WARNING - ALERT TO ALL NEXTEL USERS: 11/22/2004 - / . . .

Like my letter indicates, I marked my phone the day before it was shipped
out: I used an electric pencil by writing my both my name and birth date
inside of the phone on its metal plate. Not to mention that if you anything
about this industry, you would of know that by simply checking the serial
number would also work. However, the serial number is printed on a paper
label of which could be pealed off and stuck on a different phone, thus the
electric pencil was used.

You indicate that I am mad because I did not read the Motorola Warranty.
There was no way to of read it as that warrant does not apply to the end
user as Motorola does not sell directly to the public. That warrant applies
only to Motorola's resellers, thus I was not privy to it. There is not such
clause with Nextel, only that if you have used your phone more than 400
minutes, only then is your phone considered a used phone by both Nextel and
Motorola. I have only used 141 minutes total to date and only around 90
minutes at the time when this case was present to Nextel, a far cry from the
400 minutes Nextel & Motorola states.

Yes, I have proof to back this up, me as well as testimonials from those who
work inside Motorola & Nextel Administration; guess I should legally go
about recording their statements as to make such recording admissible.

>"But you quoted from the warranty- they did tell you. You failed to read
the
> material given to you."

Again, you need to re-read my post again. In simple, Motorola is putting the
screws to Nextel, which in turn Nextel puts the screw to the customer. The
Motorola warranty is between Motorola and Nextel, not the consumer.

Long and short of it all: If you bought into a higher plan to get your phone
cheaper only to have your phone brake down beyond repair after just over an
hour and a half of use, only to get stiffed with a used phone, would you not
see it as being ripped off?

Have a nice thanksgiving..



"Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "NEXT ALERT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
> >
>
>
> >
> > But, only a day and a half later I receive a phone back from Nextel ONLY
> TO
> > DISCOVER that they had sent me someone else's old used i730 cell phone
as
> a
> > replacement for the same model I originally had. You see, the day before
> my
> > phone was to be shipped out for repair, I had my identification engraved
> on
> > the inside of the phone as to insure I would recognize my phone when I
got
> > it back.
>
> And you determined it was used just how?
>
> <more snip>
> >
> > After speaking with first Motorola service department and than Nextel
> > administration, the long and short of it all is this. Both stated that
it
> is
> > their policy/right to exchange an old used phone of the same model for a
> > brand new phone in the event your brand new phone cannot be fixed,
> > regardless if you just got your brand-new phone a few weeks ago.
> >
> > MOTOROLA POLICY READS AS FOLLOWS: "We may use functionally equivalent
> > reconditioned/refurbished/pre-owned..."
>
> So, you are mad because you failed to read the warranty?
>
> >
> >
> > So now I have to pay on a two year Nextel policy for an old used phone?
I
> > don't think so.
> > What I have learned is that Nextel has been sending back used phones to
> any
> > and all customers they so choose to do so, regardless if the customer
just
> > bought the brand new-phone a just weeks ago.
>
> Pretty bold statement- any facts to back it up?
>
>
> <snip>
> >
> > HOW MANY NEXTEL CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN DUPED THAT DID NOT CAREFULLY TRACK
> THEIR
> > PHONE AS TO ENSURE THEY GOT THE SAME PHONE BACK? HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF
> > NEXTEL CUSTOMERS HAVE UNKNOWINGLY HAD THEIR BRAND NEW CELL PHONE SWAPPED
> OUT
> > FOR A USED OLDER MODEL?
>
> According to you, you should already know the answer to that (see your
> statement above).
>
> >
> > As you may know, Nextel is a publicly traded company. I have learned
> > firsthand from a few Nextel sales personal that Nextel has had a rash of
> > I730 phones returned that continues to this very day. Based on calls to
a
> > few different Nextel sales office that on average Nextel sees anywhere
> from
> > around a half a dozen phones to over a dozen brand new I730 phones
> returned
> > for repair each and every month. Since there are thousands of Nextel
> offices
> > in the USA alone, this would mean that thousands of brand new I730 cell
> > phones are being returned for repair. Thus Nextel is trying to recoup
> their
> > loses by passing off older refurbished phones onto unsuspecting Nextel
> > customers
>
> Didn't you send your phone to Motorola?
>
> >
> > I am still fighting with Nextel to get me a BRAND-NEW phone, further
> stating
> > that I believe that such a policy may very well be braking both federal
> and
> > state consumer laws. Not to mention that I am thinking about bringing
this
> > matter to the attention of attorney that specializes in this kind of
class
> > action suit. Sure it will only make the attorneys richer and the screwed
> > consumer might be lucky enough to finally get a brand-new phone like
they
> > should have been given in the first place. But more so, it would force
> > Nextel to stop such practice and give the consumer what they originally
> paid
> > for. A new phone for a new phone!
>
> But your phone wasn't new- you had used it.
>
> >
> > (((Can someone help me with: A consumer law/statute that protects the
> > consumer in the event a brand-new product becomes unfixable within the
> first
> > 90 the days from the date of purchase that in turn a retailer must
replace
> > the item with an equally brand new one?)))
>
> What's to say that the phone you received had less usage than the one you
> sent in? Wouldn't that fit your 'statute'?
>
> >
> > Nonetheless, sending a used replacement phone without telling the
customer
> > that you had done just that is deceptive and can be seen as fraud within
> > itself.
>
> But you quoted from the warranty- they did tell you. You failed to read
the
> material given to you.
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your (constructive insight) and help.
> >
>
>

---

› See More: WARNING - ALERT TO ALL NEXTEL USERS: 11/22/2004 - / . . .

"NEXT ALERT" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Like my letter indicates, I marked my phone the day before it was shipped
> out: I used an electric pencil by writing my both my name and birth date
> inside of the phone on its metal plate. Not to mention that if you
anything
> about this industry, you would of know that by simply checking the serial
> number would also work. However, the serial number is printed on a paper
> label of which could be pealed off and stuck on a different phone, thus
the
> electric pencil was used.

That would address the fact that you didn't get the original phone back.
Where is the proof that the replacement was used? BTW- I've got more
experience in the industry than you have using a phone- no need to go there.

>
> You indicate that I am mad because I did not read the Motorola Warranty.
> There was no way to of read it as that warrant does not apply to the end
> user as Motorola does not sell directly to the public. That warrant
applies
> only to Motorola's resellers, thus I was not privy to it. There is not
such
> clause with Nextel, only that if you have used your phone more than 400
> minutes, only then is your phone considered a used phone by both Nextel
and
> Motorola. I have only used 141 minutes total to date and only around 90
> minutes at the time when this case was present to Nextel, a far cry from
the
> 400 minutes Nextel & Motorola states.

You were privy to the warranty that came with the phone (from Motorola, not
Nextel). It states exactly the same thing.

>
> Yes, I have proof to back this up, me as well as testimonials from those
who
> work inside Motorola & Nextel Administration; guess I should legally go
> about recording their statements as to make such recording admissible.

There is no Nextel Administration.

>
> >"But you quoted from the warranty- they did tell you. You failed to read
> the
> > material given to you."
>
> Again, you need to re-read my post again. In simple, Motorola is putting
the
> screws to Nextel, which in turn Nextel puts the screw to the customer. The
> Motorola warranty is between Motorola and Nextel, not the consumer.

The warranty on the phone is between Motorola and the puchaser of the phone-
you need to do some basic consumer law research. You might consider getting
someone to explain all of this to you before you go off and accuse people of
things they are not responsible for. And if you have identified Motorola as
the bad guy here, why publicly blame Nextel?

>
> Long and short of it all: If you bought into a higher plan to get your
phone
> cheaper only to have your phone brake down beyond repair after just over
an
> hour and a half of use, only to get stiffed with a used phone, would you
not
> see it as being ripped off?

Not if it was in the warranty that it could occur (which it is).

>
> Have a nice thanksgiving..
>
>
>