NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

<http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>

New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
called customer service too often.

Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they will
lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State Consumer
Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those customers $200 each
- the amount the customers would have had to pay if they had
prematurely ended their two-year contracts with the company.

The Reston, Va.-based company, with operational headquarters in
Overland Park, Kan., said it will zero out the customers' accounts
and not charge any termination fees. But Mindy Bockstein, the board's
chairwoman and executive director, said that's not enough.

"These former Sprint customers will have to purchase new phones and
incur other expenses and inconveniences if they want to continue
receiving wireless service," Bockstein said. "Sprint Nextel should do
more to improve the quality of its customer service and this is a
good place to start."

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

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

Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:18:14 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>>
>> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
>> pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
>> called customer service too often.
>>
>> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they
>> will lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State
>> Consumer Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those
>> customers $200 each - the amount the customers would have had to
>> pay if they had prematurely ended their two-year contracts with
>> the company.
>>
>> The Reston, Va.-based company, with operational headquarters in
>> Overland Park, Kan., said it will zero out the customers' accounts
>> and not charge any termination fees. But Mindy Bockstein, the
>> board's chairwoman and executive director, said that's not enough.
>>
>> "These former Sprint customers will have to purchase new phones and
>> incur other expenses and inconveniences if they want to continue
>> receiving wireless service," Bockstein said. "Sprint Nextel should
>> do more to improve the quality of its customer service and this is
>> a good place to start."
>
> This reaction seems like little more than grandstanding. Which major
> carrier isn't providing heavily subsidized phones these days?

Seems only fair that if Sprint elects to terminate early they should pay
the customer the same penalty that th customer would pay if they elected
to quit. "But that's not in the contract," you correctly point out. One
of the jobs of the Consumer Advocate is to level the playing field where
a single customer has no negotiating juice. Let's see how they prevail.
I showed up for a dental appointment one Saturday and his office was
closed. When I called them on Monday they were very apologetic. I
pointed out that had I been the no show they would have charged me so
since they were the no show they should clean my teeth for free. They
did.

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4695966b$0$9007
[email protected]:




> "But that's not in the contract," you correctly point out. One
> of the jobs of the Consumer Advocate is to level the playing field where
> a single customer has no negotiating juice. Let's see how they prevail.

They won't prevail- all Sprint has to do is point to a number of similar
instances where other carriers have unilaterally ended the contract terms
with a subscriber (think network conversions) and then cry prejudice for
being singled out.

In <[email protected]> Scott <[email protected]> writes:

>They won't prevail- all Sprint has to do is point to a number of similar
>instances where other carriers have unilaterally ended the contract terms
>with a subscriber (think network conversions) and then cry prejudice for
>being singled out.

Umm, Sprint _faced_ a class action suit when they
pulled that garbage.

There used to be an early GSM
offering by Sprint called "Sprint Spectrum".

They shut it down. Customers sued. Sprint settled
and paid off. Don't recall teh amounts, but it
was still a cost to them.


--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
[email protected]
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

danny burstein <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In <[email protected]> Scott
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>They won't prevail- all Sprint has to do is point to a number of
>>similar instances where other carriers have unilaterally ended the
>>contract terms with a subscriber (think network conversions) and then
>>cry prejudice for being singled out.
>
> Umm, Sprint _faced_ a class action suit when they
> pulled that garbage.
>
> There used to be an early GSM
> offering by Sprint called "Sprint Spectrum".
>
> They shut it down. Customers sued. Sprint settled
> and paid off. Don't recall teh amounts, but it
> was still a cost to them.
>
>

See the recent conversion of ATT Wireless and Cingular conversions from
TDMA to GSM. In that conversion, customers got letters very similar to the
ones being discussed here. "Dear Customer, we are shutting down the TDMA
network on "x date" and will no longer be providing service." No action by
the State of New York. While the Sprint Spectrum case could be considered,
the inaction by the State of New York in these other instances sets the
precedent.

Scott wrote:
> "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4695966b$0$9007
> [email protected]:
>
>
>
>
>> "But that's not in the contract," you correctly point out. One
>> of the jobs of the Consumer Advocate is to level the playing field
>> where a single customer has no negotiating juice. Let's see how
>> they prevail.
>
> They won't prevail- all Sprint has to do is point to a number of
> similar instances where other carriers have unilaterally ended the
> contract terms with a subscriber (think network conversions) and then
> cry prejudice for being singled out.

A network conversion falls under "assigns & successors" which most
contracts specify as being OK. To unilaterally terminate a customer
who's accounts are current is very different. If not liable for the
$200, which by the contract they are not, they maybe liable for other
damages. What kind? Well, let's say you had a really good plan that was
maybe grandfathered from a long time ago. If switching forced you into
paying more for the same service they might be liable for the extra
costs. Furthermore, if their plan included unlimited calling to other
Sprint customers and, because of that, they got all their friends and
family to sign up with Sprint, there may be damages for the increased
usage not just for the cancelled subscriber but for the friends and
family that now have to pay to call him. The feature set offered by
Sprint is advertised as being unique and if that's true, the sub may
have a claim for damages because he can no longer obtain those unique
services from another services (i.e. push-to-talk walkie-talkie service
on the Nextel network).

My point is that if the subsciber is in good standing, meaning bills
are paid timely and there's been no violation of the contract terms or
other binding covenants, the carrier's early termination could certainly
lead to claims for damages and legal fees from lots of angry customers.
In fact, Sprint might find it advantageous to just pay the
$200/cancelled sub if it buys them immunities from other causes of
action related to termination.

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4695abe7$0$8943
[email protected]:


>
> A network conversion falls under "assigns & successors" which most
> contracts specify as being OK.

No- that would be a merger or buyout. The same company switching
techologies does not fall under that.

> To unilaterally terminate a customer
> who's accounts are current is very different.

Whose unilaterally terminating current customers? Although Cingular and
ATT effectively did that when they shut their TDMA netwroks in some
markets.


> If not liable for the
> $200, which by the contract they are not, they maybe liable for other
> damages. What kind? Well, let's say you had a really good plan that was
> maybe grandfathered from a long time ago. If switching forced you into
> paying more for the same service they might be liable for the extra
> costs.

Once the original contract expires, there is no agreement to break. A
grandfathered plan many times indicates the lack of a current contract.

> Furthermore, if their plan included unlimited calling to other
> Sprint customers and, because of that, they got all their friends and
> family to sign up with Sprint, there may be damages for the increased
> usage not just for the cancelled subscriber but for the friends and
> family that now have to pay to call him. The feature set offered by
> Sprint is advertised as being unique and if that's true, the sub may
> have a claim for damages because he can no longer obtain those unique
> services from another services (i.e. push-to-talk walkie-talkie service
> on the Nextel network).
>
> My point is that if the subsciber is in good standing, meaning bills
> are paid timely and there's been no violation of the contract terms or
> other binding covenants, the carrier's early termination could certainly
> lead to claims for damages and legal fees from lots of angry customers.
> In fact, Sprint might find it advantageous to just pay the
> $200/cancelled sub if it buys them immunities from other causes of
> action related to termination.
>
>
>

Did you miss the part where Sprint is waiving the final balance on many of
the accounts that are going to be cancelled?

On 2007-07-12, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
><http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>
> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
> pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
> called customer service too often.
>
> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they will
> lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State Consumer
> Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those customers $200 each
> - the amount the customers would have had to pay if they had
> prematurely ended their two-year contracts with the company.

Didn't someone just suggest exactly this here in the Sprint newsgroup?

I think it's a good idea.

Paul Miner wrote:
> They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.

I can assure you that if some company not only terminated my service for
such reasons but also tried to charge me the fee the contract specifies
for *my* breaking off the relationship, it would take me about thirty
seconds to tear some lawyer away from suing his own mother for watery
soup and to sic him on that company.

--
Postulate a group whose intent is to destroy the United States from within
via anarchy and bankruptcy. The actions of the United States Congress are
completely consistent with the actions one would predict from such a group.

On 2007-07-12, clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Miner wrote:
>> They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.
>
> I can assure you that if some company not only terminated my service for
> such reasons but also tried to charge me the fee the contract specifies
> for *my* breaking off the relationship, it would take me about thirty
> seconds to tear some lawyer away from suing his own mother for watery
> soup and to sic him on that company.

If you have signed a Verizon agreement (I haven't looked at the others)
what you signed says:

AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE WILL APPLY IF YOU CHOOSE TO END YOUR SERVICE
BEFORE BECOMING A MONTH-TO-MONTH CUSTOMER, OR IF WE TERMINATE IT EARLY
FOR GOOD CAUSE.

That is, the ETF may apply if they terminate you, not just if you
terminate them. Verizon's "good cause" includes, but is not limited to,
the following:

You agree not to resell our service to someone else without our
prior written permission. You also agree your wireless phone won't
be used for any other purpose that isn't allowed by this agreement
or that's illegal. You agree that you won't install, deploy, or use
any regeneration equipment or similar mechanism (for example, a
repeater) to originate, amplify, enhance, retransmit or regenerate
a transmitted RF signal. WE CAN, WITHOUT NOTICE, LIMIT, SUSPEND, OR
END YOUR SERVICE OR ANY AGREEMENT WITH YOU FOR THIS OR ANY OTHER
GOOD CAUSE, including, but not limited to: (a) paying late more than
once in any 12 months; (b) incurring charges larger than a required
deposit or billing limit (even if we haven't yet billed the charges);
(c) harassing our employees or agents; (d) lying to us; (e) interfering
with our operations; (f) breaching this agreement; (g) "spamming," or
other abusive messaging or calling; (h) modifying your wireless phone
from its manufacturer's specifications; (i) providing credit information
we can't verify; (j) using your service in a way that adversely affects
our network or other customers; or (k) allowing anyone to tamper with
your wireless phone number.

That covers just about everything. The thing the Sprint customers are
being terminated for is probably covered by (c) or (e) (not that the
"good cause" they terminate you for needs to be listed). (h) probably
covers the things people do to their Verizon phones to restore features
that Verizon removed.

Oh, and then there's

WE EACH AGREE TO SETTLE DISPUTES (EXCEPT CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS) ONLY
BY ARBITRATION.

which kind of limits what your lawyer can threaten them with. They've
covered themselves pretty well.

Dennis Ferguson

At 12 Jul 2007 02:39:06 +0000 Paul Miner wrote:

> This reaction seems like little more than grandstanding. Which major
> carrier isn't providing heavily subsidized phones these days?

Perhaps, but to be fair, what about a Sprint Blackberry or Treo owner?
He might have paid $200-400 for his subsidized phone, and would have to
pay a similar amount to get essentially the same phone with a new carrier-
the Sprint CDMA model is incompatible with T-Mo's or Cingular's GSM, and
Verizon (like Sprint) refuses to activate phones sold by another carrier,
even if 100% compatible.

Now if Sprint is also willing to refund what a customer paid for their
high-end phone, fine, but I have a bit of a problem with this "firing
customers" idea when they're under contract. Sprint was happy to sign
them up and never gave them a customer service call limit. 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.
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.




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

Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:00:01 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-07-12, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> <http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>>>
>>> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp.
>>> to pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because
>>> they called customer service too often.
>>>
>>> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they
>>> will lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State
>>> Consumer Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those
>>> customers $200 each - the amount the customers would have had to
>>> pay if they had prematurely ended their two-year contracts with
>>> the company.
>>
>> Didn't someone just suggest exactly this here in the Sprint
>> newsgroup?
>>
>> I think it's a good idea.
>
> 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?

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. Believe me, as a business owner myself I'm all
for keeping government out of my affairs but when a business that is a
public utility takes advantage of a group of customers who have no
voice, that's when a Consumer Advocate should step in to protect those
who have no voice. Remember, judges can take any part of a contract
they feel is unfair and toss it out as "against public policy" and, by
law, any ambiguities are always interpreted against the party who wrote
the contract.

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.

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."

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]

> 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?

It's not.