety recall was ever announced as you say it
> >should have been. In fact, non of these issues are recalls. We have an
> >internal department that simply decides whether a certain fault merits
> >warranty replacement. If the fault never occurs, so be it. Let the
> >customer be happy.
>
> Again, a useless post, twisting the issue in a failed attempt
> to coverup Sprint's customer unfriendly posture on bad phones.
>
> The Black Samsung 8500 was not recalled when it was discovered it
> could not do analog roaming. In fact it continued to be sold. Someone
> could end up not being able to make a 911 call and that IS A SAFETY
> ISSUE.
>
> That is why the Federal Government ends up getting involved. If the
> fox guards the henhouse, bad things happen. Your internal department
> decides these things on cost issues, not safety issues.
>
> Agreeing to replace a phone "IF THE CUSTOMER COMPLAINS"
> is not the same thing as a recall. Many models of Sprint phones fall
> under that heading.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:54:49 GMT, O/Siris <robjvargas@spr=EEntpcs.com>
> wrote:
>=20
> >Show me one time a non-safety recall was ever announced as you say it=20
> >should have been. In fact, non of these issues are recalls. We have an=
=20
> >internal department that simply decides whether a certain fault merits=
=20
> >warranty replacement. If the fault never occurs, so be it. Let the=20
> >customer be happy.
>=20
> Again, a useless post, twisting the issue in a failed attempt
> to coverup Sprint's customer unfriendly posture on bad phones.

Show me where AT&T is doing it. Or Verizon. Or *anyone*. In fact, no one=
is,=20
Renaldo, because *it's not customer unfriendly*. If the customer isn't hav=
ing=20
a problem, we're not going to fix what isn't broken. If they are, and it's=
a=20
warranty-covered issue, we're going to replace the phone, usually right the=
n=20
and there (with discontinued phones, from what I understand, a store will t=
ry=20
to obtain one from the warehouse).

>=20
> The Black Samsung 8500 was not recalled when it was discovered it
> could not do analog roaming. In fact it continued to be sold. Someone
> could end up not being able to make a 911 call and that IS A SAFETY
> ISSUE.

Is it a safety issue, then, that the P300 can't either? Sure, there's a=20
difference because the P300 is designed that way. But it points out that a=
=20
cell phone is *not* a personal safety device. The cellular network isn't=
=20
anywhere CLOSE to ubiquitous and may not ever be so.

So no, that is *not* a safety issue. If the system were designed from the=
=20
start to serve emergency needs like that, then I'd agree. But it is not an=
d=20
never was.

>=20
> That is why the Federal Government ends up getting involved.=20

Except that it not only has not, it doesn't even see a problem in which to =
get=20
involved anyway. Because there is none. Not on this issue.

> If the
> fox guards the henhouse, bad things happen. Your internal department
> decides these things on cost issues, not safety issues.

Sometimes hens die even when the farmer guards it. Does that mean he shoul=
d be=20
fired, too? Not at all.

>=20
> Agreeing to replace a phone "IF THE CUSTOMER COMPLAINS"
> is not the same thing as a recall. Many models of Sprint phones fall
> under that heading.

Under what heading? Under having an issue or two that we're willing to cov=
er=20
as a warranty replacement? This is why those you call apologists have such=
a=20
problem with your kind, Renaldo. That criticism is both invalid and not=20
confined to SPCS. At absolute best, Renaldo, that's a half-truth. Hell, i=
t's=20
not even limited to the Cell Phone industry. Almost every model line of=20
everyday electronics has known issues, and almost none of them are handled =
by=20
recall. They are handled as a customer comes in to complain. The service=
=20
agent is given guidelines for when the manufacturer warranty applies. And =
it=20
is taken care of accordingly.

So yes, "many models of Sprint phones" fall under that heading. But no, th=
at's=20
not a problem needing fixing.

I'm curious, Renaldo, have you looked at the warranty information for *any*=
=20
piece of major electronics? Let's say home DVD players. I have a Panasoni=
c. =20
The warranty there says I have to go to or send it to an authorized Panason=
ic=20
Service Center. The store from which I bought it only accepts it during th=
e=20
initial 30-day return period. Instead, we act as the warranty agent, even =
for=20
phones not bought from our retail channel. How would you like to have to f=
ind=20
a Sanyo Service Center (for example) to deal with issues with your phone? =
=20
There would be nothing remarkable about that.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> You are twisting the post I see. The post said Sprint knows which
> phones there are known issues with. Since no Sprint employee will
> share that with us it is correctly described as secret. We don't know
> if it is a known issue with the 8100 or not, and you won't tell us
> either, so your post here, like so many others is USELESS,
> and a TROLL.
>=20

Twisting the post? You "report" that 8100's have a "known issue" with crac=
king=20
screens when NO ONE said any such thing, and then complain about posts bein=
g=20
"twisted"? You need to take a good whiff of what you're shovelling.

You *do* know. There is no such issue with the 8100. You were told exactl=
y=20
that in the other thread. You're inventing an issue where there is none.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

ben dejo wrote:[color=blue]
> LG 5250 (cracking), lg5350 (cracking), Samsung A460(failure),
> Samsung
> N400(bleeding of color elements), Samsung I300 (fading), and the
> Kyocera
> 2255 (failure of display, can be temporaily "fixed" by dropping the
> phone) all have known screen defects.
>
> > [/B]

OK, first, N400, I300, and 2255 can not be included in this discussion
since I said "cracks or bleeds on its won" and by your own words, none
of those cracked or bled.

As for the LG models, and as YOU KNOW, the screens did not crack on
their own, 100% case it was "abuse" that cracked them, wether it was
pressure, being dropped, extreme temperatures etc.. Sprint PCS's QA
department and LG's QA department both decided that since it was such
a large issue, in some instances (no signs of serious abuse as in
cracked flips, deep gouges, etc,,) it would be covered under warranty.

NONE would just crack on their own, so if you treat your phone well, it
won't crack.

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

Tech Geek wrote:

> NONE would just crack on their own,
> so if you treat your phone well, it
> won't crack.

We have now identified a case study in what is wrong with Sprint Customer
Service. THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS WRONG. IF THE SCREEN BREAKS ITS YOUR FAULT.

Not like making a long call and heating up the internal components could ever
do it? not according to sprint.

MORAL. Only buy equipment at Costco and other places that will give you a
proper guarantee.

In article <[email protected]>, Loving=20
[email protected] says...
> We have now identified a case study in what is wrong with Sprint Customer
> Service. THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS WRONG.
>=20

We now have yet another example of Phill's refusal to engage in honest quot=
ing=20
of what was actually said. Another fabrication of it instead. As usual.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.

We have another example of the embarressment of Sprint ignoring a previous
post. Tech Geek said if a screen breaks its the customers fault, which means
according to Sprint the Customer is always wrong if they say ir broke by
itself, which is a well known fact due to heating and cooling of the internal
electronics.

Not a fabrication, but a sorry example of SprintPCS being customer unfriendly.

In article <[email protected]>, Loving=20
[email protected] says...
> We have another example of the embarressment of Sprint ignoring a previou=
s
> post. Tech Geek said if a screen breaks its the customers fault,=20

No, actually, Phill, that is *not* what he said. Even as you attempt to de=
ny=20
your dishonesty, you prove it all over again. What he said was that a scre=
en=20
does not simply bleed or crack all by itself. Truthful, factual, and *not*=
=20
blaming the customer. Or are you claiming he's blaming the customer for=20
temperature conditions that have been known to do this?

> which means
> according to Sprint the Customer is always wrong if they say ir broke by
> itself, which is a well known fact due to heating and cooling of the inte=
rnal
> electronics.

Interesting, because Tech Geek himself said temperature is one cause. So h=
ow=20
is he blaming the customer?

>=20
> Not a fabrication, but a sorry example of SprintPCS being customer unfrie=
ndly.
>=20

Yes, a fabrication, as you've just proven. Again.

--=20
-+-
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.