Waived ETF Update

That your calling patterns/needs changed is not under Sprint PCS'
control and not a reason for waiving the etf.
That a roaming partner does not renew with Sprint PCS is not under
Sprint PCS' control and not a reason for waiving the etf.
If your service with cingular in the area in question is native and not
roaming, cingular's maps are not clear, great. But who knows if any of
cingular's roaming partners will break off with cingular at any time.
You might be out of luck again, especially when the migration to wcdma
begins.

---

› See More: Waived ETF Update

Scott wrote:
> "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.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't watch court TV. (DISCLAIMER)

My guess would be the judge would ask Sprint a) where in the contract
does it mention "if coverage works at your billing address, the ETF
won't be waived" and b) why was sprint not specific what constitutes a
material adverse effect. <snicker>

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> That your calling patterns/needs changed is not under Sprint PCS'
> control and not a reason for waiving the etf.
> That a roaming partner does not renew with Sprint PCS is not under
> Sprint PCS' control and not a reason for waiving the etf.

And this is found where in the Sprint Agreement? Or is it you personal
interpretation of the Agreement?

John Richards wrote:
> "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.

I wouldn't argue that. That doesn't negate the fact that people should
choose carriers based on the carriers' OWN coverage...



--
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" <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>> That your calling patterns/needs changed is not under Sprint PCS'
>> control and not a reason for waiving the etf.
>> That a roaming partner does not renew with Sprint PCS is not under
>> Sprint PCS' control and not a reason for waiving the etf.
>
> And this is found where in the Sprint Agreement? Or is it you personal
> interpretation of the Agreement?

It's not found in the Service Agreement, just like thousands of other
business details that are not specifically mentioned in the agreement, and
many of the other things not specifically mentioned could have a much more
material effect on many more customers, but will not get you out of the ETF.

"DecaturTxCowboy" <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott wrote:
>> "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.
>
> I'm not a lawyer and I don't watch court TV. (DISCLAIMER)
>
> My guess would be the judge would ask Sprint a) where in the contract does
> it mention "if coverage works at your billing address, the ETF won't be
> waived" and b) why was sprint not specific what constitutes a material
> adverse effect. <snicker>

And then the judge would ask the customer a) what service provided directly
by Sprint has declined in quality and b) would you like me to hold you
personally responsible for the actions of others.

Based on your lame arguments, a customer shouold be allowed out of their
contract with no ETF becuase of the merger- they never intended to sign up
with a Nextel affiliated company.

Scott wrote:
> "DecaturTxCowboy" <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Scott wrote:
>>> "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.
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer and I don't watch court TV. (DISCLAIMER)
>>
>> My guess would be the judge would ask Sprint a) where in the
>> contract does it mention "if coverage works at your billing address,
>> the ETF won't be waived" and b) why was sprint not specific what
>> constitutes a material adverse effect. <snicker>
>
> And then the judge would ask the customer a) what service provided
> directly by Sprint has declined in quality and b) would you like me
> to hold you personally responsible for the actions of others.
>
> Based on your lame arguments, a customer shouold be allowed out of
> their contract with no ETF becuase of the merger- they never intended
> to sign up with a Nextel affiliated company.

Let's not forget that the ETFs are often there because of one getting a
subsidized price on a phone. Perhaps, in those cases, Sprint should just
let you out of the ETF if you agree to make up the difference on the
purchase-price of your phone(s).

Contracts are also used to get you to lock-in at a better rate. You get
a better rate, or more minutes, and Sprint has you as a customer for
another year or two. Let's face it, there has to be benefits to both
sides or no one would agree to a contract. In these cases--where no
equipment subsidization occurred--perhaps Sprint should simply re-rate
all of the bills at whatever rate you would have paid if you didn't
agree to a new contract and bill you for the difference.

I don't begrudge someone for getting out of an ETF due to an unfortunate
situation. But if Sprint lets anyone out of a contract, for any reason,
whom do you think will be making up the difference?

Just a thought.


--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I don't begrudge someone for getting out of an ETF due to an unfortunate
> situation. But if Sprint lets anyone out of a contract, for any reason,
> whom do you think will be making up the difference?
>
> Just a thought.

Very good point- if enough control is taken away from the carriers,
subsidies and lower rate plans will go away across the board.

Tinman wrote:
> I don't begrudge someone for getting out of an ETF due to an unfortunate
> situation. But if Sprint lets anyone out of a contract, for any reason,
> whom do you think will be making up the difference?
>
> Just a thought.

There are always going to be a few, rare and isolated situations where
the ETF should be waived. Do you really think a carrier will refuse
waving the ETF for a deceased customer and continue to bill his/her
estate for the duration of the contract?

Having the customer pay the difference for a subsidized phone is
certainly an idea, but I have no idea what processes would have to be in
place for that.

BTW, I know of about 24 phones (four business accounts) that got out of
the ETF that used their Sprint phones in the same are where I lost my
coverage. In a conversation with one of the accounts, they told me they
explained the circumstances and they were immediately released from
their contract. Its possible the area has been flagged as an ETF waiving
issue.

Scott wrote:
> but will not get you out of the ETF.

Sure it did......

"DecaturTxCowboy" <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote in message
news:Z0Wvf.52381$q%[email protected]...
> Scott wrote:
>> but will not get you out of the ETF.
>
> Sure it did......

That makes no sense, as the piece you clipped was talking about things that
did not apply here and did not get you out of your ETF. Now you are showing
yourself to be an idiot woth limited reading skills.

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 16:08:28 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>That makes no sense, as the piece you clipped was talking about things that
>did not apply here and did not get you out of your ETF. Now you are showing
>yourself to be an idiot woth limited reading skills.

Hi there!! It's your pal Joey here...I'll have to admit I'm not very
smart (which I'm sure will make you happy), because I don't know what
the word "woth" means. Maybe if I knew what that word meant, your post
would make some sense, and I wouldn't feel like such an idiot...

BTW, when you are done ranting and namecalling with regards to this
little sub-topic, perhaps you could go back and rant some more about
why does Sprint doesn't bother to provide coverage in sparsely
populated areas, like for instance, in ND along US 52/281 from north
of Jamestown to the SD border (100 miles or so), where:
* the population density is about 5-6 people per square mile in the
three counties (Stutsman, LaMoure, Dickey) that the route passes
through
* The total population of those three counties is about 33,000 people
* The largest city in that area has a population of about 14,000
people

Oh, but wait, Sprint does provide coverage in that area. I'll have to
admit I haven't been there and used the native Sprint coverage in over
a year, but the coverage is still shown on the Sprint Nationwide map,
and Sprint is still selling plans for that area on their website.
Unless you don't consider the above counties to be sparsely
populated...

Joe Huber
[email protected]

"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 16:08:28 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>That makes no sense, as the piece you clipped was talking about things
>>that
>>did not apply here and did not get you out of your ETF. Now you are
>>showing
>>yourself to be an idiot woth limited reading skills.
>
> Hi there!! It's your pal Joey here...I'll have to admit I'm not very
> smart (which I'm sure will make you happy), because I don't know what
> the word "woth" means. Maybe if I knew what that word meant, your post
> would make some sense, and I wouldn't feel like such an idiot...

I doubt it- resorting to *****ing errors is usually the sign of a weak
argument.

>
> BTW, when you are done ranting and namecalling with regards to this
> little sub-topic, perhaps you could go back and rant some more about
> why does Sprint doesn't bother

why does Sprint doesn't bother? It would seem that you should have bigger
proofreading concerns than my *****ing errors.

>to provide coverage in sparsely
> populated areas, like for instance, in ND along US 52/281 from north
> of Jamestown to the SD border (100 miles or so), where:
> * the population density is about 5-6 people per square mile in the
> three counties (Stutsman, LaMoure, Dickey) that the route passes
> through
> * The total population of those three counties is about 33,000 people
> * The largest city in that area has a population of about 14,000
> people
>
> Oh, but wait, Sprint does provide coverage in that area. I'll have to
> admit I haven't been there and used the native Sprint coverage in over
> a year, but the coverage is still shown on the Sprint Nationwide map,
> and Sprint is still selling plans for that area on their website.
> Unless you don't consider the above counties to be sparsely
> populated...
>

They are sparseley populated and sit along the major transportation
arteries, IIRC. Was the coverage built for the resident or traveler?

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:30:41 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I doubt it- resorting to *****ing errors is usually the sign of a weak
>argument.

I'm not using your *****ing as an argument. C'mon now, even you have
to see the irony in you calling someone an idiot and mi*****ing the
word "with" in the same sentence...

>> BTW, when you are done ranting and namecalling with regards to this
>> little sub-topic, perhaps you could go back and rant some more about
>> why does Sprint doesn't bother
>why does Sprint doesn't bother? It would seem that you should have bigger
>proofreading concerns than my *****ing errors.

Nothing wrong with what I wrote; perhaps a reading comprehension
problem on your part?

>They are sparseley populated and sit along the major transportation
>arteries, IIRC. Was the coverage built for the resident or traveler?

Major transportation artery? Given the population in those areas, and
the areas in SD along that highway, how many people do you think drive
along that route, especially with I-29 (which also has Sprint coverage
BTW) about about 60 miles to the east?

The coverage may likely have been built for the traveler, but that
route is still very lightly traveled relative to other places that
Sprint could have built coverage. If the route was built for a few
travelers, by your standard, that would have been a bad business
decision for Sprint, since they could have built that infrastructure
elsewhere in a more populated area and made more money. How many
people do you think bought Sprint plans because US52/281 has coverage
in southern ND?

Joe Huber
[email protected]

"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:30:41 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I doubt it- resorting to *****ing errors is usually the sign of a weak
>>argument.
>
> I'm not using your *****ing as an argument. C'mon now, even you have
> to see the irony in you calling someone an idiot and mi*****ing the
> word "with" in the same sentence...

Then why mention it?

>
>>> BTW, when you are done ranting and namecalling with regards to this
>>> little sub-topic, perhaps you could go back and rant some more about
>>> why does Sprint doesn't bother
>>why does Sprint doesn't bother? It would seem that you should have bigger
>>proofreading concerns than my *****ing errors.
>
> Nothing wrong with what I wrote; perhaps a reading comprehension
> problem on your part?

Perhaps a lesson for you in basic english grammar would be more effective.

>
>>They are sparseley populated and sit along the major transportation
>>arteries, IIRC. Was the coverage built for the resident or traveler?
>
> Major transportation artery? Given the population in those areas, and
> the areas in SD along that highway, how many people do you think drive
> along that route, especially with I-29 (which also has Sprint coverage
> BTW) about about 60 miles to the east?
>
> The coverage may likely have been built for the traveler, but that
> route is still very lightly traveled relative to other places that
> Sprint could have built coverage. If the route was built for a few
> travelers, by your standard, that would have been a bad business
> decision for Sprint, since they could have built that infrastructure
> elsewhere in a more populated area and made more money. How many
> people do you think bought Sprint plans because US52/281 has coverage
> in southern ND?
>

I would guess that more did than bought service for the area of Hickville,
Texas that is the subject of this thread.

I'm really curious about your obsession with this area of the country. No
matter where coverage has been built out, building service in a rural area
is far from profitable for the provider. I really don't care why the
coverage you mention is there- could it be that it is now native coverage
due to an acquisition that included it in the purchase? Much more likely
than Sprint buidling it.