o/siris confessed

Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
Agreements improperly forever up until March 23.

Now he denies ever saying it, and calls anyone who points out
this post a LIAR. he remains an embarressment to SprintPCS

From: O/Siris ([email protected])
Subject: Re: Plan Upgrade
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Date: 2004-03-23 02:13:36 PST

In article <Egh6c.27332$%06.23835
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
Smithusirsclt No Spam @earthlink.net says...
> I checked it both ways, as a new customer, or as a current customer for m y
> zip code for the $65/mo. plan. As a new customer, I could select not goin g
> on an AA by paying $10 more a month.
>
> As a current customer, and changing plans through my manage page, there w as
> no comment about needing to extend my AA, unless I was going to take the
> 7:00 N & W option.
>
> Bob
>

This has been a *very* interesting question. And I wonder
just how much this newsgroup spawned this little debate. I
had a woman challenge me on this tonight. So I had the
PERFECT opportunity to find out, once and for all. And,
wouldn't you know? I found out. Much to my chagrin:

I found the following question answered in our procedures
database:
"Can an existing Individual Purchased customer swap service
plans without needing to renew their contract?
Impact of Service Plan swaps to Contract Plans on
Individual Purchased accounts.
LOBs: Business Services"

Now, this is, once again, specifying Business Accounts.
Still, I would imagine, in this case, that Consumer
Accounts are much the same. And the answer?

It turns out that a plan change does not require a new
Advantage Agreement if 3 conditions all prove true:

1. The customer is eligible for the new service plan,
AND
2. The new plan is in the same family of plans as the
existing service plan (for example, switching from one Free
and Clear service plan to another Free and Clear plan), AND
3. The new plan does not require the current service
contract to be renewed. See related solutions for the
specific plan the customer wants to switch to for details.

That "family of plans" condition seems to me to be the most
complicated condition. Remember when F&CA was sold as its
own family? Now moving to a plan where it's just an add-on
means renewing the Advantage Agreement.

Anyway, complications aside, I was wrong. I guess I've
been able to get away with justifying the new agreements
all this time. Like 2 year Advantage Agreements for the
7PM option, or PCS2PCS. Stuff like that. This woman
tonight wanted none of that, and she was right.

---

› See More: o/siris confessed

Robert M. wrote:
> Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
> Agreements improperly forever up until March 23.
>
> Now he denies ever saying it, and calls anyone who points out
> this post a LIAR. he remains an embarressment to SprintPCS
>

Alright. So, he was wrong and he admitted to it in the newsgroup. I get
the feeling that this is important from the way you posted it. I'm not
too worked up. What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?


Sitting at the edge of my seat,
-mike

[email protected] (Robert=A0M.) wrote:
<<Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
Agreements improperly forever up until March 23. (snip) >>

Sounds like Robert M. has a thing for O/Siris.

Everybody know Philly has painted a bull's-eye on his back as one of the
Sprint 'apologists'. But, when will Philly ever admit he made a mistake?
Every original post by him is one because he never puts the whole story,
just puts in a tidbit to cause trouble. He never responds to me when I show
him the error of his ways and include the excerpted info.

Chris

"Eric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[email protected] (Robert M.) wrote:
<<Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
Agreements improperly forever up until March 23. (snip) >>

Sounds like Robert M. has a thing for O/Siris.

In article <%[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
> > Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
> > Agreements improperly forever up until March 23.
> >
> > Now he denies ever saying it, and calls anyone who points out
> > this post a LIAR. he remains an embarressment to SprintPCS
> >
>
> Alright. So, he was wrong and he admitted to it in the newsgroup. I get
> the feeling that this is important from the way you posted it. I'm not
> too worked up. What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?

Well he denies it now, and calls me a liar for having mentioned it.
It demonstrates his credibility is suspect.

I backup what I say with URLs.

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <%[email protected]>,
> Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert M. wrote:
>>
>>>Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
>>>Agreements improperly forever up until March 23.
>>>
>>>Now he denies ever saying it, and calls anyone who points out
>>>this post a LIAR. he remains an embarressment to SprintPCS
>>>
>>
>>Alright. So, he was wrong and he admitted to it in the newsgroup. I get
>>the feeling that this is important from the way you posted it. I'm not
>>too worked up. What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?
>
>
> Well he denies it now, and calls me a liar for having mentioned it.
> It demonstrates his credibility is suspect.
>
> I backup what I say with URLs.

What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?
-mike

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?


Not asking you to do anything. "O" asked me to prove he had said he was
wrong about giving 2 year contracts to everyone, and I posted the proof.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Every original post by him is one because he never puts the whole story,

Total nonsense. I post supporting information. URLs, prior Google posts.

It's just the blind Sprint apologists who get bent out of shape my
telling

SprintPCS' worst rated customer Service
SprintPCS "Handle Time" requirements for CSRs
SprintPCS Upsell quotas for CSRs
SprintPCS secret Retention deals
SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
SprintPCS as a money losing organization
SprintPCS and its high churn rate
SprintPCS failing to release WLNP comparitive numbers
SprintPCS now refusing to release $$ cost of new customer acquisition.


Then the apologists want to divert attention from SprintPCS short
comings and attack me.

Robert M. wrote:

> Total nonsense. I post supporting information. URLs, prior Google posts.
>
> It's just the blind Sprint apologists who get bent out of shape my
> telling
>
> SprintPCS' worst rated customer Service

My personal experience has been good, and some call centers have started
ending calls with the question "Have I resolved all your issues in a
satisfactoy manner today?" This has the double bonus of saving a call
gone bad and giving the reps an almost constant stream of actual
positive feedback, thereby reducing the number of people that *hate*
their job and have a bad attitude.

> SprintPCS "Handle Time" requirements for CSRs

I'd like to see one of your URLs on this. From what I can tell, if there
is a handle time requirement, it's either greater than six minutes (the
number I've seen you post before) or it's based on average call times,
not per call times.

> SprintPCS Upsell quotas for CSRs

No doubt they have an incentive to sell. Just say either yes or no and
move on. I've not had a pushy sales person, though I have been asked to
get Sprint home long distance a couple of times a day when I've had a
complex issue. I tell them that I don't have a landline, and that my
SprintPCS phone does quite well for me. They're happy, I'm happy, we
move on.

> SprintPCS secret Retention deals

They're not secret. They're also not advertised. That's because they're
retention deals. Just like Wal-Mart has a budget for theft and damaged
product, Sprint has a budget for dropped call credits and retension
deals. They watch the numbers on these deals and tune them constantly so
they can maintain the right balance of profitability and "stop-loss" on
these accounts. They'll often take a reduced profit if they know the
customer has a good payment history and they can get a contract renewal
without having to give away a handset.

> SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)

I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
bringing resolution.

> SprintPCS as a money losing organization

They're wrapping up the main phase of their build out. Many companies
make profits quickly, others don't. For wireless, it's not unusual to
see losses. As a subscriber, it's not my problem anyway, though I could
see how an investor would care.

> SprintPCS and its high churn rate
> SprintPCS failing to release WLNP comparitive numbers
> SprintPCS now refusing to release $$ cost of new customer acquisition.

Not going to comment on these - not an investor, and therefore I
personally don't care. I could see that an investor would care, however.

> Then the apologists want to divert attention from SprintPCS short
> comings and attack me.

I don't care to attack you, but the implications of your points are not
very clear. In sales, I could say you're talking features and not
benefits. One point from above, in demonstration:

*Why should I care that SprintPCS has call handling quotas?* Keep in
mind that this newsgroup is occupied almost exclusively by Sprint
subscribers. Not simple subscribers, mind you, but SprintPCS nerds. I
imagine the average subscriber calls Customer Care once to an a.c.s
poster's ten calls. That means that if you tell them that there are very
strict quotas for CSRs and most of the newsgroup has had a twenty minute
conversation with a rep within the last month, you're credibility is at
issue.

Just take each of your arguements about Sprint PCS and answer the simple
question: So what?

So, why should I take your information at heart when it contradicts my
experience?
-mike

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > Total nonsense. I post supporting information. URLs, prior Google posts.
> >
> > It's just the blind Sprint apologists who get bent out of shape my
> > telling
> >
> > SprintPCS' worst rated customer Service
>
> My personal experience has been good

I'm very happy for you, but one experience does not explain well over 1
million folks leaving SprintPCS in the last quarter.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> > SprintPCS secret Retention deals
>
> They're not secret. They're also not advertised

Duhh. Then they are secret.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> > SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
>
> I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
> fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
> what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
> to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
> bringing resolution.

Thats not the issue, but you know that. The issue is phones that should
be recalled aren't.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> > SprintPCS and its high churn rate
> > SprintPCS failing to release WLNP comparitive numbers
> > SprintPCS now refusing to release $$ cost of new customer acquisition.
>
> Not going to comment on these - not an investor, and therefore I
> personally don't care. I could see that an investor would care, however.

Thank you. I rest my case

Robert M. wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
>>
>>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
>
>
> Duhh. Then they are secret.

"Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."
-mike

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
>>
>>I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
>>fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
>>what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
>>to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
>>bringing resolution.
>
>
> Thats not the issue, but you know that. The issue is phones that should
> be recalled aren't.

I'm not certain that your issue is more "the issue" than mine. What is
the standard for determining the need to recall a mobile phone?
-mike