Moving from Sprint to Cingular

"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> 2) As far as Navas goes, whether you agree with him or not, he *has* been around:
>
> http://navasgrp.home.att.net

Yep, I used the information on that website, specifically
http://navasgrp.home.att.net/tech/sch-8500/index.htm
to set up my first tethered connection quite a few years ago. Good stuff!

--
John Richards

---

› See More: Moving from Sprint to Cingular

John Richards wrote:
>
> "Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > 2) As far as Navas goes, whether you agree with him or not, he *has* been around:
> >
> > http://navasgrp.home.att.net
>
> Yep, I used the information on that website, specifically
> http://navasgrp.home.att.net/tech/sch-8500/index.htm
> to set up my first tethered connection quite a few years ago. Good stuff!

I used the same site for the same reason.

And, for that, I thank him!

Notan

Well, we seem to be going back and forth stating our differing
opinions. You stated, "Sprint considers roaming as part of the service
they provide, albeit via a roaming partner." It is my understanding
that Sprint PCS considers the possibility of roaming, on a carrier that
they currently have a roaming agreement with, a part of their service.
But there are no guarantees. If the roaming agreement expires and they
can not reach a new one, or if there no longer is a carrier in an area,
then there is no current roaming possibility. If you can not find a
carrier that covers, by themselves, all the areas that you want service,
then you may just have to carry more than one phone. Because you can
not rely on roaming agreements.

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If the roaming agreement expires and they can not reach a new one, or if
> there no longer is a carrier in an area, then there is no current roaming
> possibility.

BINGO....They dropped their end of the "Agreement" that included coverage in
said partnered area. This created an materially adverse problem for me,
hence qualifies a waiving of the ETF as per the contract...but Sprint is
ignoring the contract and relying on an arbitrary "policy" that is not in
any contract nor available to the consumer.

The Advantage Agreement only includes the possibility to roam while
they have a roaming agreement in place. There is no guarantee that
there will continue to be a roaming agreement with that carrier or the
other carrier continuously. The roaming carrier in question could have
wanted too much money to renew. The roaming carrier could now be out of
business. I do not know. Whatever the cause, the result is there is no
Sprint PCS roaming there now. While they may be trying to replace that
roaming carrier, or cover it themselves, there is no legal requirement
for them to do so. Sprint PCS is not ignoring the Advantage Agreement.
They are providing all terms of it, including the possibility to roam
where they do currently have a roaming agreement in force. The
materially adverse problem was caused by you. You did not sign on with
a carrier or carriers that covered, themselves, all the places you
wanted to use your phone or phones.

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sprint PCS is not ignoring the Advantage Agreement. You did not sign on
> with a carrier or carriers that covered, themselves, all the places you
> wanted to use your phone or phones.

The Agreement states the agreement reflects the printed material in the
stores, including roaming.

Loosing 30% of my usable coverage is clearly a materially adverse issue. The
Agreement allows for waiving the ETF.

The REAL problem is getting past the termination drones.

"including roaming" on the roaming partners they have an agreements
with at the time the calls are placed. Those partners and areas of
roaming change. Roaming is not guaranteed! Of all the areas of
possible roaming, the area in question is a drop in the bucket. You did
not loose any Sprint PCS coverage. You only lost some possiblities
roaming, therefore you have no case.
It seems to me that the maps are only changed/printed when new plans
come out. The roaming agreements are not tied to that. In other words,
they do not have to print new maps every day.
Which carriers, if any, has their own service, not roaming, in the
affected area? If any of them cover, by them selves, all of the places
where you want service, porting your number to them might be a good
idea. Otherwise, you could carry more than one carrier's phone/service.

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> "Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Sprint PCS is not ignoring the Advantage Agreement. You did not sign
>> on with a carrier or carriers that covered, themselves, all the
>> places you wanted to use your phone or phones.
>
> The Agreement states the agreement reflects the printed material in
> the stores, including roaming.
>

Assuming you actually did print out, or have a copy of, the coverage map
as it was when you signed up with Sprint, you better take a look at the
fine-print on the bottom (and if you printed it, it might been on the
unprinted "page 2").

But this is what it says now, and these types of disclaimers have been
on carrier maps--including Sprint's--before F&CA was even around:
"Coverage Maps: Maps depict approximate service areas for outdoor
coverage based on computer-generated radio-frequency coverage
projections and INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES, but are not a
guarantee of service availability. Actual coverage, quality and
availability of coverage may vary based on network problems, signal
strength, your equipment, terrain, structures, weather and other
limitations or conditions. Coverage is not available everywhere and may
not be available in all areas depicted on these maps." [emphasis added]

Although it would be nice for Sprint to waive the ETF, I don't think you
are going to be able to force them to by using a map that explicitly
states it does not guarantee coverage. You'd probably have better luck
asking for it to be waived nicely, due to extenuating circumstances. If
this doesn't work, politely back off and call back again--till you get
to a rep that will do it (assuming your account is not already
negatively notated).


> The REAL problem is getting past the termination drones.

What termination drones? When did you first become a SPCS customer (not
the date of your last AA renewal)?

I thought you already cancelled Sprint, and signed up with
Cingular--though it was pointed it out that your (roaming) coverage
issue might indeed be temporary in nature. I personally would have went
straight to the local carriers involved, and found out from them what
happened to Sprint roaming (in your case it should have been easy, as
you claimed to be in those areas all the time--and at least one local
carrier has stores in one or more of the town you mentioned).

Like it or not, you took a risk if you signed up with Sprint knowing
roaming would be extensively needed. Sprint doesn't advertise their
network like AT&T did when it released the first U.S. nationwide
coverage plan ("Digital One Rate"). Sprint touts *their* network, and
never guarantees roaming coverage. They merely offer "no roaming
charges" which is a big plus (but not the crux of their business model).

And, IIRC, AT&T's DOR map was merely a map of the entire USA--the
implication being that if there was cellular coverage in Anytown, USA,
your plan included it (this was unprecedented at the time). I had that
plan, nearly from its launch, and can say with certainty that it did
*not* allow roaming everywhere in the country. Many smaller carriers did
not have roaming agreements, so trying to make an (analog) call would
result in a "Welcome to the American Roaming Network!" message. This of
course was usually followed by a statement that using the service
required paying via a credit-card (at un-Godly rates). Do you think AT&T
would have waived my ETF due to those (presumably) few areas where they
didn't have roaming agreements? Not a chance. And this company *did*
tout "everywhere" as being covered (where cellular coverage exited at
all).

That is why I asked you early in this thread *what happens* when you
force your SPCS phone into analog roam and try to make a call in those
newly-non-covered areas (and what happens when the phone is in Automatic
mode). If you are greeted with the aforementioned roaming message, the
area is still covered by someone (if AMPS, dialing 611 will connect you
to them--and even their CSRs might be able to explain what happened to
Sprint roaming). If there is simply no service, which I doubt, then
that's a different story altogether.


--
Mike

"DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Sprint PCS is not ignoring the Advantage Agreement. You did not sign on
>> with a carrier or carriers that covered, themselves, all the places you
>> wanted to use your phone or phones.
>
> The Agreement states the agreement reflects the printed material in the
> stores, including roaming.
>

So, what you are saying is that Sprint is bound by the terms of the TOS to
guarantee coverage on another carrier's network? Regardless of price or
reason? For a revenue losing feature whose price is dictated by the roaming
partner and not Sprint? I hate to say it, Cowboy- you'll never get anywhere
with this. Sprint can afford to stall you and hope for legal action,
because no court in the country will hold Sprint liable for the activities
of a third party. If the roaming partner decides to hike the roaming charge
to Sprint higher than they are willing to pay, no court is going to rule
that Sprint should be forced to pay the higher price.

What you are complaining about has as much to do with Sprint as the lack of
coverage in the Carlsdbad Caverns.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What you are complaining about has as much to do with Sprint as the lack
> of coverage in the Carlsdbad Caverns.

Not relative (TM of John Navis) - Sprint never claimed to have coverage in
Carlsdbad Caverns, roaming or otherwise, same for Cingular.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> because no court in the country will hold Sprint liable for the activities
> of a third party.

Again, not relative - has nothing to do with Sprint's partnerships. It has
to do with them being held to their Agreement.

"DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> What you are complaining about has as much to do with Sprint as the lack
>> of coverage in the Carlsdbad Caverns.
>
> Not relative (TM of John Navis)

Why bring the class clown into the discussion?


> - Sprint never claimed to have coverage in Carlsdbad Caverns, roaming or
> otherwise, same for Cingular.
>

If you look at the map it shows service in the area. The fact that coverage
does not extend down into the caverns is no fault of the carrier. The fact
that a roaming partner has chosen to no longer allow Sprint customers on
their network is no fault of Sprint. THey are relative- both instances are
outside the control of Sprint and they are therefore unactionable items.

"DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> because no court in the country will hold Sprint liable for the
>> activities of a third party.
>
> Again, not relative - has nothing to do with Sprint's partnerships. It has
> to do with them being held to their Agreement.
>

Unless the agreement specifically guarantees roaming in the exact area in
question, they are being held to their agreement. The service agreement
talks about roaming, but does not guarantee it. The network coverage that
they provide has not changed. The network coverage provided by an
independent third party company that you have been allowed to roam on has
changed and Sprint has no control over their decisions. Sprint can not
force other carriers to provide their network to Sprint subscribers. You
are assuming that the loss of coverage is Sprint's fault, which is the only
way you can ask for ETF relief. Probably not the case.

"DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> because no court in the country will hold Sprint liable for the
>> activities of a third party.
>
> Again, not relative - has nothing to do with Sprint's partnerships. It has
> to do with them being held to their Agreement.
>

What you are complaining about is akin to breaking a DirecTV service
agreement because WGN has decided to pull their channel from the DirecTV
network.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> because no court in the country will hold Sprint liable for the
>>> activities of a third party.
>>
>> Again, not relative - has nothing to do with Sprint's partnerships. It
>> has to do with them being held to their Agreement.


> What you are complaining about is akin to breaking a DirecTV service
> agreement because WGN has decided to pull their channel from the DirecTV
> network.

It would only be akin if loosing WGN had a material adverse effect.