NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> Sprint was happy to sign
> them up and never gave them a customer service call limit.

True, but they signed them up expecting to act somewhat close to a normal
industry customer. Nobody would expect a customer that calls 40 times more
than average. More than ten times a day (on average), month after month?
My take is that they are these folks a favor- they are obviously too stupid
to own a cell phone if they need that much help.


> If they
> want to terminate them after the contract is up, and/or stop them from
> renewing,
>
> fine, but they didn't break any rules- CS is 24/7 and free according
> to all the brochures.

And costs the business about a dollar a minute. So, I see three options for
Sprint:

1. Continue to take the loss month after month and lose millions of
dollars a month.

2. Keep the customers and simply pass the costs of serving them to every
other subscriber through price increases.

3. Get rid of the dead weight.

Only one of the three options has any benefit to the customer base.


> I better way to handle the "problem" would've been to flag the
> accounts so when they called CS about an often lodged complaint, the
> reps could just explain "we've already tried to satisfy your needs on
> this particular issue and were unable to. In the interests of
> customer service we'd like to offer you the ability to end your
> contractual commitment without any penalty should you choose to..."
>
> If CS "stonewalled" these 2000 customers with the above script, they'd
> get the message and cancel on their own.
>
>

And they still lose money taking the time to explain that.

>
>

---

› See More: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4695f669$0$3125
[email protected]:


>
> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where was
> the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?
>
>
>

Read the media articles again- they are bad customers because of their
inability to take "no" for an answer. Asking for information off somebody
else's account, continuing to call after being told multiple times that
their issue was resolved, being told that there was nothing more that
Sprint could do for them and their problem... number of calls was simply a
flag and not the sole criteria for cancellation.

It wouldn't surpise me to find that a good number of the customers
cancelled were the type that continually hounded CS for two months of free
service to compensate them for the inconvenience of having to dispute a
$1.29 directory assistance charge or some other ridiculous request.

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>
> Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:57:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service
>>>> too often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but
>>>> where was the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up
>>>> front?
>>>
>>> And what if Sprint actually screwed up their bills so much that such
>>> a level of calling was necessary and prudent?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we as consumers be able, unilaterally, to say to Sprint et
>>> al., "You are a bad business to do business with, you've proven it
>>> time and again, so our contract is null and void"?
>>
>> Of course not. If you want a contract that's written that way, start
>> your own wireless carrier and offer it.
>>
>>> Unilateral contracts are a nice concept for the corporation, but if
>>> they push on that they'll get pushed back on. "We can do anything
>>> we want, you just have to pay us money until we tell you you don't
>>> have to"--that's not a contract, that's crazy.
>>
>> Agreed, but no one was forced to agree to it, were they? That goes
>> for any of the wireless companies.
>
> I think that's why the NY Consumer Advocate is getting involved. What
> Sprint is doing is not in the contract and customers didn't agree to
> it so it's just bullying.


http://nextelonline.nextel.com/en/le...cy_popup.shtml


Our Right To Suspend Or Terminate Services

We can, without notice, suspend or terminate any Service at any time for
any reason, including, but not limited to: (a) late payment; (b)
exceeding an Account Spending Limit (“ASL”); (c) harassing/threatening
our employees or agents; (d) providing false information; (e)
interfering with our operations; (f) using/suspicion of using Services
in any manner restricted by or inconsistent with the Agreement; (g)
breaching the Agreement, including our Policies; (h) providing false,
inaccurate, dated or unverifiable identification or credit information,
or becoming insolvent or bankrupt; (i) modifying a Device from its
manufacturer specifications; or (j) if we believe the action protects
our interests, any customer's interests or our network.


I would point to (c), (e) and (j). Any one of the three applies here
and they all appear in T&C that each customer signs off on when they
start service.

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in news:46960462$0$24759
[email protected]:

>
>
> Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:37:49 -1000, "BruceR"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Miner wrote:
>>
>>>> It doesn't make any sense to me. As of a few years ago, I believe it
>>>> cost carriers over $400 to acquire a new customer and get them set
>>>> up. If you turn that around and charge customers $400+ to start a
>>>> new line of service, then yes, refund part of it if the customer is
>>>> cut loose within a certain period, but with the current business
>>>> model I see no justification at all for paying a (bad) customer to
>>>> leave. They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.
>>>
>>> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
>>> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where
>>> was the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?
>>
>> I'm not defining bad, but Sprint apparently did. I believe it refers
>> to someone who costs the company more to carry than they generate in
>> revenue.
>
> And now it will be up to the AG's and Consumer Advocates to decide if
> there definition meets muster.

I wonder what New Yourk's position is going to be if they find out that the
total number of state residents involced is fifteen or less?

>
> On the other hand, if I found it necessary to constantly call customer
> service to resolve issues, I would probably be thrilled to get a free
> early termination so I could hook up with a carrier more to my liking.
>
> I like the idea a previous poster had where a constant caller could be
> politely told, "Sir/Ma'am, we just don't seem to be able to satisfy your
> needs and expectations so we'd like to offer you the opportunity to
> switch to another carrier with no early termination fee."
>

So telling them over the phone is better than sending them a letter?

>
>

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > fine, but they didn't break any rules- CS is 24/7 and free
>> > according to all the brochures.
>>
>> And costs the business about a dollar a minute. So, I see three
>> options for Sprint:
>>
>> 1. Continue to take the loss month after month and lose millions of
>> dollars a month.
>
> Wait a minute. What about the customers that DON'T call customer
> service?
>
> Sprint is obligated to average things out. It sounds like you're
> defending Sprint's desire not to have to take the bad with the good.

Read some of my other posts- call volume was not the sole criteria for
cancellation.

> They're perfectly happy to take no calls from many people;
> statistically, they're going to get some calls from most people, and
> many calls from some people.
>
> Sounds like they're just trying to chop off the bottom of the bell
> curve, hoping that the bell curve will stand by itself without that
> bottom part. I have news for them: someone will always be at the
> bottom of the bell curve. Sprint will always have "customers that
> call the most". The only difference is, "most" will move to a
> different point--at which point Sprint is then free to cut THEM off,
> too?
>
>

We're talking about less than .002% of their total customer base here-
about 1 out of every 50,000 customers. An average of around 20
customers for every state in the union. Everybody is jumping on this as
if millions of customers are effected and that the behavior of this
handful of customers has to be close to normal. Some of them were
calling an average of 15-20 times a day for months on end. Sprint was
obviously not able to meet their needs or expectations- what would
expect Sprint to do?


Wanna bet that Verizon unilaterally cancels more customers than that in
a month for data use violations? Or that AT&T will unilaterally cancel
more service than that as they shut down the remaining TDMA towers on
the network?


I'm actually a little disappointed in some here (including you, Elmo)
that have focused on the call volume and perverted it into the sole
reason these customers were cancelled. Much more information has been
reported than that, but it goes unmentioned. I wonder how long some of
you would survive if put into the situation of having to listen to the
same ***** from the same person 10-15 times a day for a couple of months
and having to just allow it to continue. You'll notice that I hav emade
no attempt to defend Sprint's care mechanism- that would be absurd. But
jeez- you all act like this business decision is the most heinous crime
committed against the flock of sheep known as today's consumer.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Read the media articles again- they are bad customers because of
>> their inability to take "no" for an answer. Asking for information
>> off somebody else's account, continuing to call after being told
>> multiple times that their issue was resolved,
>
> Oh, now, come on. It's the goal of any customer service rep to get
> off the phone; they are measured by that. And with cell companies,
> the companies themselves would look at a black page and say, "That's
> white"--and then claim that "the issue is resolved, we said it was
> white".
>
> Don't tell me that the cell company claiming that "the issue was
> resolved" has any credibility in this day and age. **** them.
>
>

OK- at least we now see your agenda. Now I understand your approach. It
probably pains you to see a cellular carrier with the balls to take the
same attitude.

On 2007-07-12, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in

> True, but they signed them up expecting to act somewhat close to a normal
> industry customer. Nobody would expect a customer that calls 40 times more
> than average. More than ten times a day (on average), month after month?
> My take is that they are these folks a favor- they are obviously too stupid
> to own a cell phone if they need that much help.

Well, the real question is whether the contract provides for termination of
a customer who does that kind of thing.

> Only one of the three options has any benefit to the customer base.

Agreed.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Don't tell me that the cell company claiming that "the issue was
>> > resolved" has any credibility in this day and age. **** them.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> OK- at least we now see your agenda. Now I understand your approach.
>> It probably pains you to see a cellular carrier with the balls to
>> take the same attitude.
>
> no, that's not it at all. They started the attitude: "**** you, give
> us money. No, we can't tell you how much from month to month; we'll
> just send you a random number and expect you to pay it.


Random number? C'mon now.


> And don't
> call us. And that random number goes up all the time because <boo
> hoo!> all those government regulations we have to abide by, so we just
> pass the cost on to you and call it "regulatory cost recovery"--even
> though it's just a cost of doing business, and to tell you that your
> plan costs $40/month is legit even though you can't pay any less than
> $46 plus tax beacause of these "fees" of ours.

And the fact that it is the most heavily taxed indistry around has no
bearing? How many states and communities have recently levied taxes of
up to 5% on cell bills because they see the cash cow potential in it?

> And we're not
> obligated to provide service, either; if it doesn't work, if your
> calls drop--too bad, **** off and pay us our money.

And yet you can call Sprint and get credit for dropped calls without
even talkint to a person. Hmmmmm.

> And if you DARE
> to call ANY directory assistance number, even one that isn't ours?
> We'll still charge you an EXTRA buck and a half for the privilege of
> getting ANYONE'S directory assistance over our cell frequencies. Now
> **** off and pay us our money."
>
> THOSE cell phone companies?
>
> It's not difficult to have an attitude against them. It was
> INEVITABLE that one of them would do something to cross the line.

So, would that be Verizon for cutting off customers without notice for
data violations, or AT&T for moving from TDMA to GSM and nto giving a
crap about those that didn't want to switch with them? This is far from
the first examp[le and strangely enough, the one affecting the least
number of customers. It's hilarious to see the outrage here when other
carriers (see above) did much worse with a much larger impact on people.
Where was your righteous outrage then? Where was the media then? The
truth- the media has no clue what is going on and only picked up on this
because of a bulletin board post. Interestingly enough, the great
majority of major media outlets have made it no more than a quick
byline.

>
> You can argue that it's not really crossing the line, but perception
> is reality--and the news organizations have decided to make shove this
> perception into reality as hard as they can, and force the cell phone
> company in question to eat ****.
>
> And I don't mind it one bit. **** them, pay the people their early
> termination fee.
>
>

> Read the media articles again- they are bad customers because of their
> inability to take "no" for an answer. ... continuing to call after being
> told multiple times that
> their issue was resolved,

Evidently, you haven't experienced having a billing/plan problem resurfacing
after the CS folks assure you that the problem is resolved. I have, on
several occasions, and it sometimes takes many calls to get the simplest
thing corrected. After this happens, you learn to distrust anything that
you are told from one or two agents, and may find yourself calling back
three, four, or even five times to try to get a consensus from them that the
problem is resolved. The penalty of not doing this, as I have found out,
can be substantial, such as when you try to get roaming added to your plan
before you go on vacation, only to find out that all the calls you made on
your vacation are billed at roaming rates.
I'm in the camp that says to spcs: "FIX YOUR CS SYSTEM SO WE DON'T HAVE TO
CALL SO MUCH!"

In article <[email protected]>,
"FloydinTampa" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Read the media articles again- they are bad customers because of their
> > inability to take "no" for an answer. ... continuing to call after being
> > told multiple times that
> > their issue was resolved,
>
> Evidently, you haven't experienced having a billing/plan problem resurfacing
> after the CS folks assure you that the problem is resolved. I have, on
> several occasions, and it sometimes takes many calls to get the simplest
> thing corrected. After this happens, you learn to distrust anything that
> you are told from one or two agents, and may find yourself calling back
> three, four, or even five times to try to get a consensus from them that the
> problem is resolved. The penalty of not doing this, as I have found out,
> can be substantial, such as when you try to get roaming added to your plan
> before you go on vacation, only to find out that all the calls you made on
> your vacation are billed at roaming rates.
> I'm in the camp that says to spcs: "FIX YOUR CS SYSTEM SO WE DON'T HAVE TO
> CALL SO MUCH!"
>
>

What about navas called CS multiple times just to find out how long was
the average wait to get a live rep?

At 12 Jul 2007 19:16:00 -0500 Scott wrote:

> I wonder how long some of
> you would survive if put into the situation of having to listen to the
> same ***** from the same person 10-15 times a day for a couple of
months
> and having to just allow it to continue.

What make you think we're not married? ;-)


> You'll notice that I hav emade
> no attempt to defend Sprint's care mechanism- that would be absurd.
But
> jeez- you all act like this business decision is the most heinous crime
> committed against the flock of sheep known as today's consumer.


I'm mostly on your side- I'd let them go as well. I just think they
could've done it with a little more diplomacy.

Although, there's more than a little irony that the carrier noted for the
weakest customer service is the one terminating customers for overusing
customer service! ;-)




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

At 12 Jul 2007 18:58:32 -0500 Scott wrote:

> So telling them over the phone is better than sending them a letter?

No, but letting it be the _customer's_ choice to leave, rather than being
forced by Sprint, would be a bettr outcome politically. I suspect the
vast majority would've opted to leave voluntarily, and Sprint would have
the desired result with no negative press (heck, it would've been easy to
spin it positively- the story would be "Sprint releases 2000 unsatisfied
customers without penalty" instead of "Sprint terminates 2000 customers
who complain too much."

Again, like you, I agree that Sprint is making the right move. I just
think they could've handled it better.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


>
> I don't disagree. I got caught in the Cingular blue/orange thing, and
> I still have a bad taste in my mouth.
>
> The point is, some things--through whatever set of circumstances--just
> bubble to the top like this, while others don't. That's just life, or
> haven't you noticed?
>
> It was inevitable that SOMETHING bubbled to the top, even if other,
> more egregious things managed to stay hidden.
>
> Now I'm seeing reports that lawmakers are taking an interest in cell
> providers--more specifically, at the spectrum and public access to
> it--at a different level:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../07/11/AR20070
> 71 100698.html
>
>

All good points, but don't too excited about the link- something like that
has happened every time a carrier has made the news.

> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where was
> the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?

They're a "bad" customer because at that level they are obviously trying to
game the system. Let's be real. There's dozens of web sites out there
sharing techniques:

- how to get the "employee referral" pricing when the only employee you know
is the guy at the Sprint store who is trying to sell you a phone
- how to get the "loyalty discount" when you are a brand-new customer
- direct telephone extensions for the retention department and other
internal groups
- actual discount codes CSR reps can put into their system
- scripts to use to get reps to cave in
- ways to cause problems in order to have something to complain about
- how to get "dropped call" credits by the bushel

and so on and so forth. Every one of them tells you, "Don't give up. Keep
calling until you find the one rep who will give you the credit."

It's not about customers trying to resolve legitimate problems. It's about
scam artists and the sport they have with each other to get the best
pricing. By all accounts, Sprint has mailed 1,000 of these letters. Let's
see, they have 20 million subscribers? That's firing the worst 0.005% of
customers. I have *no* trouble believing they deserved it.

And, on the off chance someone did have a legitimate reason to be calling so
much, they provided a telephone number where you could talk to a real human
being about it. Apparently -- read consumerist.com -- one guy did call in.
They didn't stonewall him; they looked up his record and reversed their
decision.

Mindy Bockstein, the NY agency director, is simply practicing demagoguery
here for her own selfish ends, not too different from that prosecutor in the
unfortunate Duke incident.

Bill Marriott wrote:
>> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
>> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where
>> was the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?
>
> They're a "bad" customer because at that level they are obviously
> trying to game the system. Let's be real. There's dozens of web sites
> out there sharing techniques:
>
> - how to get the "employee referral" pricing when the only employee
> you know is the guy at the Sprint store who is trying to sell you a
> phone - how to get the "loyalty discount" when you are a brand-new
> customer
> - direct telephone extensions for the retention department and other
> internal groups
> - actual discount codes CSR reps can put into their system
> - scripts to use to get reps to cave in
> - ways to cause problems in order to have something to complain about
> - how to get "dropped call" credits by the bushel
>
> and so on and so forth. Every one of them tells you, "Don't give up.
> Keep calling until you find the one rep who will give you the credit."
>
> It's not about customers trying to resolve legitimate problems. It's
> about scam artists and the sport they have with each other to get the
> best pricing. By all accounts, Sprint has mailed 1,000 of these
> letters. Let's see, they have 20 million subscribers? That's firing
> the worst 0.005% of customers. I have *no* trouble believing they
> deserved it.
> And, on the off chance someone did have a legitimate reason to be
> calling so much, they provided a telephone number where you could
> talk to a real human being about it. Apparently -- read
> consumerist.com -- one guy did call in. They didn't stonewall him;
> they looked up his record and reversed their decision.
>
> Mindy Bockstein, the NY agency director, is simply practicing
> demagoguery here for her own selfish ends, not too different from
> that prosecutor in the unfortunate Duke incident.

All well and good but they could just drop them at the expiration of the
contract. A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
Regardless of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an
unbalance in the contract that should be rectified.