I've been slammed by Sprint

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:12:08 -0800, Quick wrote:

Well in most cases a supervisor = manager they are both management
positions that may or may not be equal dependant on the business. I was
just recalling from memory the specific job title.

I noticed you have spoken with your daughter recently about this did you
find out if she was actively calling sprintpcs to work out the porting
issue after you blocked it? That would explain the multiple porting
attempts. As far as sprintpcs retrying the port process when it failed
you have to understand that the feed back they get is not always clear
from the other company. All they knew was that their new customer signed
up without problems, proper information and such, so things should work
out. Only bad thing I can see here was that the store supervisor did not
make it clear to sprintpcs' porting dept that all attempts should be
stopped. Tho who knows what sprintpcs' porting computers' retry settings
were set to.

---

› See More: I've been slammed by Sprint

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:16:30 -0800, Quick wrote:
>
> Well... *maybe* not that bad. Daughter was at the store.
> At least I knew I was giving my SSN to a Sprint store person.
> I also identified the phone number from the callerID. I think
> the big mistake was not immediately thinking about the
> consequences like the ETF. (yea, yea, it was still stupid).
>
> -Quick

CID data is very easy to change even more so with voip providers. At least
it worked out to be a legitimate reason. Usually the only caller
information you can trust would be the ANI billing data which you won't
get with regular land lines. In such case I would have asked if your
daughter was there and to speak to her or if not would have got their
number and confirmed with information/internet lookups. All of which take
time but I guess it is much shorter then having to clean up identity theft
a month or more later.

It is alleged that Quick claimed:

; Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.

It doesn't sound like it's Sprint that's slamming you, it's your
daughter.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"Evil! Pure and simple from the eighth dimension!" (Buckaroo Banzai,
"Buckaroo Banzai")

Central wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:16:30 -0800, Quick wrote:
>>
>> Well... *maybe* not that bad. Daughter was at the store.
>> At least I knew I was giving my SSN to a Sprint store
>> person. I also identified the phone number from the
>> callerID. I think the big mistake was not immediately
>> thinking about the consequences like the ETF. (yea, yea,
>> it was still stupid).
>>
>> -Quick
>
> CID data is very easy to change even more so with voip
> providers. At least it worked out to be a legitimate
> reason. Usually the only caller information you can trust
> would be the ANI billing data which you won't get with
> regular land lines. In such case I would have asked if
> your daughter was there and to speak to her or if not
> would have got their number and confirmed with
> information/internet lookups. All of which take time but
> I guess it is much shorter then having to clean up
> identity theft a month or more later.

All true. I did hear her in the background... no guarantee
that it wasn't some scheme her and her friends cooked
up though. -

-Quick

Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
> It is alleged that Quick claimed:
>
> ; Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
>
> It doesn't sound like it's Sprint that's slamming you,
> it's your daughter.

Inadvertently possible. There is almost no chance the
thought process went past:

"I *must* have a cell phone for when I'm away from
my 14 chat windows on my PC . I have a couple of
hundred from my last paycheck or two and I'll get
Grandma to pay for anything else. My friend has
Sprint and can talk unlimited. Oh, and I *have* to
have the same cell number."

-Quick

Quick wrote:

> I don't know how Sprint does it but my guess is that she paid
> $50 for the phone and $125 deposit (maybe includes first
> month?). She doesn't have any credit other than a savings
> account and her own credit card for maybe a year and a
> part time job at the sandwich place.

I have to figure you're right about the $125. There would have been a $36
activation fee figured in somewhere in there.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Central wrote:


> The phone works for calling out

Yes, because they assign it a number upon activation, it's just not the number
that will ultimately be used. They have to assign a number upon activation.
It's the way Sprint and every other cell carrier that I know of works.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Quick wrote:
>>store, specifically the manager, I would bet she was in
>>the store at the time signing up and his SSN was all she
>>didn't know for the porting request.
>
> Exactly. My SSN is on the VZW account. They needed
> that to port the number from that account. I've since
> gathered that she paid $50 for the phone and $125
> "to move the number". I'm guessing the $125 was
> actually a security deposit for lack of credit.

Duh. That makes sense. And if you had a password set on the account instead,
Verizon would have needed *that* as authorization to move the number. (Been
there, done that.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

Jafo wrote:
> Yeah. A new customer with somebody else's SS.

No, it sounds like Verizon needed some sort of authorization. VZW required the
account password from me when I ported my number out.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

"Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1109700817.173603@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Central wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:34:38 -0800, Jafo wrote:
> >
> >> As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Bob Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Tough luck. Sprint was stupid enough to give her a
> >>>> phone and now they're whining about it.
> >>
> >>> The OP said she was 18, and they had a SSN to run a
> >>> credit check. A port request was initiated ... As far
> >>> as SPCS knew, they thought they had a new customer ...
> >>
> >> Yeah. A new customer with somebody else's SS.
> >
> > Actually no they just used his SSN for the porting
> > request. I don't care how busy or stressful things are at
> > the moment someone calls for your SSN just the fact they
> > called for it should set off alarm bells in your head
> > that something is wrong/you should pay attention. Esp if
> > you have not initiated business with them at all. He did
> > admit it was his mistake tho but it is a very bad one to
> > make.
>
> Well... *maybe* not that bad. Daughter was at the store.
> At least I knew I was giving my SSN to a Sprint store person.
> I also identified the phone number from the callerID. I think
> the big mistake was not immediately thinking about the
> consequences like the ETF. (yea, yea, it was still stupid).

Not really stupid. More of a situation where there was an 18 year old girl
involved. ;-)

-F

Quick wrote:

> The VZW rep said they used to require *everything* to match
> when processing a port request... Then they got too many
> complaints from people whose port didn't go through because
> they had changed address, etc. So apparently they've relaxed
> the verification. It seems that now the carrier who will end up
> with the number need only submit a port request with the SS#
> on the VZW account that the number is being ported from.

Interesting. Yes, that's the problem I ran into; for some reason, Sprint, with
whom I'd had an account for my wife's phone for years, retained our Victorville
mailing address even after we moved to Apple Valley. Verizon had the Apple
Valley address. So did Sprint, but for some reason the VV address was still in
their system as the primary address and that's what they initially sent to
Verizon. Everything got cleared up quickly, but it was still rather weird.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:59:38 -0800, Quick wrote:

> The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>> But as for your daughter, did she need your SSN just to
>> do the porting, or was she trying to set up an account
>> under your name or with you as co-signer? This seems
>> odd, but I've not gone down the porting path (and don't
>> intend to). If she wanted a Sprint phone, she could have
>> just signed up on her own. At age 18, I wouldn't expect
>> her to have an adequate credit history established, hence
>> the question.
>
> It was just to port the number. Subsequent conversation
> upon her return from Grandma's:
>
> "Did you block the request to move my number from VZW?"
> "Yes, it would cost me $175. If you want to pay that I'll do it".
> "Why? they're just moving the number."
> "Because VZW will charge a $175 ETF."
> "But I paid Sprint $125 to move the number. $50 for the phone
> and $125 to move the number."
>
> Ok... she is absolutely clueless so episodes like this could be
> a learning experience (but probably not).
>
> I don't know how Sprint does it but my guess is that she paid
> $50 for the phone and $125 deposit (maybe includes first
> month?). She doesn't have any credit other than a savings
> account and her own credit card for maybe a year and a
> part time job at the sandwich place.
>
> -Quick
> credit card for maybe a year.

She is going to get a big awakening when she gets her first bill. Since
that will be $36, activation, + plan + taxes. Sprintpcs gives instant
discounts on the phones which is why it only cost $50. The $125
she will get back at the end of her contract if she never misses a
payment. They take it off her bill at the end of her contract so in 2yrs
she will not have to pay for a month or two. Also sprintpcs bills one
month in advance so that will also raise her first bill. Hopefully she was
paying attention when they explained all this.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 03:52:11 +0000, ZJ Driver wrote:

>>
>> Well... *maybe* not that bad. Daughter was at the store.
>> At least I knew I was giving my SSN to a Sprint store person.
>> I also identified the phone number from the callerID. I think
>> the big mistake was not immediately thinking about the
>> consequences like the ETF. (yea, yea, it was still stupid).
>
> Not really stupid. More of a situation where there was an 18 year old girl
> involved. ;-)
>
> -F

Well I guess that would make sense since I have always heard about stupid
situations involving 17 year old girls :P

Central wrote:
>
> She is going to get a big awakening when she gets her
> first bill. Since that will be $36, activation, + plan +
> taxes. Sprintpcs gives instant discounts on the phones
> which is why it only cost $50. The $125
> she will get back at the end of her contract if she never
> misses a payment. They take it off her bill at the end of
> her contract so in 2yrs she will not have to pay for a
> month or two. Also sprintpcs bills one month in advance
> so that will also raise her first bill. Hopefully she was
> paying attention when they explained all this.

Listening (attentive look): 80% probability
Paying attention (actually listening): 50% probability
Processing the details: 5% probability
Projecting actual cost, initial, monthly, etc.: 1% probability

thanks for the info.

-Quick

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:59:38 -0800, "Quick"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ok... she is absolutely clueless so episodes like this could be
>a learning experience (but probably not).

That's what I thought when my son failed 9th grade. I had fought with
him to keep his English grades up all through middle school, and just
got tired of fighting it. But the reality of spending an extra year
in high school did serve of a wake-up call of sorts.