WARNING: New Years is not a Holiday at SprintPCS.

Orac <

Hello Orac;

> Then it is their own fault for not insisting on seeing one.

You may choose to indict people for that. I don't.


>
>>I know I certainly didn't.
>
> Ditto.
>
>
>>Of course I didn't assume that
>> those minutes would be free either but I admit that it would be easy
>> enough for someone to make that innocent mistake. I certainly
>> wouldn't fault them for making that mistake either.
>
> I would. If you sign up for a plan without looking over the agreement,
> it is your own fault if the agreement is not what you thought it would
> be.

I wouldn't necessarily blame the customer who thought they were signing up
for something that was advertised in an intentionally misleading way and
subsequently found out they weren't getting what they beleived they were
supposed to be getting.

---

› See More: WARNING: New Years is not a Holiday at SprintPCS.

"Bob Smith"

>> Keep in mind that some time ago, Sprint began demanding an agreement
> renewal
>> in various circumstances, such as changing a service plan; and the
>> set of such circumstances has continued to increase.
>
> They did? I've changed plans midstream in several AA time periods,
> without having to extend my contract. The only time I had to do
> another AA was when I added the F&CA option to the account Dec / 02.
> I do seem to remember where SPCS required a new AA on a promotional
> plan, on when doing a retention deal where SPCS offered more than what
> was advertised.

From what I've seen Bob, while I wouldn't say your case is unique, it's
certainly in the minority as far as not requiring renewal goes judging from
personal experiences with myself and the many friends I have on Sprint.

Orac <

>> LOL Howdy Orac;
>>
>> There is always that.
>>
>> It's been my experience though that people happy with a serivce tend
>> not to complain about a service.
>
> But apparently they are not unhappy enough with the service to switch
> services, even though since November you don't even have to give up
> your number to move to another company.

Hey Orac;

What's being offered out there by other providers may not be what's
necessary for them to move yet. I know in my case, not being on contract
just now, I'm waiting for providers to sweeten the pot just a little bit
more before I move from or stay with Sprint.

> Some may be constrained
> because they are still under an Advantage Agreement, but most of the
> complainers, in my experience, have been with Sprint long enough that
> their agreement expired. Some have even been with Sprint for several
> years.

It's natural to complain or pitch a ***** if one percieves the service
they're paying for could be better.

In article <9pgJb.42831$a44.40059@okepread04>,
SprintingForService <[email protected]> wrote:

> Orac <
>
> Hello Orac;
>
> > Then it is their own fault for not insisting on seeing one.
>
> You may choose to indict people for that. I don't.

Why not? It's simple common sense to insist on seeing one.


> >>I know I certainly didn't.
> >
> > Ditto.
> >
> >
> >>Of course I didn't assume that
> >> those minutes would be free either but I admit that it would be easy
> >> enough for someone to make that innocent mistake. I certainly
> >> wouldn't fault them for making that mistake either.
> >
> > I would. If you sign up for a plan without looking over the agreement,
> > it is your own fault if the agreement is not what you thought it would
> > be.
>
> I wouldn't necessarily blame the customer who thought they were signing up
> for something that was advertised in an intentionally misleading way

And tell me, how, specifically, was the definition of nights and
weekends minute "advertised in an intentionally misleading way"?
Specific examples of ads that do this, please.


>and
> subsequently found out they weren't getting what they beleived they were
> supposed to be getting.

See above.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:48:18 GMT, SprintingForService
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse <
>
>>>Hello Thomas;
>>>
>>>I think pretty much everyone knew exactly what he was refering to when
>>>he made his comment. I find it difficult to indict him for a simple
>>>syntax error, especially when everyone knew what he meant.
>>
>>
>> That is no syntax error. We all make those, or gross *****ing errors.
>> You fail to understand Phillip and his intent. He has ALWAYS
>> attempted to stir up trouble with Sprint PCS. That is his only agenda
>> (well, he is doing it for AT&T now too).
>
>Hello Thomas;
>
>What you describe are judgement calls on your part. They're judgement
>calls I don't happen to support.

I don't really care if you support it or not. And no, it is not a
judgement call, it is an opinion.

> To assume that he is here to stir up
>trouble, simply because he tends to post negatives about Sprint, implies a
>level of attachment to Sprint that would tend to make people question
>impartiality.

Ah ... you are still in your clam shell ... come out and do some
research on his 49 identities (that should tell you something right
there ... he has had conversations between identities for the sole
purpose of supporting his posts, because nobody else did). Take a
look at how he has altered quotes in a deliberate attempt to misquote.
Take a look at how he has demunged email address of other posters with
the sole purpose of causing them to be picked up by spam bots. I am
sure there are more ... but Phillip is an ASS and that is my opinion.


Tom Veldhouse

In article <[email protected]>,
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > In article <mDQIb.42505$a44.8755@okepread04>,
> > number to move to another company. Some may be constrained because they
> > are still under an Advantage Agreement, but most of the complainers, in
> > my experience, have been with Sprint long enough that their agreement
> > expired. Some have even been with Sprint for several years.
>
> Keep in mind that some time ago, Sprint began demanding an agreement renewal
> in various circumstances, such as changing a service plan;

As far as I'm concerned that was always understood, and the two times I
did change plans in the last four or five years, the CS rep made it
quite clear that by changing plans I was signing on for a one year
Advantage Agreement. In any case, we were talking about Sprint's N&W
policy. It's one thing if something about Sprint service changes during
and Advantage Agreement so that you are unhappy with it. Then I can
understand the *****ing and moaning. It's another thing to knowingly
sign up for another year of Advantage Agreement and then to be *****ing
and moaning about a policy that has remained unchanged for a long time
and that was the same when you signed on again. The policy about N&W
minutes and holidays has been the same as long as I have been with
Sprint: Holidays that fall on a weekday don't count as off-peak. If that
policy bugs you so much that it is a dealbreaker, then you shouldn't do
anything that would sign you on for another year of Advantage Agreement.
Again, common sense.


>and the set of
> such circumstances has continued to increase. (For a while, Sprint was
> reportedly demanding an agreement renewal simply to perform a phone
> replacement a.k.a. ESN swap.)

I've done a couple of phone replacements and never had this happen.


>So even multi-year customers often end up on
> a new Advantage Agreement, because when caught in a given circumstance they
> don't see any reasonable alternative.

Perhaps, but those whom I know who have Sprint actually only
occasionally change plans, and those who change plans frequently
generally know that they're locking themselves into another Advantage
Agreement. (Heck, I've been bugging my sister to change plans for a
couple of years now. They still have an old plan that has only 500
Anytime minutes and no night and weekend minutes. I keep telling them
they're being totally ripped off, given how many more minutes you can
get in more recent plans and that she should either change plans or
change carriers, but they won't.)


> Also keep in mind that aside from Advantage Agreements, the carrier-locking
> of phones also discourages movement between carriers. A family of four who
> has hundreds of dollars invested in nice phones cannot economically just
> discard them all and buy new ones on another carrier (or downgrade to the
> entry-level free phones that the other carrier might offer).

Now this is a much more important point and a much more serious
consideration. Unfortunately, it is the same among pretty much every
carrier.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:

> In article <9pgJb.42831$a44.40059@okepread04>,
> SprintingForService <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Orac <
>>
>> Hello Orac;
>>
>> > Then it is their own fault for not insisting on seeing one.
>>
>> You may choose to indict people for that. I don't.
>
> Why not? It's simple common sense to insist on seeing one.


Hello Orac;

When you go to a restaurant do you look for their licenses or health
certifications? Most people don't because they assume it's safe. Now
I'm not saying that it's not a smart idea to read the write up but when
you've got the phone in your hand ready to activate it over a phone and
you're told a certain set of things, or commericals indicate that a
certain set of things were included, which later turn out to be false I
don't blame the customer for having the expectation that those certain
things were included.


>> >>I know I certainly didn't.
>> >
>> > Ditto.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Of course I didn't assume that
>> >> those minutes would be free either but I admit that it would be
>> >> easy enough for someone to make that innocent mistake. I
>> >> certainly wouldn't fault them for making that mistake either.
>> >
>> > I would. If you sign up for a plan without looking over the
>> > agreement, it is your own fault if the agreement is not what you
>> > thought it would be.
>>
>> I wouldn't necessarily blame the customer who thought they were
>> signing up for something that was advertised in an intentionally
>> misleading way
>
> And tell me, how, specifically, was the definition of nights and
> weekends minute "advertised in an intentionally misleading way"?
> Specific examples of ads that do this, please.
>
>
>>and
>> subsequently found out they weren't getting what they beleived they
>> were supposed to be getting.
>
> See above.

Please do.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:27:05 GMT, SprintingForService
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Hello Mr. Arends;
>
>As I've already stated I am not this Phil so many of you here have a hang
>up about.


I have certainly tired of you ... you have earned the #1 (and
currently only) position in my kill filter.


Tom Veldhouse

Orac wrote:


> The policy
> about N&W minutes and holidays has been the same as long as I have
> been with Sprint: Holidays that fall on a weekday don't count as
> off-peak. If that policy bugs you so much that it is a dealbreaker,
> then you shouldn't do anything that would sign you on for another year
> of Advantage Agreement. Again, common sense.

It's through voicing displeasure with the service being provided that
changes in the service eventually occur.

I once read something that indicated some large percentage I think it was
like 66% of the people who asked for something got it while in contrast
100% of the people that didn't ask for it didn't get it.

If enough people complain on sprint forums about it's policies it will
change them to more customer friendly policies.

"SprintingForService" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7pgJb.42826$a44.32661@okepread04...
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in newsWWIb.18608
> [email protected]:
>
> >
> > "SprintingForService" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:_uQIb.42503$a44.17772@okepread04...
> > <snipped>
> >> Howdy Mike;
> >>
> >> You're absolutely correct it is simple to keep track of my minutes.
> >> However; like many it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that on
> >> holidays all talk time counts against nights and weekend minutes.
> >>
> >> A friendly reminder like he provided hurts noone and helps those who
may
> >> have been thinking of Sprint as generous in that manner.
> >
> > With Phillipe and his other aliases, there are no friendly reminders ...
> > Just misstatements, lies and misquoting of other posters.
>
> Hello Bob,
>
> You might say that he has posted mistatements, lies imply a level of
intent
> that you can't possibly know about Phil through this medium, as for
> friendly reminders, he comes off much friendlier than the anti-phil crowd.
> Much.

Read Tom's reply to you. It's 100% right on.

Bob

Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:27:05 GMT, SprintingForService
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello Mr. Arends;
>>
>>As I've already stated I am not this Phil so many of you here have a
>>hang up about.
>
>
> I have certainly tired of you ... you have earned the #1 (and
> currently only) position in my kill filter.
>
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>

Hello Thomas;

As you wish.

If you insist on hiding yourself from my posts please feel free to do so
but do keep in mind that if anyone should be killfiling anyone it should be
me killfiling you with the general attitutde you've taken with me from the
time I started posting here.

I find that I'm a bit curious though Thomas, at how quickly you killfile me
who's simply discussing with you where you leave Phil unkillfilled.
Perhaps you and the rest of the anti-phil crowd could do everyone a favor
and add Phil to their killfile lists.

"SprintingForService" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9pgJb.42833$a44.28490@okepread04...
> "Bob Smith"
>
> >> Keep in mind that some time ago, Sprint began demanding an agreement
> > renewal
> >> in various circumstances, such as changing a service plan; and the
> >> set of such circumstances has continued to increase.
> >
> > They did? I've changed plans midstream in several AA time periods,
> > without having to extend my contract. The only time I had to do
> > another AA was when I added the F&CA option to the account Dec / 02.
> > I do seem to remember where SPCS required a new AA on a promotional
> > plan, on when doing a retention deal where SPCS offered more than what
> > was advertised.
>
> From what I've seen Bob, while I wouldn't say your case is unique, it's
> certainly in the minority as far as not requiring renewal goes judging
from
> personal experiences with myself and the many friends I have on Sprint.

As I explained in a later post, it does apply to promotional plans, as I
started a new AA last year, when I moved to the promotional $85/mo. 2000 AT
plan, with one free add a phone, $20 on a 3rd phone and free Vision on all
the phones.

In saying that, it did not happen when moving to a different standard plan
in the past.

Bob

"SprintingForService" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:y6hJb.42845$a44.35108@okepread04...
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:27:05 GMT, SprintingForService
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hello Mr. Arends;
> >>
> >>As I've already stated I am not this Phil so many of you here have a
> >>hang up about.
> >
> >
> > I have certainly tired of you ... you have earned the #1 (and
> > currently only) position in my kill filter.
> >
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
> >
>
> Hello Thomas;
>
> As you wish.
>
> If you insist on hiding yourself from my posts please feel free to do so
> but do keep in mind that if anyone should be killfiling anyone it should
be
> me killfiling you with the general attitutde you've taken with me from the
> time I started posting here.
>
> I find that I'm a bit curious though Thomas, at how quickly you killfile
me
> who's simply discussing with you where you leave Phil unkillfilled.
> Perhaps you and the rest of the anti-phil crowd could do everyone a favor
> and add Phil to their killfile lists.

Don't you get it yet? Many of us have set up kill filters on Phillipe. I
have over 30 set up on his aliases. He keeps getting around those filters
with new IDs.

Bob

In article <uMgJb.48542$PK3.44822@okepread01>,
SprintingForService <[email protected]> wrote:

> Orac <[email protected]> wrote in
> news[email protected]:
>
> > In article <9pgJb.42831$a44.40059@okepread04>,
> > SprintingForService <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Orac <
> >>
> >> Hello Orac;
> >>
> >> > Then it is their own fault for not insisting on seeing one.
> >>
> >> You may choose to indict people for that. I don't.
> >
> > Why not? It's simple common sense to insist on seeing one.
>
>
> Hello Orac;
>
> When you go to a restaurant do you look for their licenses or health
> certifications? Most people don't because they assume it's safe.

Nonsequitir. The two situations are not analogous.

And, in any event, in nearly all jurisdictions, restaurants are required
to post their health certifications in a highly visible place; so you
could look at it if you wished.


>Now
> I'm not saying that it's not a smart idea to read the write up but when
> you've got the phone in your hand ready to activate it over a phone and
> you're told a certain set of things, or commericals indicate that a
> certain set of things were included, which later turn out to be false I
> don't blame the customer for having the expectation that those certain
> things were included.

I notice you still haven't given any specific examples of Sprint
misrepresenting its N&W policy in advertisements, as you claim it has.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Thomas T. Veldhouse <

>>> That is no syntax error. We all make those, or gross *****ing
>>> errors. You fail to understand Phillip and his intent. He has
>>> ALWAYS attempted to stir up trouble with Sprint PCS. That is his
>>> only agenda (well, he is doing it for AT&T now too).
>>
>>Hello Thomas;
>>
>>What you describe are judgement calls on your part. They're judgement
>>calls I don't happen to support.
>
> I don't really care if you support it or not.

Then why do you spend so much effort decrying Phil here Thomas?

> And no, it is not a
> judgement call, it is an opinion.

That's what opinions are Thomas. Judgement: The capacity to form an
opinion by distinguishing and evaluating:


>> To assume that he is here to stir up
>>trouble, simply because he tends to post negatives about Sprint,
>>implies a level of attachment to Sprint that would tend to make people
>>question impartiality.
>
> Ah ... you are still in your clam shell ... come out and do some
> research on his 49 identities

It doesn't really interest me Thomas. I'm more concerned with what he has
to say.