Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    dcnxtl
    Guest
    1/NEXTEL OFFERED 600 MINUTES ANY MINUTES WHEN I FIRST SIGNED UP WITH
    NEXTEL FOR NATIONAL INSTANT DIRECT CONNECT 500 (N500)IN DECEMBER 2003.
    INFACT, ONLY 500 ANY TIME MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN ALL OF MY
    INVOICES(JUST NOW RECONGIZED) SINCE THE SERVICE HAS ACTIVATED.

    2/TO UPGRADE MY SERVICE ON 07/18/04, NEXTEL HAS PERFORMED THE
    FOLLOWING:

    A-THE ADD-ON PHONE WAS INSTALLED WITH NS800 (PRIMARY SERVICE PLAN WITH
    800 SHARED ANY MINUTES, ALTHOUGH IT WAS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
    ADD-ON UNIT SHOULD BE THE SECONDARY ONE.

    B-THE FIRST AND PRIMARY PHONE WAS CONVERTED FROM N500 TO NS800A, AN
    ACTUAL SERVICE DE-GRADING SERVICE FOR A PRE-EXISTENT PHONE.

    IT IS NOT EASY FOR THE MISTAKE TO HAPPEN SINCE THE PROCESS TOOK FOUR
    INVOLMENTS: THE LOCAL DEALER, NEXTEL SERVICE PERSONEL, AND THEIR
    SYSTEMS. THE ANSWER CAN ONLY BE FOUND FROM NEXTEL GUIDE LINE WHICH
    HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO ITS AUTHORIZED DEALER.


    3/IN THE 08/17/04 INVOICE, NEXTEL HAS NO EXPLAINATION HOW IT APPLIED
    THE SERVICE PREPAYMENT FOR THE FIRST PHONE??? AND IF NEXTEL HAS
    ASSUMED THAT THE PREPAYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE AUGUST
    INVOICE, IT SHALL NOT BE A CORRECT ASSUMPTION BECAUSE THE CORRECT FEE
    FOR THE FIRST PHONE SHOULD BE THE COMBINED PRORATED AMOUNT OF N500 AND
    NS800. WOULD THAT BE THE REASON FOR NOT TO MENTION ABOUT THIS PREPAID
    FEE???

    4/THE SECOND PHONE WAS BILLED UPON NS800 (PRORATED) WITH 16 BILLABLE
    MINUTES FOR 26 DAYS INTO THE BILLING CYCLE, 07/18/04-08/12/04 WHILE
    ONLY 500 MINUTES WERE ALLOWED FOR THE 1ST PHONE WITH THE EXTRA MINUTES
    BIILED AT $.40, ALTHOUGH, ACCORDING TO NEXTEL ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE, I
    WAS ASSUMED TO PAID BOTH N800 AND N500 FOR THE ENTIRED BILLING
    CYCLE???

    5/UPON THE TELEPHONE CONTACT ON 07/29/04, "IT IS THE COMPANY POLICY".
    WAS THE PROVIDED ANSWER FOR MY QUESTION: WHY I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE
    SERVICE WHICH HAD NOT YET STARTED???

    6/I CAN HARDLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE BILLING SYSTEM, ONCE AGAIN, APPLIED
    THE ADVANCE FEES FOR THE VOICE MAIL AND CALLER ID SERVICES ON THE
    FIRST AND PRE-EXISTENCE PHONE SINCE , SYSTEMATICALLY, ADVANCED FEES
    WOULD BE THE "ONLY" POSIBILITY FOR NEW SERVICES???

    7/NEXTEL HAS ALWAYS BILLED ME $70 FOR PHONE ACTIVATION, ALTHOUGH ONLY
    $35 ADVISED. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO SEPARTED $35 CHARGED ITEMS, WITH
    "ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT CREDITS AND CHARGES" WAS BOTH USED AS THE ITEM
    DESCRIPTION FOR THE FISRT AND THE SECTION TITTLE FOR THE SECOND ONES.
    RESPONDING TO MY QUESTION, NEXTEL ISSUED A CREDIT FOR MY JANUARY 2004
    INVOICE. AND NOW, WITH THE SECOND PHONE ADDED, NEXTEL HAS DIFFERENTLY
    EXPLAINED THAT ONE OF THE CHARGES WAS FOR UP-GRADING THE FIRST PHONE,
    ALTHOUGH BOTH CHARGES WERE GROUPED TOGETHER IN THE SECOND PHONE
    BILLING PORTION??? WITH THE SECTION HEADER AND ITEM DESCRIPTION OF
    THE CHARGES ARE INTERCHANGALBE, THEY ARE CONFUSED ENOUGH TO OVER LOOK
    IF ONE WERE THE SUMMARY OF THE OTHER. IN ADDITION, I HAVE FURTHER
    CONCERNS ABOUT THESE CHARGES. ONE OF THEM WAS PRESENTED BY USING THE
    SMALEST FONTS (4 PIXELS) AND WELL OFF ALIGNED POSITIONED, WHICH
    RESPECTS TO OTHER CHARGES. WHY NEXTEL ONLY INDICATES $35 "ACCOUNT
    LEVEL EQUIPMENT CHARGE" IN THE FINAL INVOICE SUMMAY, WHILE THE TOTAL
    IS $70???

    8/THE PERCENTAGES OF "FEES NEXTEL ELECTS TO COLLECT" SEEM
    INCONSISTENT. THEY VARRY IN UNDETERMINATE DIRECTIONS FOR DIFFERENT
    MONTHS.

    FOR EXAMPLE, FOLLWING ARE THE FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERVICE ASSESSMENT
    FEES IN PERCENT FOR THE CORRESPONDING MONTHS:

    JAN04 MAY04 AUG04
    1.138 1.087 1.124

    PARTICUARLY, THE COLLECTED PERCENTAGES COULD BE DIFFERENT FOR EXACTLY
    SAME ITEMS. WITRH THE APPREVIATED DESCRIPTIONS, THE FOLLOWING
    NUMBERS WERE FOUND IN THE 01/17/04 INVOICE FOR TWO DIFFERENT "SUMARY
    OF CHARGES" SECTIONS(INPERCENTAGE):

    SET SHCC SUA FUA(APPREVIATIONS OF THE DEXCRIPTIONS)
    ..21 2.7 1.2 1.138 (FOR ACTIVATION FEE TOTAL)
    ..17 2.2 1.1 1.087 (FOR USAGE AND SERVICE FEE TOTAL)

    9/DUE TO NEXTEL EXCESSIVELY COMPUTING METHOD, $530.46 IS THE AMOUNT
    ASKED IN MY 08/17/04 INVOICE, APPROXIMATELY TWICE OF THE EXPECTED
    AMOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TAXES AND REGULATORY FEES TOTAL IS ALSO
    EXCESSIVE.

    SO FAR, NEXTEL HAS SENT ME NOTICE, THREATENING TO RESTRICT MY SERVICE
    AND A LATE CHARGE ADDED IN THE 09/17/04 INVOICE. I DO NOT ACCEPT NOR
    SHOULD I BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELINQUENCY SINCE THERE HAS NNOT BEEN
    ANY RESOLUTION FOR MY MENTIONED CONCERNS, AFTER ONE TELEPHONE CONTACT
    AND TWO RELATING EMAILS. FURTHERMORE, DUE TO NOTES MARKED ON THE
    INVOICES, NEXTEL HAS NOT PROVIVED ME COPIES OF THE INVOICE VIA WEB
    REQUEST, ABOUT 8 WEEKS AGO, BESIDES THE AUTO-RESPONSE OF REQUEST
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, THE ONES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO BE FURNISHED BY SOME OF
    YOUR REQUEST. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WAIT LONGER FOR NEXTEL. I ONLY
    CAN GO WITH WHAT I HAVE.



    See More: I would suggest you all be cautious about nextel invoice, unbelievable




  2. #2
    MichiganHotBear
    Guest

    Re: I would suggest you all be cautious about nextel invoice, unbelievable


    "dcnxtl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 1/NEXTEL OFFERED 600 MINUTES ANY MINUTES WHEN I FIRST SIGNED UP WITH
    > NEXTEL FOR NATIONAL INSTANT DIRECT CONNECT 500 (N500)IN DECEMBER 2003.
    > INFACT, ONLY 500 ANY TIME MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN ALL OF MY
    > INVOICES(JUST NOW RECONGIZED) SINCE THE SERVICE HAS ACTIVATED.
    >
    > 2/TO UPGRADE MY SERVICE ON 07/18/04, NEXTEL HAS PERFORMED THE
    > FOLLOWING:
    >
    > A-THE ADD-ON PHONE WAS INSTALLED WITH NS800 (PRIMARY SERVICE PLAN WITH
    > 800 SHARED ANY MINUTES, ALTHOUGH IT WAS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
    > ADD-ON UNIT SHOULD BE THE SECONDARY ONE.
    >
    > B-THE FIRST AND PRIMARY PHONE WAS CONVERTED FROM N500 TO NS800A, AN
    > ACTUAL SERVICE DE-GRADING SERVICE FOR A PRE-EXISTENT PHONE.
    >
    > IT IS NOT EASY FOR THE MISTAKE TO HAPPEN SINCE THE PROCESS TOOK FOUR
    > INVOLMENTS: THE LOCAL DEALER, NEXTEL SERVICE PERSONEL, AND THEIR
    > SYSTEMS. THE ANSWER CAN ONLY BE FOUND FROM NEXTEL GUIDE LINE WHICH
    > HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO ITS AUTHORIZED DEALER.
    >
    >
    > 3/IN THE 08/17/04 INVOICE, NEXTEL HAS NO EXPLAINATION HOW IT APPLIED
    > THE SERVICE PREPAYMENT FOR THE FIRST PHONE??? AND IF NEXTEL HAS
    > ASSUMED THAT THE PREPAYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE AUGUST
    > INVOICE, IT SHALL NOT BE A CORRECT ASSUMPTION BECAUSE THE CORRECT FEE
    > FOR THE FIRST PHONE SHOULD BE THE COMBINED PRORATED AMOUNT OF N500 AND
    > NS800. WOULD THAT BE THE REASON FOR NOT TO MENTION ABOUT THIS PREPAID
    > FEE???
    >
    > 4/THE SECOND PHONE WAS BILLED UPON NS800 (PRORATED) WITH 16 BILLABLE
    > MINUTES FOR 26 DAYS INTO THE BILLING CYCLE, 07/18/04-08/12/04 WHILE
    > ONLY 500 MINUTES WERE ALLOWED FOR THE 1ST PHONE WITH THE EXTRA MINUTES
    > BIILED AT $.40, ALTHOUGH, ACCORDING TO NEXTEL ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE, I
    > WAS ASSUMED TO PAID BOTH N800 AND N500 FOR THE ENTIRED BILLING
    > CYCLE???
    >
    > 5/UPON THE TELEPHONE CONTACT ON 07/29/04, "IT IS THE COMPANY POLICY".
    > WAS THE PROVIDED ANSWER FOR MY QUESTION: WHY I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE
    > SERVICE WHICH HAD NOT YET STARTED???
    >
    > 6/I CAN HARDLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE BILLING SYSTEM, ONCE AGAIN, APPLIED
    > THE ADVANCE FEES FOR THE VOICE MAIL AND CALLER ID SERVICES ON THE
    > FIRST AND PRE-EXISTENCE PHONE SINCE , SYSTEMATICALLY, ADVANCED FEES
    > WOULD BE THE "ONLY" POSIBILITY FOR NEW SERVICES???
    >
    > 7/NEXTEL HAS ALWAYS BILLED ME $70 FOR PHONE ACTIVATION, ALTHOUGH ONLY
    > $35 ADVISED. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO SEPARTED $35 CHARGED ITEMS, WITH
    > "ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT CREDITS AND CHARGES" WAS BOTH USED AS THE ITEM
    > DESCRIPTION FOR THE FISRT AND THE SECTION TITTLE FOR THE SECOND ONES.
    > RESPONDING TO MY QUESTION, NEXTEL ISSUED A CREDIT FOR MY JANUARY 2004
    > INVOICE. AND NOW, WITH THE SECOND PHONE ADDED, NEXTEL HAS DIFFERENTLY
    > EXPLAINED THAT ONE OF THE CHARGES WAS FOR UP-GRADING THE FIRST PHONE,
    > ALTHOUGH BOTH CHARGES WERE GROUPED TOGETHER IN THE SECOND PHONE
    > BILLING PORTION??? WITH THE SECTION HEADER AND ITEM DESCRIPTION OF
    > THE CHARGES ARE INTERCHANGALBE, THEY ARE CONFUSED ENOUGH TO OVER LOOK
    > IF ONE WERE THE SUMMARY OF THE OTHER. IN ADDITION, I HAVE FURTHER
    > CONCERNS ABOUT THESE CHARGES. ONE OF THEM WAS PRESENTED BY USING THE
    > SMALEST FONTS (4 PIXELS) AND WELL OFF ALIGNED POSITIONED, WHICH
    > RESPECTS TO OTHER CHARGES. WHY NEXTEL ONLY INDICATES $35 "ACCOUNT
    > LEVEL EQUIPMENT CHARGE" IN THE FINAL INVOICE SUMMAY, WHILE THE TOTAL
    > IS $70???
    >
    > 8/THE PERCENTAGES OF "FEES NEXTEL ELECTS TO COLLECT" SEEM
    > INCONSISTENT. THEY VARRY IN UNDETERMINATE DIRECTIONS FOR DIFFERENT
    > MONTHS.
    >
    > FOR EXAMPLE, FOLLWING ARE THE FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERVICE ASSESSMENT
    > FEES IN PERCENT FOR THE CORRESPONDING MONTHS:
    >
    > JAN04 MAY04 AUG04
    > 1.138 1.087 1.124
    >
    > PARTICUARLY, THE COLLECTED PERCENTAGES COULD BE DIFFERENT FOR EXACTLY
    > SAME ITEMS. WITRH THE APPREVIATED DESCRIPTIONS, THE FOLLOWING
    > NUMBERS WERE FOUND IN THE 01/17/04 INVOICE FOR TWO DIFFERENT "SUMARY
    > OF CHARGES" SECTIONS(INPERCENTAGE):
    >
    > SET SHCC SUA FUA(APPREVIATIONS OF THE DEXCRIPTIONS)
    > .21 2.7 1.2 1.138 (FOR ACTIVATION FEE TOTAL)
    > .17 2.2 1.1 1.087 (FOR USAGE AND SERVICE FEE TOTAL)
    >
    > 9/DUE TO NEXTEL EXCESSIVELY COMPUTING METHOD, $530.46 IS THE AMOUNT
    > ASKED IN MY 08/17/04 INVOICE, APPROXIMATELY TWICE OF THE EXPECTED
    > AMOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TAXES AND REGULATORY FEES TOTAL IS ALSO
    > EXCESSIVE.
    >
    > SO FAR, NEXTEL HAS SENT ME NOTICE, THREATENING TO RESTRICT MY SERVICE
    > AND A LATE CHARGE ADDED IN THE 09/17/04 INVOICE. I DO NOT ACCEPT NOR
    > SHOULD I BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELINQUENCY SINCE THERE HAS NNOT BEEN
    > ANY RESOLUTION FOR MY MENTIONED CONCERNS, AFTER ONE TELEPHONE CONTACT
    > AND TWO RELATING EMAILS. FURTHERMORE, DUE TO NOTES MARKED ON THE
    > INVOICES, NEXTEL HAS NOT PROVIVED ME COPIES OF THE INVOICE VIA WEB
    > REQUEST, ABOUT 8 WEEKS AGO, BESIDES THE AUTO-RESPONSE OF REQUEST
    > ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, THE ONES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO BE FURNISHED BY SOME OF
    > YOUR REQUEST. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WAIT LONGER FOR NEXTEL. I ONLY
    > CAN GO WITH WHAT I HAVE.


    When you write a message that is not in all capital letters, then maybe I'll
    consider reading it.






  3. #3
    Scooterflex
    Guest

    Re: I would suggest you all be cautious about nextel invoice, unbelievable

    Same here... I tried to read it but gave up atfter the niddle of the second
    paragraph.

    "MichiganHotBear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "dcnxtl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > 1/NEXTEL OFFERED 600 MINUTES ANY MINUTES WHEN I FIRST SIGNED UP WITH
    > > NEXTEL FOR NATIONAL INSTANT DIRECT CONNECT 500 (N500)IN DECEMBER 2003.
    > > INFACT, ONLY 500 ANY TIME MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN ALL OF MY
    > > INVOICES(JUST NOW RECONGIZED) SINCE THE SERVICE HAS ACTIVATED.
    > >
    > > 2/TO UPGRADE MY SERVICE ON 07/18/04, NEXTEL HAS PERFORMED THE
    > > FOLLOWING:
    > >
    > > A-THE ADD-ON PHONE WAS INSTALLED WITH NS800 (PRIMARY SERVICE PLAN WITH
    > > 800 SHARED ANY MINUTES, ALTHOUGH IT WAS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
    > > ADD-ON UNIT SHOULD BE THE SECONDARY ONE.
    > >
    > > B-THE FIRST AND PRIMARY PHONE WAS CONVERTED FROM N500 TO NS800A, AN
    > > ACTUAL SERVICE DE-GRADING SERVICE FOR A PRE-EXISTENT PHONE.
    > >
    > > IT IS NOT EASY FOR THE MISTAKE TO HAPPEN SINCE THE PROCESS TOOK FOUR
    > > INVOLMENTS: THE LOCAL DEALER, NEXTEL SERVICE PERSONEL, AND THEIR
    > > SYSTEMS. THE ANSWER CAN ONLY BE FOUND FROM NEXTEL GUIDE LINE WHICH
    > > HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO ITS AUTHORIZED DEALER.
    > >
    > >
    > > 3/IN THE 08/17/04 INVOICE, NEXTEL HAS NO EXPLAINATION HOW IT APPLIED
    > > THE SERVICE PREPAYMENT FOR THE FIRST PHONE??? AND IF NEXTEL HAS
    > > ASSUMED THAT THE PREPAYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE AUGUST
    > > INVOICE, IT SHALL NOT BE A CORRECT ASSUMPTION BECAUSE THE CORRECT FEE
    > > FOR THE FIRST PHONE SHOULD BE THE COMBINED PRORATED AMOUNT OF N500 AND
    > > NS800. WOULD THAT BE THE REASON FOR NOT TO MENTION ABOUT THIS PREPAID
    > > FEE???
    > >
    > > 4/THE SECOND PHONE WAS BILLED UPON NS800 (PRORATED) WITH 16 BILLABLE
    > > MINUTES FOR 26 DAYS INTO THE BILLING CYCLE, 07/18/04-08/12/04 WHILE
    > > ONLY 500 MINUTES WERE ALLOWED FOR THE 1ST PHONE WITH THE EXTRA MINUTES
    > > BIILED AT $.40, ALTHOUGH, ACCORDING TO NEXTEL ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE, I
    > > WAS ASSUMED TO PAID BOTH N800 AND N500 FOR THE ENTIRED BILLING
    > > CYCLE???
    > >
    > > 5/UPON THE TELEPHONE CONTACT ON 07/29/04, "IT IS THE COMPANY POLICY".
    > > WAS THE PROVIDED ANSWER FOR MY QUESTION: WHY I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE
    > > SERVICE WHICH HAD NOT YET STARTED???
    > >
    > > 6/I CAN HARDLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE BILLING SYSTEM, ONCE AGAIN, APPLIED
    > > THE ADVANCE FEES FOR THE VOICE MAIL AND CALLER ID SERVICES ON THE
    > > FIRST AND PRE-EXISTENCE PHONE SINCE , SYSTEMATICALLY, ADVANCED FEES
    > > WOULD BE THE "ONLY" POSIBILITY FOR NEW SERVICES???
    > >
    > > 7/NEXTEL HAS ALWAYS BILLED ME $70 FOR PHONE ACTIVATION, ALTHOUGH ONLY
    > > $35 ADVISED. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO SEPARTED $35 CHARGED ITEMS, WITH
    > > "ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT CREDITS AND CHARGES" WAS BOTH USED AS THE ITEM
    > > DESCRIPTION FOR THE FISRT AND THE SECTION TITTLE FOR THE SECOND ONES.
    > > RESPONDING TO MY QUESTION, NEXTEL ISSUED A CREDIT FOR MY JANUARY 2004
    > > INVOICE. AND NOW, WITH THE SECOND PHONE ADDED, NEXTEL HAS DIFFERENTLY
    > > EXPLAINED THAT ONE OF THE CHARGES WAS FOR UP-GRADING THE FIRST PHONE,
    > > ALTHOUGH BOTH CHARGES WERE GROUPED TOGETHER IN THE SECOND PHONE
    > > BILLING PORTION??? WITH THE SECTION HEADER AND ITEM DESCRIPTION OF
    > > THE CHARGES ARE INTERCHANGALBE, THEY ARE CONFUSED ENOUGH TO OVER LOOK
    > > IF ONE WERE THE SUMMARY OF THE OTHER. IN ADDITION, I HAVE FURTHER
    > > CONCERNS ABOUT THESE CHARGES. ONE OF THEM WAS PRESENTED BY USING THE
    > > SMALEST FONTS (4 PIXELS) AND WELL OFF ALIGNED POSITIONED, WHICH
    > > RESPECTS TO OTHER CHARGES. WHY NEXTEL ONLY INDICATES $35 "ACCOUNT
    > > LEVEL EQUIPMENT CHARGE" IN THE FINAL INVOICE SUMMAY, WHILE THE TOTAL
    > > IS $70???
    > >
    > > 8/THE PERCENTAGES OF "FEES NEXTEL ELECTS TO COLLECT" SEEM
    > > INCONSISTENT. THEY VARRY IN UNDETERMINATE DIRECTIONS FOR DIFFERENT
    > > MONTHS.
    > >
    > > FOR EXAMPLE, FOLLWING ARE THE FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERVICE ASSESSMENT
    > > FEES IN PERCENT FOR THE CORRESPONDING MONTHS:
    > >
    > > JAN04 MAY04 AUG04
    > > 1.138 1.087 1.124
    > >
    > > PARTICUARLY, THE COLLECTED PERCENTAGES COULD BE DIFFERENT FOR EXACTLY
    > > SAME ITEMS. WITRH THE APPREVIATED DESCRIPTIONS, THE FOLLOWING
    > > NUMBERS WERE FOUND IN THE 01/17/04 INVOICE FOR TWO DIFFERENT "SUMARY
    > > OF CHARGES" SECTIONS(INPERCENTAGE):
    > >
    > > SET SHCC SUA FUA(APPREVIATIONS OF THE DEXCRIPTIONS)
    > > .21 2.7 1.2 1.138 (FOR ACTIVATION FEE TOTAL)
    > > .17 2.2 1.1 1.087 (FOR USAGE AND SERVICE FEE TOTAL)
    > >
    > > 9/DUE TO NEXTEL EXCESSIVELY COMPUTING METHOD, $530.46 IS THE AMOUNT
    > > ASKED IN MY 08/17/04 INVOICE, APPROXIMATELY TWICE OF THE EXPECTED
    > > AMOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TAXES AND REGULATORY FEES TOTAL IS ALSO
    > > EXCESSIVE.
    > >
    > > SO FAR, NEXTEL HAS SENT ME NOTICE, THREATENING TO RESTRICT MY SERVICE
    > > AND A LATE CHARGE ADDED IN THE 09/17/04 INVOICE. I DO NOT ACCEPT NOR
    > > SHOULD I BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELINQUENCY SINCE THERE HAS NNOT BEEN
    > > ANY RESOLUTION FOR MY MENTIONED CONCERNS, AFTER ONE TELEPHONE CONTACT
    > > AND TWO RELATING EMAILS. FURTHERMORE, DUE TO NOTES MARKED ON THE
    > > INVOICES, NEXTEL HAS NOT PROVIVED ME COPIES OF THE INVOICE VIA WEB
    > > REQUEST, ABOUT 8 WEEKS AGO, BESIDES THE AUTO-RESPONSE OF REQUEST
    > > ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, THE ONES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO BE FURNISHED BY SOME OF
    > > YOUR REQUEST. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WAIT LONGER FOR NEXTEL. I ONLY
    > > CAN GO WITH WHAT I HAVE.

    >
    > When you write a message that is not in all capital letters, then maybe

    I'll
    > consider reading it.
    >
    >
    >






  4. #4
    mjohns2
    Guest

    Re: I would suggest you all be cautious about nextel invoice, unbelievable

    I read up to "INFACT"


    "Scooterflex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Same here... I tried to read it but gave up atfter the niddle of the
    > second
    > paragraph.
    >
    > "MichiganHotBear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> "dcnxtl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> > 1/NEXTEL OFFERED 600 MINUTES ANY MINUTES WHEN I FIRST SIGNED UP WITH
    >> > NEXTEL FOR NATIONAL INSTANT DIRECT CONNECT 500 (N500)IN DECEMBER 2003.
    >> > INFACT, ONLY 500 ANY TIME MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN ALL OF MY
    >> > INVOICES(JUST NOW RECONGIZED) SINCE THE SERVICE HAS ACTIVATED.
    >> >
    >> > 2/TO UPGRADE MY SERVICE ON 07/18/04, NEXTEL HAS PERFORMED THE
    >> > FOLLOWING:
    >> >
    >> > A-THE ADD-ON PHONE WAS INSTALLED WITH NS800 (PRIMARY SERVICE PLAN WITH
    >> > 800 SHARED ANY MINUTES, ALTHOUGH IT WAS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
    >> > ADD-ON UNIT SHOULD BE THE SECONDARY ONE.
    >> >
    >> > B-THE FIRST AND PRIMARY PHONE WAS CONVERTED FROM N500 TO NS800A, AN
    >> > ACTUAL SERVICE DE-GRADING SERVICE FOR A PRE-EXISTENT PHONE.
    >> >
    >> > IT IS NOT EASY FOR THE MISTAKE TO HAPPEN SINCE THE PROCESS TOOK FOUR
    >> > INVOLMENTS: THE LOCAL DEALER, NEXTEL SERVICE PERSONEL, AND THEIR
    >> > SYSTEMS. THE ANSWER CAN ONLY BE FOUND FROM NEXTEL GUIDE LINE WHICH
    >> > HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO ITS AUTHORIZED DEALER.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > 3/IN THE 08/17/04 INVOICE, NEXTEL HAS NO EXPLAINATION HOW IT APPLIED
    >> > THE SERVICE PREPAYMENT FOR THE FIRST PHONE??? AND IF NEXTEL HAS
    >> > ASSUMED THAT THE PREPAYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE AUGUST
    >> > INVOICE, IT SHALL NOT BE A CORRECT ASSUMPTION BECAUSE THE CORRECT FEE
    >> > FOR THE FIRST PHONE SHOULD BE THE COMBINED PRORATED AMOUNT OF N500 AND
    >> > NS800. WOULD THAT BE THE REASON FOR NOT TO MENTION ABOUT THIS PREPAID
    >> > FEE???
    >> >
    >> > 4/THE SECOND PHONE WAS BILLED UPON NS800 (PRORATED) WITH 16 BILLABLE
    >> > MINUTES FOR 26 DAYS INTO THE BILLING CYCLE, 07/18/04-08/12/04 WHILE
    >> > ONLY 500 MINUTES WERE ALLOWED FOR THE 1ST PHONE WITH THE EXTRA MINUTES
    >> > BIILED AT $.40, ALTHOUGH, ACCORDING TO NEXTEL ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE, I
    >> > WAS ASSUMED TO PAID BOTH N800 AND N500 FOR THE ENTIRED BILLING
    >> > CYCLE???
    >> >
    >> > 5/UPON THE TELEPHONE CONTACT ON 07/29/04, "IT IS THE COMPANY POLICY".
    >> > WAS THE PROVIDED ANSWER FOR MY QUESTION: WHY I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE
    >> > SERVICE WHICH HAD NOT YET STARTED???
    >> >
    >> > 6/I CAN HARDLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE BILLING SYSTEM, ONCE AGAIN, APPLIED
    >> > THE ADVANCE FEES FOR THE VOICE MAIL AND CALLER ID SERVICES ON THE
    >> > FIRST AND PRE-EXISTENCE PHONE SINCE , SYSTEMATICALLY, ADVANCED FEES
    >> > WOULD BE THE "ONLY" POSIBILITY FOR NEW SERVICES???
    >> >
    >> > 7/NEXTEL HAS ALWAYS BILLED ME $70 FOR PHONE ACTIVATION, ALTHOUGH ONLY
    >> > $35 ADVISED. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO SEPARTED $35 CHARGED ITEMS, WITH
    >> > "ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT CREDITS AND CHARGES" WAS BOTH USED AS THE ITEM
    >> > DESCRIPTION FOR THE FISRT AND THE SECTION TITTLE FOR THE SECOND ONES.
    >> > RESPONDING TO MY QUESTION, NEXTEL ISSUED A CREDIT FOR MY JANUARY 2004
    >> > INVOICE. AND NOW, WITH THE SECOND PHONE ADDED, NEXTEL HAS DIFFERENTLY
    >> > EXPLAINED THAT ONE OF THE CHARGES WAS FOR UP-GRADING THE FIRST PHONE,
    >> > ALTHOUGH BOTH CHARGES WERE GROUPED TOGETHER IN THE SECOND PHONE
    >> > BILLING PORTION??? WITH THE SECTION HEADER AND ITEM DESCRIPTION OF
    >> > THE CHARGES ARE INTERCHANGALBE, THEY ARE CONFUSED ENOUGH TO OVER LOOK
    >> > IF ONE WERE THE SUMMARY OF THE OTHER. IN ADDITION, I HAVE FURTHER
    >> > CONCERNS ABOUT THESE CHARGES. ONE OF THEM WAS PRESENTED BY USING THE
    >> > SMALEST FONTS (4 PIXELS) AND WELL OFF ALIGNED POSITIONED, WHICH
    >> > RESPECTS TO OTHER CHARGES. WHY NEXTEL ONLY INDICATES $35 "ACCOUNT
    >> > LEVEL EQUIPMENT CHARGE" IN THE FINAL INVOICE SUMMAY, WHILE THE TOTAL
    >> > IS $70???
    >> >
    >> > 8/THE PERCENTAGES OF "FEES NEXTEL ELECTS TO COLLECT" SEEM
    >> > INCONSISTENT. THEY VARRY IN UNDETERMINATE DIRECTIONS FOR DIFFERENT
    >> > MONTHS.
    >> >
    >> > FOR EXAMPLE, FOLLWING ARE THE FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERVICE ASSESSMENT
    >> > FEES IN PERCENT FOR THE CORRESPONDING MONTHS:
    >> >
    >> > JAN04 MAY04 AUG04
    >> > 1.138 1.087 1.124
    >> >
    >> > PARTICUARLY, THE COLLECTED PERCENTAGES COULD BE DIFFERENT FOR EXACTLY
    >> > SAME ITEMS. WITRH THE APPREVIATED DESCRIPTIONS, THE FOLLOWING
    >> > NUMBERS WERE FOUND IN THE 01/17/04 INVOICE FOR TWO DIFFERENT "SUMARY
    >> > OF CHARGES" SECTIONS(INPERCENTAGE):
    >> >
    >> > SET SHCC SUA FUA(APPREVIATIONS OF THE DEXCRIPTIONS)
    >> > .21 2.7 1.2 1.138 (FOR ACTIVATION FEE TOTAL)
    >> > .17 2.2 1.1 1.087 (FOR USAGE AND SERVICE FEE TOTAL)
    >> >
    >> > 9/DUE TO NEXTEL EXCESSIVELY COMPUTING METHOD, $530.46 IS THE AMOUNT
    >> > ASKED IN MY 08/17/04 INVOICE, APPROXIMATELY TWICE OF THE EXPECTED
    >> > AMOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TAXES AND REGULATORY FEES TOTAL IS ALSO
    >> > EXCESSIVE.
    >> >
    >> > SO FAR, NEXTEL HAS SENT ME NOTICE, THREATENING TO RESTRICT MY SERVICE
    >> > AND A LATE CHARGE ADDED IN THE 09/17/04 INVOICE. I DO NOT ACCEPT NOR
    >> > SHOULD I BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELINQUENCY SINCE THERE HAS NNOT BEEN
    >> > ANY RESOLUTION FOR MY MENTIONED CONCERNS, AFTER ONE TELEPHONE CONTACT
    >> > AND TWO RELATING EMAILS. FURTHERMORE, DUE TO NOTES MARKED ON THE
    >> > INVOICES, NEXTEL HAS NOT PROVIVED ME COPIES OF THE INVOICE VIA WEB
    >> > REQUEST, ABOUT 8 WEEKS AGO, BESIDES THE AUTO-RESPONSE OF REQUEST
    >> > ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, THE ONES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO BE FURNISHED BY SOME OF
    >> > YOUR REQUEST. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WAIT LONGER FOR NEXTEL. I ONLY
    >> > CAN GO WITH WHAT I HAVE.

    >>
    >> When you write a message that is not in all capital letters, then maybe

    > I'll
    >> consider reading it.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >






  • Similar Threads