Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    George
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

    Paul Miner wrote:
    > On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:42:55 -0400, George <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Bill Marriott wrote:
    >>> If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
    >>> I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
    >>> for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
    >>> the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
    >>> Treos for an end-user cost of $75.
    >>>

    >> Just think of the interesting precedent that was just set with the
    >> iphone. If you want it you need to buy it outright. If you want to use
    >> it you must sign a two year contract with ATT.

    >
    > That goes along with what the Sprint exec said a few weeks ago about
    > wanting to get Sprint out of the subsidy + contract business and move
    > them into a whole new business model of having customers purchase
    > their device outright and then use it without a contract. I'm in favor
    > of that, but then again, I'm not the type who always has to have the
    > latest model, so perhaps it wouldn't affect me.
    >

    Not really, it is a step in the opposite direction. You are required to
    purchase the iphone outright and it requires a mandatory two year
    contract with all of the normal provisions.



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




  2. #32
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

    "Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > They're a "bad" customer because at that level they are obviously
    > trying to game the system. Let's be real.


    Yes, lets. The biggest "gamers" are the cellphone companies,
    themselves....That's reality.

    Larry
    --
    While in Mexico, I didn't have to press 1 for Spanish.
    While in Iran, I didn't have to press 1 for Farsi, either.
    It just isn't fair.




  3. #33
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

    "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4697f5c3$0$4710
    [email protected]:

    > 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.
    >


    When one party writes the contract and shoves it up the ass of the other
    party for service, that one party can write anything it wants, and does,
    into the contract, if it thinks it can get away with it. Any landlord is
    playing the same game with his lease.

    Verizon, or any of the other carriers, simply states that they can change
    the contract at any time for any reason or can simply cancel it without
    cause. The only requirement would be to state this up front and make the
    customer agree to it....which, in cooperation with the US Government,
    they've now got down to a science. You simply turn it on and you've
    already agreed to everything.

    I read the contracts to see if they've added anything about delivering
    your first born child, attaching a lien to your house until the contract
    is over, etc. They could do that at any time, with the full cooperation
    of the government bureaucrats to enforce it.

    Larry
    --
    While in Mexico, I didn't have to press 1 for Spanish.
    While in Iran, I didn't have to press 1 for Farsi, either.
    It just isn't fair.




  4. #34
    BruceR
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers



    Larry wrote:
    > "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4697f5c3$0$4710
    > [email protected]:
    >
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    > When one party writes the contract and shoves it up the ass of the
    > other party for service, that one party can write anything it wants,
    > and does, into the contract, if it thinks it can get away with it.
    > Any landlord is playing the same game with his lease.
    >
    > Verizon, or any of the other carriers, simply states that they can
    > change the contract at any time for any reason or can simply cancel
    > it without cause. The only requirement would be to state this up
    > front and make the customer agree to it....which, in cooperation with
    > the US Government, they've now got down to a science. You simply
    > turn it on and you've already agreed to everything.
    >
    > I read the contracts to see if they've added anything about delivering
    > your first born child, attaching a lien to your house until the
    > contract is over, etc. They could do that at any time, with the full
    > cooperation of the government bureaucrats to enforce it.
    >
    > Larry


    Again, that's what courts are for. If a judge thinks a particular clause
    or even the whole contract is "against public policy" or just thinks
    it's wrong or unfair, he/she can nullify all or part of the contract.
    Carriers, landlords or just about anyone who has the upper hand can and
    will write whatever they want into a contract. Then they can point to
    the egregious clause and say "Hey, you signed it!" Some (actually most)
    will say, "OK, I guess I'm stuck," and pay up. Others will say "take me
    to court!" If the clause really is egregious, you won't get taken to
    court because they don't want to risk having to remove the "bully"
    clause.





  5. #35
    Alderson
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

    I better way to handle the "problem" would've been to flag the accounts


    What makes you think that they weren't flagged? Calling 10-20 times per day
    demanding credits will get ya flagged.





  6. #36
    Alderson
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

    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?


    like I said before 10 - 20 times a day asking for credits for nothing. Had
    a dropped call? why not call cs and ask for $50.00 credit 20 times a day?





  7. #37
    Alderson
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers


    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> >Not every contract is legal.

    >>
    >> I guess the flip side to your logic is that not every contract is
    >> illegal. Who cares, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

    >
    > Are you saying that the Sprint contract is legal?
    >
    > Are you a lawyer?


    Did you get a letter from Sprint??
    >






  8. #38
    Joel Kolstad
    Guest

    Re: NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

    "prc2u1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > I work in cellular sales and it is amazing the lies people tell to get what
    > they want. My boss told me when I started....80% of customers are liar's! I
    > thought he was crazy. Now I know he is right.


    I very much doubt it's 80%. I submit to you that what your boss told you is
    an example of a businessman lying.

    :-)

    Of course, there are plenty of customers who lie, just are there are plenty of
    salesmen that do. Customers are usually motivated by wanting to converve
    their money, whereas salesmen are motivated by wanting more money. Really the
    same thing...

    Regarding the original topic... I'd be quite surprised if any court found that
    cancellation fees in the "generic" case of the customer just deciding they
    wanted to switch carriers were illegal. Companies have had similar contracts
    for many decades (probably centuries), and it's a pretty reasonable setup --
    in exchange for a significant up-front discount on, e.g., a phone, you
    guarantee me that you'll keep subscribing for a certain period of time. If
    such contracts are deemed illegal, it'll just make even the cheapest cell
    phone $100 and high-end PDA phones more like $500... and I guarantee you'll
    hear plenty of people then whining about _that_.

    ---Joel





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123