lawsuit against Sprint

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <Sigh> Do you actually believe that you can read *my* bill from afar? My
bill
> dated July 6, 2003, says (for 3 lines, business-class but individually
liable):
>
> Taxes
> Aurora City and State Excise Tax 7.90
> Federal Tax 2.08
> Federal E911 1.20
> Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability 3.30
> Illinois State Wireless 911 Surcharge 2.25
> Surcharges & Fees
> Federal Universal Service Fund 1.41
>
>

Perhaps ... but then why is the 911 SURCHARGE listed under Taxes? Clearly
there is a billing mistake or .... Are you sure you aren't changing the
order so as not to be wrong?

Tom Veldhouse

---

› See More: lawsuit against Sprint

"Eric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <<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.
>

So far, it is listed in a different place on only ONE person's bill. LGM's
bill. Perhaps all bills sent to customers in the State of Illinois have
this problem. Can anybody else expand on this?

Tom Veldhouse

"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >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.

Are they really going through so much trouble?

>
> 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.

Then complain to the FCC or whatever government agency gave the
authorization to charge the fee.

Bob

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
>
You are absolutely right. IT'S NOT A TAX. It's listed under the category
Taxes and Surcharges. IT'S A SURCHARGE!. It certainly isn't a rate increase
....

Bob

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
<snipped>
> By the lawsuite's definitition it is a rate increase, disguised as a fee
> allowed by government mandate. I did not say that I agree or disagree,
just
> that it is indeed the premise of the lawsuite.
>
> Tom Veldhouse

If that is the premise of the lawsuit, then who ever filed the complaint
will lose ...

Bob

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I don't think you do ... here is what I have (for two lines):
> >
> > Surcharges & Fees
> > Federal Universal Service Fund 1.64
> > Federal E911 0.80
> > Federal Wireless Number Pooling And Portability 2.20
>
> <Sigh> Do you actually believe that you can read *my* bill from afar? My
bill
> dated July 6, 2003, says (for 3 lines, business-class but individually
liable):
>
> Taxes
> Aurora City and State Excise Tax 7.90
> Federal Tax 2.08
> Federal E911 1.20
> Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability 3.30
> Illinois State Wireless 911 Surcharge 2.25
> Surcharges & Fees
> Federal Universal Service Fund 1.41
>
Well if this is what your bill shows, then it's different than what show's
for the rest of us ...

Bob

"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:10:52 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >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 ...
>
> Huh?
>
> Sprint can charge $1,000 for a 10 minute calling plan is they wish. The
government will let
> them do it. There are no laws against it. This is the rationale for
Sprint's saying that the
> government "allows" them to charge the WLNP fee.

No, per your explanation ... it isn't. All the wireless providers were
allowed to apply the surcharge, per the government, not to change their fee
plans midstream in the contract.


> It's a straw man arguement. Anything that is
> not expressly forbidden by law, Sprint can claim that the "government
allows" them to charge -
> and make it sound like some kind of official mandate. Which it isn't.
>
Oh, I must be mistaken then. Some government agency went through the steps
to tell the wireless providers could recap their expenses from the
government mandate to initiate WNLP.

> Do you understand the point?

Yes ... I do. Apparently you don't.
>
> I personally have nothing to do with it.

And neither do I.
>
>
> >> 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.
>
>
> Because we have contracts already locking in our rates.

And your plan rates haven't changed ... have they? You have an additional
charge on your bill of $1.10 per phone, but no changes to the cost of your
plan (excluding taxes and surcharges).
>
> Thus, the lawsuits .... and judgements against Sprint.

Which judgement is that? That the customer has the option of bailing out of
the contract early?
>
> Not to mention that nobody is able to use WLNP yet.

The government has mandated that it needs to be in effect in November.

>
> >> 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?
>
>
> Life experience.

Oh, so you can't cite anything ... is that about right?
>
>
> >> 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.
>
>
> As long as they don't violate the contract or let people out for free,
everybody can charge what
> they want and the free market will sort it out.
>
> Verizon says they are going to charge 15 cents if anything. Did you miss
that cite?

No, and I quoted it earlier today, saying basically that I thought it was a
bogus number. That figure was mentioned once and only once in a speech. To
my knowledge, the only place where that number has been repeated are in the
newsgroups. No officials from any wireless provider has confirmed that cost.
>
>
> >>
> >> 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?
>
>
> Me, Verizon, well just about everybody really. Nobody has been able to
produce numbers
> requireing $1.10 per line per month starting right 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.
>
>
> They also incurred costs to gas up the company vehicles and provide health
insurance to
> employees.
>
> Companies have costs. So do customers. There's a newsflash.

Yes, but this cost was a new one, outside of the costs incurred by the
carriers. This change was ordered by the government, and since they mandated
that WLNP must take place, also said that the carriers could recap that
expense.

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> If that is the premise of the lawsuit, then who ever filed the complaint
> will lose ...

Again, while I don't have the information to make an educated decision for
myself, the information available certainly doesn't look easily dismissable,
which you are doing outright. It was pointed out that Sprint will gross
more than $100 million dollars before LNP even goes into effect. That is
not simply dismissable in my book. There may be a valid explanation for it,
but that kind of price hike can not go unaccounted for.

Tom Veldhouse

"tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Who says anyone is making a profit on this charge now?
>
> Basic math? $1.10 * 18.8 million subs come out to over $20.6 mill per
month.
> It'd be very hard to believe that Sprint will spend anywhere near the $123
> mill they'll collect in the 6 months before they're forced to offer number
> portability.

6 months? Try counting with your fingers and you'll find out it's 5 months.
>
> Then, when someone goes to take their number what will SPCS charge? $30?
> $60? $120?. Is there a limit?

I've heard some people conjecture here that there would be a cost to move
the phone number from one carrier to another. I haven't seen any official
comments or figures coming out of the wireless providers for users to jump
ship. Have you? Most likely, there won't be any additional cost, save for
cancelling the contract prematurely, if one wants to jump ship before the
contract ends.
>
> And frankly what it's called doesn't matter a flip, the cost to own a SPCS
> phone, all things being equal, went up with this new charge. And saying
that
> its for required equipment is a little disingenuous. SPCS is required to
> have transmitters that stay on frequency in order to provide the service,
> but those are included in the final price --- as should this line item be.
>
> The bottom line is that no matter the argument Sprint will lose on this
> deal --- 'cause you can't put a price on ill-will and bad PR, and Sprint
is
> using it up quickly with this little horse and pony show. All that has to
> happen is one of the big media outlets to run with this and Sprint's going
> to hemorrhage badly.

I don't think so.

> Ya, you'll be sitting here saying about how it's fair
> because it was added below the tax line, but none of it will matter
because
> you can't explain this away with logic --- because as you know logic
doesn't
> apply when the media is all over your ass.

Who says the media is all over their ass? So far, the only ones on SPCS's
ass are about 5 to 10 folks in here.
>
> As I've said before, jacking the customers around when the door is fixing
to
> open seems like incredibly bad business sense. We'll see once WLNP goes
live
> (what do you want to bet Sprint says they wont be ready) --- but give this
> things got legs, and none of it will be good for SPCS, in the long run.

I'm betting that SPCS will be one of the first ones ready. They never
squacked when this mandate came down. Not like Verizon did originally ...
>
> The funny part is that within 2 years even you'll be writing out your
> monthly check to Vzw --- after they buy what's left of SPCS at the
auction.
>
I don't think so.

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> You are absolutely right. IT'S NOT A TAX. It's listed under the category
> Taxes and Surcharges. IT'S A SURCHARGE!. It certainly isn't a rate
increase
> ...
>

Of course, you are being obtuse about this yet again ....

Tom Veldhouse

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yes, but this cost was a new one, outside of the costs incurred by the
> carriers. This change was ordered by the government, and since they
mandated
> that WLNP must take place, also said that the carriers could recap that
> expense.
>

Sure, but if they are actually making a profit on the fee ... then it is not
recompensation, but rather a rate increase ... hence the lawsuite. If they
make up the costs and immediately eliminate the fee ... then things change a
bit, but Sprint has not declared they plan to do this, or even that this fee
is temporary. If they continue to charge this for 5 years, that will be
well over $1 Billion in revenue.

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >
> > You are absolutely right. IT'S NOT A TAX. It's listed under the
category
> > Taxes and Surcharges. IT'S A SURCHARGE!. It certainly isn't a rate
> increase
> > ...
> >
>
> Of course, you are being obtuse about this yet again ....
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>
Obtuse ... no. Real world yes ... I've mentioned on a number of times that I
know a thing or two about what a rate increase is, as I've been an insurance
broker for over 20 years ...

WLNP is an extra charge, but it is not a rate increase, like some
pseudo-lawyers here would like to think.

Bob

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Yes, but this cost was a new one, outside of the costs incurred by the
> > carriers. This change was ordered by the government, and since they
> mandated
> > that WLNP must take place, also said that the carriers could recap that
> > expense.
> >
>
> Sure, but if they are actually making a profit on the fee ... then it is
not
> recompensation, but rather a rate increase ... hence the lawsuite. If
they
> make up the costs and immediately eliminate the fee ... then things change
a
> bit, but Sprint has not declared they plan to do this, or even that this
fee
> is temporary. If they continue to charge this for 5 years, that will be
> well over $1 Billion in revenue.
>
> Tom Veldhouse

I love it when you folks quote **** like this. You have no clue what the
costs of WLNP are to the carriers, or how long it's going to be changed for,
or whether a profit is going to be made ... All you people do it throw ****
on the walls and hope it will stick ... Show some cites on this ... instead
of just ranting away ...

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> Obtuse ... no. Real world yes ... I've mentioned on a number of times that
I
> know a thing or two about what a rate increase is, as I've been an
insurance
> broker for over 20 years ...

An insurance broker career buys you very little in credibility

>
> WLNP is an extra charge, but it is not a rate increase, like some
> pseudo-lawyers here would like to think.
>

It is an extra charge if it is legitimately paying for LNP. If, however,
some of this fee goes strictly to the profit margin, then it is simply an
across the board rate increase hidden in the LNP surcharge. This IS what
the lawsuite is about. You can pant all you want about it being listed
under the surcharge category so therefore it is not a rate increase. That
is exactly what Sprint wants ... assuming they are doing what they are
alledged to be doing in this lawsuite.

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
<snipped>
> It is an extra charge if it is legitimately paying for LNP. If, however,
> some of this fee goes strictly to the profit margin, then it is simply an
> across the board rate increase hidden in the LNP surcharge. This IS what
> the lawsuite is about. You can pant all you want about it being listed
> under the surcharge category so therefore it is not a rate increase. That
> is exactly what Sprint wants ... assuming they are doing what they are
> alledged to be doing in this lawsuite.
>
> Tom Veldhouse


What I have a problem is with folks like Lawrence and you, misusing the term
"Rate Increase" as this phrase has nothing to do with what a rate increase
is ...

***** about the extra surcharge all day long if you want, but get it right,
and call it a surcharge instead of a rate increase.

Bob