Waived ETF Update

Tinman wrote:
> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>>Technically, that's not quite correct. When I changed my telephone
>>number I had to renew a 2 year contract that included the new (at the
>>time) F&C plan.
>
> So now we're into "technicalities." Lovely. And since you've stated that
> you paid for F&CA (which means it was an add-on), how exactly did you
> "have" to subscribe to it? And how did you survive with Sprint before
> F&CA? You did state that (at least) 40% of your calls were roaming
> calls, right?

I believe I mentioned that circumstances changed. When I signed up with
Sprint years ago, I had no need for roaming. Last year I had a new need
for roaming and new telephone number. Therefore, I was "technically"
under a new two year agreement when I changed numbers.


> For someone who claimed to be a wireless "professional" you sure do seem
> clueless about mobile telephone service. WTF did you think calling *2
> was going to accomplish in an AMPS-only area?

DUH...I guess it didn't occur to you I called *2 when back in Sprint
network coverage.

> ????? Are you feeling so guilty you cannot even ***** "contract?"

I was too lazy to ***** check

> No. You are confusing a Sprint affiliate with a roaming partner. Not the
> same thing.

Not sure how they are different in the sense that both provided roaming,
not network, coverage.

> And for the record, your painting of the ETV-waiving as if it were just
> a simple phone call ain't flying. You posted over a month-ago that
> Sprint was giving you a hassle over the ETF. So just because you got
> lucky now doesn't mean it was a walk in the park.

You may have missed what I said. My previous calls were NOT to the
specific number listed for termination.

> So at first you were on the phone going "around and around," with
> Sprint--and Sprint was holding their ground. According to your own
> comments you weren't even going to "bother calling Sprint again." Am I
> supposed to believe your claim--now--that it was cake-walk, or your
> claim back then that Sprint's policy was to not waive ETFs if Sprint
> still provides service "at your billing address?"

Again...You may have missed what I said. My previous calls were NOT to
the specific number listed for termination.


> And how's the BBB thing workin' out for ya'? You know, the "fast
track" option. <g>

Never bothered to go that route.

---

› See More: Waived ETF Update

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Except for those people who caused
> their own problem by choosing the wrong carrier in the first place.

Who chose a "wrong carrier"??? I choose Sprint because they DID have
the coverage I needed, albiet as roaming.

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Sprint PCS supported it's product quite well. Sprint PCS coverage did not
> change. It is not in control or responsible for a third party's network,
> services or coverage. If that third party no longer allows Sprint PCS
> customers to roam on it, then the only thing that I think Sprint PCS would
> be obligated to do, and I think they will, is drop the extra charge for
> roaming. Roaming is such a small part of their billing that the new plans
> don't charge extra any more.

Might as well give up on this, J. One whined and fussed and got his way, so
they all now think that it was done out of contractual obligation. The
reintroduction of natural selection is the only thing that would solve the
issue.

Scott wrote:
> Might as well give up on this, J.

Agreed, Jerome needs to understand the difference between HIS
interpretation of the Agreement and Sprint's.

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:

>> I get the feeling that we will be hearing from you when cingular
>> finally gets around to upgrading from gsm to wcdma and your phone
>> won't work anymore.
>
> By that time, I'll be ready for a new phone anyway. Not holding my breath.

Y'know, Jerome DID have a good point. If 40% of your airtime usage is
roaming, you probably *should* find a carrier that actually covers the area
in which you're using the phone.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>> Except for those people who caused their own problem by choosing the
>> wrong carrier in the first place.
>
> Who chose a "wrong carrier"??? I choose Sprint because they DID have
> the coverage I needed, albiet as roaming.

Choosing a carrier based on the fact that they provide the coverage you need
through roaming agreements is a HUGE mistake. Roaming agreements change all
the time.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: [email protected] Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Y'know, Jerome DID have a good point. If 40% of your airtime usage is
> roaming, you probably *should* find a carrier that actually covers the
> area in which you're using the phone.

My take was that he was saying I shouldn't have gone with Sprint in the
first place. That wasn't the case. I moved and changed my number, not
anticipating I would be roaming that often, if at all. Shortly
thereafter I unexpectedly needed coverage in the roaming area.

Sprint was fine for me, even when roaming, there was no need to change
carriers just because I started roaming.

"DecaturTxCowboy" <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote in message
news:Z5kvf.50216$q%[email protected]...
> Scott wrote:
>> Might as well give up on this, J.
>
> Agreed, Jerome needs to understand the difference between HIS
> interpretation of the Agreement and Sprint's.

Wow, that was slick- I've never seen anybody take something out of context
like that on Usenet before. At least not in the last hour.

Sprint allowed you out of the contract- they were not obligated to do so.
You probably shouldn't base your legal opinions on the "Texas Justice"
episodes you've watched.

Scott wrote:
>>Agreed, Jerome needs to understand the difference between HIS
>>interpretation of the Agreement and Sprint's.
>
>
> Wow, that was slick- I've never seen anybody take something out of context
> like that on Usenet before. At least not in the last hour.


Why thank you!.. I thought it was pretty good myself.

> Sprint allowed you out of the contract- they were not obligated to do so.
> You probably shouldn't base your legal opinions on the "Texas Justice"
> episodes you've watched.

Sorry, I'm lost on that. Haven't wathed TV in umm...about six years.

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> If Sprint PCS no longer has a
> roaming agreement with one of many carriers, (and I still think that
> Sprint PCS' total roaming billed minutes is less than one percent,) it
> is a very insignificant problem. Except for those people who caused
> their own problem by choosing the wrong carrier in the first place.

In some locations one's choices for cell carrier are limited, so one
chooses the best fit of what's available at the time. Circumstances
can change, and only people with 20/20 hindsight make the right
choice all the time. :-)

--
John Richards

"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Roaming agreements change all
> the time.

A fact which the average customer certainly is not aware of.
A valid case can be made that the ETF should be waived
when a given customer is substantially 'harmed' by such a
roaming agreement change.

--
John Richards

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Sprint allowed you out of the contract- they were not obligated to do so.
> You probably shouldn't base your legal opinions on the "Texas Justice"
> episodes you've watched.

Are you a lawyer with expertise in consumer contract law?
Fact is, many states have consumer laws about ETF which
are a lot more consumer-friendly than what Sprint's contract says.
Guess which overrides the other?

--
John Richards

If a roaming agreement changes, then Sprint should attempt to obtain another
roaming agreement with another carrier in the affected area. If it is not
possible to obtain another roaming partner, then Sprint should give the
customer the option to terminate their contract. After all, Sprint flaunts
the roaming coverage as coverage that the customer can count on. Sprint is
very proud of their roaming coverage map. Verizon and Cingular also flaunt
roaming coverage. Sprint made a very good business decision when they
decided to terminate Cowboy's contract. Because Cowboy is satisfied, Sprint
will probably gain several more customers from Coyboy's positive view of
Sprint.



"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Roaming agreements change all the time.
>
> A fact which the average customer certainly is not aware of.
> A valid case can be made that the ETF should be waived
> when a given customer is substantially 'harmed' by such a
> roaming agreement change.
>
> --
> John Richards

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fact is, many states have consumer laws about ETF which
> are a lot more consumer-friendly than what Sprint's contract says.

Fact is, "many" states do not have consumer laws about ETF.

> Guess which overrides the other?

I believe the state courts are still determining that in many instances.

If it is roaming, it is not Sprint PCS coverage. You were paying for
Sprint PCS coverage, plus if you were out of Sprint PCS coverage, you
could possibly roam if there was a carrier in the area that had a
current agreement with Sprint PCS. But there was/is nothing in your
agreement with Sprint PCS that says which carriers are included and for
how long. Nor is there a requirement for Sprint PCS to replace one
roaming carrier with another. That you whined enough to get Sprint PCS
to waive the etf when they did not have to is sad.