Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    dcnxtl
    Guest
    NOT FOR JOKERS, FOR 1ST GRADE *****ERS, WHO ARE IMPOTENT OR INCAPABLE
    TO READ CAPLIZ, WHO DO NOT CONCERN $ TO PAY NEXTEL, WHO LIKE TO BE
    CHEATED, WHO WANT TO HUMILIATE OR INSULT OTHERS FOR FUN. THANK YOU
    FOR UNDERSTANDING AND I AM GREATFUL FOR INPUTS AND SUPPORTS. YOU ARE
    WELCOMED TO JOINED ME BECAUSE THIS WON'T BE THIS SIMPLE AS I AM STILL
    ADDING MORE AND MORE AS TIME ALLOWED.


    [email protected]o.com (dcnxtl) 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.




    See More: inreflecting all comments so far: FOR SERIOUS READERS ONLY.




  2. #2
    Richard Ness
    Guest

    Re: inreflecting all comments so far: FOR SERIOUS READERS ONLY.

    Or........ quit using all caps. Real easy, doesn't take any brainpower.

    It's extremely irritating and immediately brands you as a noob....
    So, whatever you are trying to say, is discounted immediately.


    "dcnxtl" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > NOT FOR JOKERS, FOR 1ST GRADE *****ERS, WHO ARE IMPOTENT OR INCAPABLE
    > TO READ CAPLIZ, WHO DO NOT CONCERN $ TO PAY NEXTEL, WHO LIKE TO BE
    > CHEATED, WHO WANT TO HUMILIATE OR INSULT OTHERS FOR FUN. THANK YOU
    > FOR UNDERSTANDING AND I AM GREATFUL FOR INPUTS AND SUPPORTS. YOU ARE
    > WELCOMED TO JOINED ME BECAUSE THIS WON'T BE THIS SIMPLE AS I AM STILL
    > ADDING MORE AND MORE AS TIME ALLOWED.
    >
    >
    > [email protected] (dcnxtl) 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.






  • Similar Threads