Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 82
  1. #1
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest
    Last month I posted an issue where Sprint lost a roaming agreement with
    Brazos Telecom resulting in a 60 mile wide by 20 miles area loss of
    roaming coverage for me.

    As expected, the Sprint drones alluded to their "policy" of not waiving
    the ETF if you still get coverage at your billing address. Never mind
    the fact the Service Agreement specifically allowed for it.

    Spoke with a very professional and courteous lady in the terminations
    department who was apologetic to the issue and waived the ETF.

    I should call Sprint back and have her name escalated to her manager for
    her professionalism.



    See More: Waived ETF Update




  2. #2
    Jerome Zelinske
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what? Your billing
    address I assume gets actual Sprint PCS coverage. Not only did you
    still get coverage there, but in all of Sprint PCS' coverage area. How
    is not losing any of your Sprint PCS coverage, grounds for waiving the
    ETF? You were paying for Sprint PCS coverage, not roaming coverage.
    Roaming is a bonus, gravy, not guaranteed. I would guess that less than
    1 percent of all Sprint PCS billed minutes are roaming. Did you find
    one carrier that covers, on their own, not roaming, all the areas that
    you want to use your phone? If not, then you best get two phones with
    service from two carriers.



  3. #3

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    ON Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:50:31 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
    <[email protected]> WROTE:

    > The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what? Your billing
    >address I assume gets actual Sprint PCS coverage. Not only did you
    >still get coverage there, but in all of Sprint PCS' coverage area. How
    >is not losing any of your Sprint PCS coverage, grounds for waiving the
    >ETF? You were paying for Sprint PCS coverage, not roaming coverage.
    >Roaming is a bonus, gravy, not guaranteed. I would guess that less than
    >1 percent of all Sprint PCS billed minutes are roaming. Did you find
    >one carrier that covers, on their own, not roaming, all the areas that
    >you want to use your phone? If not, then you best get two phones with
    >service from two carriers.


    Here's a story from the other side of things....a few years back, I
    purchased a Sprint phone/service on a Mother's Day promotion, so I had
    to buy and activate before a certain date to get the promotion. I was
    told that there were no towers near where I lived as Sprint was just
    coming into the area, but that one would be coming online "any day
    now." This was at a Radio Shack about a half mile from my house, and
    the tour was right across the street from the store, the salesman
    showed me the tower and then the Sprint map that had the tour marked
    for future service. So I bought the phone and the agreement, content
    to roam for a few days and then have PCS service.

    Well, a month down the line, I'm still roaming, and even standing in
    front of the store and looking at the tower, still no PCS signal. The
    tower hadn't been activated. Again, I was promised any day now.
    Another month passes and I'm building up roaming charges and the RS
    person is still full of promises. So I call Sprint to find out what
    the deal is, and they looked up the tower and said yes, any day now.
    To make a long story short, I asked to be let out without the ETF, I
    had been promised PCS service two months previous, didn't have it, and
    after all the promises didn't have any faith it would happenand had
    amassed roaming charges. The rep wouldn't let me out of my contract
    because it was a month down the line. When I insisted that for that
    month I wasn't getting the service I had payed for, and thus Sprint
    wasn't holding up their end of the contract, the rep explained to me
    that as long as the phone was working and I was able to make and
    receive calls, Sprint had delivered. Well that finally took me from
    annoyed to angry, cited the PCS advertisements, the salesman's
    promises, the PCS placards in the store that wasn't getting PCS
    service either, the freaking contract that said PCS right on it,
    argued that I shouldn't have to pay because Sprint was off schedule
    for tower expansion, would never have bought the service if I knew it
    would be months before I had full service at my residence, etc. etc.
    No dice, I was stuck. I was so angry that I was willing to pay the ETF
    to be able to tell Sprint to shove the phone and their service (and
    would have made it back in not having to pay the roaming fees anyway),
    but at the time there was no national cell carrier in the area that I
    lived, just locals, and I travelled a lot. What I was able to
    negotiate, after elevating the call a few levels, was a credit back on
    the roaming charges I had and would incur until the tower went live.

    Good thing, too, as it took over 6 months before that tower went live
    and I was able to get PCS. But it did finally go live.

    That was in Michigan. Since then I've moved twice (Long Island and
    New Jersey) and the Sprint service has been flawless, I often get
    signals where friends of mine have dead phones, even those on Verizon.
    Especially in theaters that are usually lousy for cell reception
    anyway (I'm a technical theater professional, I'm not talking about
    using my phone during a performance).

    Paul
    (Still using that phone, a Sanyo 5300)





  4. #4
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    Jerome Zelinske wrote:
    > The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what? Your billing
    > address I assume gets actual Sprint PCS coverage. Not only did you
    > still get coverage there, but in all of Sprint PCS' coverage area. How
    > is not losing any of your Sprint PCS coverage, grounds for waiving the
    > ETF? You were paying for Sprint PCS coverage, not roaming coverage.
    > Roaming is a bonus, gravy, not guaranteed.


    Sprint's Termination Department apparently does not agree with you. And
    THAT is the final determination. ETF was waived with NO hassles.

    > I would guess that less than
    > 1 percent of all Sprint PCS billed minutes are roaming.


    At least 40% of my calls were roaming on the Free & Clear $5 roaming
    package.

    > Did you find
    > one carrier that covers, on their own, not roaming,


    Cingular covers it just fine.



  5. #5
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    Jerome Zelinske wrote:
    > The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what?


    For waving the ETF if Sprint makes a change that "has a material adverse
    effect on you". Agreement, Item 9, Paragraph 4, Line 2

    Sprint honored their Agreement and waived the ETF.




  6. #6
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update


    "DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]boogie_boggie.blog> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Jerome Zelinske wrote:
    >> The Service Agreement specifically allowed for what?

    >
    > For waving the ETF if Sprint makes a change that "has a material adverse
    > effect on you". Agreement, Item 9, Paragraph 4, Line 2


    But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no change-
    the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement. Your need to hold
    them responsible for the decision of an unaffiliated company is rather sad
    and the quote above does not apply to this situation.

    >
    > Sprint honored their Agreement and waived the ETF.
    >


    I'm guessing that you tried to shove your flawed logic down their throats as
    you have done here. It was much cheaper for them to be rid of you than pay
    the salaries to deal with you.

    Have fun with Cingular- I see that the data network seems to be imploding in
    various parts of the country. That's the kind of carrier I'd want- one that
    has limited coverage and a less than stable network.





  7. #7
    DecaturTxCowboy
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    Scott wrote:
    > But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no change-
    > the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement.


    Not relevant as such a change by Sprint not differentiated in their
    Agreement

    > I'm guessing that you tried to shove your flawed logic down their throats as
    > you have done here.


    You guessed wrong. I simply stated I wanted to terminate my contract
    under the Agreement terms and she did it. No argument or jumping through
    hoops of logic on my part. Only thing being shoved down anyone's throat
    is a flawed interpretation of Sprint's Agreement, as you are doing now.

    > It was much cheaper for them to be rid of you than pay
    > the salaries to deal with you.


    $15 per hour wages x 2 (typical call center overhead per employee) x 5
    minutes = $2.50, I don't think so.

    > Have fun with Cingular- I see that the data network seems to be imploding in
    > various parts of the country.


    A temporary situation that is being corrected. Vision has had its own
    outages also.

    > That's the kind of carrier I'd want- one that
    > has limited coverage and a less than stable network.


    Better coverage than I had over the past several months. My rodeo
    partner has had Cingular for years and it covers all the cities we do
    the rodeos in as well as the travel routes.



  8. #8
    Pete M
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    I agree with you Cingular has better coverage than Sprint, not only that GSM
    sphons have much better sound quality than CDMA
    phones. I was with Sprint for 5-years, but recently I have switched to
    Cingular, after I talked on my brother's Cingular phone.

    "DecaturTxCowboy" <[email protected]_boggie.blog> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Scott wrote:
    >> But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no
    >> change- the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement.

    >
    > Not relevant as such a change by Sprint not differentiated in their
    > Agreement
    >
    >> I'm guessing that you tried to shove your flawed logic down their throats
    >> as you have done here.

    >
    > You guessed wrong. I simply stated I wanted to terminate my contract under
    > the Agreement terms and she did it. No argument or jumping through hoops
    > of logic on my part. Only thing being shoved down anyone's throat is a
    > flawed interpretation of Sprint's Agreement, as you are doing now.
    >
    >> It was much cheaper for them to be rid of you than pay the salaries to
    >> deal with you.

    >
    > $15 per hour wages x 2 (typical call center overhead per employee) x 5
    > minutes = $2.50, I don't think so.
    >
    >> Have fun with Cingular- I see that the data network seems to be imploding
    >> in various parts of the country.

    >
    > A temporary situation that is being corrected. Vision has had its own
    > outages also.
    >
    >> That's the kind of carrier I'd want- one that has limited coverage and a
    >> less than stable network.

    >
    > Better coverage than I had over the past several months. My rodeo partner
    > has had Cingular for years and it covers all the cities we do the rodeos
    > in as well as the travel routes.






  9. #9
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    Pete M wrote:
    > I agree with you Cingular has better coverage than Sprint,


    Unqualified, that's an absurd comment. If you live in an area that has
    better Cingular coverage then great. If not, Sprint may be better. In
    this case it's a situation of the loss of an AMPS roaming partner. How
    many phones does Cingular sell that are even capable of AMPS?

    In my experience, and I travel frequently, Cingular would not cut-it.
    Perhaps it's because I don't follow the rodeo circuit <g>, but that has
    been my experience.


    > not only
    > that GSM sphons have much better sound quality than CDMA
    > phones. I was with Sprint for 5-years, but recently I have switched to
    > Cingular, after I talked on my brother's Cingular phone.
    >


    Cingular has been known to squeeze the living hell out of voice, so I
    wouldn't put much faith in that experience. And phone quality varies.

    If my brother has a better-sounding Sprint phone than my Sprint phone
    what should I do, "switch" to Sprint or realize that it just might be
    the phone?


    --
    Mike





  10. #10
    Joseph Huber
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 22:06:48 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no change-
    >the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement. Your need to hold
    >them responsible for the decision of an unaffiliated company is rather sad
    >and the quote above does not apply to this situation.


    So, if one of your suppliers decides to not renew with you, and this
    makes you unable to deliver your product to your customer, that makes
    you not responsible for the commitments made to your customers??? It
    sure doesn't work that way in my industry.

    Sprint's coverage, which is the product that Sprint is offering,
    changed, to Cowboy's detriment, from that which existed when he signed
    up. It's irrelevant as to why it changed. It's too bad that one of
    Sprint's partners backed out, but Sprint is responsible for the final
    product, and for having contingencies when such unfortunate things
    happen. Sprint did ultimately change the coverage, by choosing not to
    find another roaming partner in that area.

    Joe Huber
    [email protected]



  11. #11
    Mij Adyaw
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    I completely agree with this assessment. Sprint is responsible for
    termination of the roaming coverage that they had previously advertised and
    that the customer had previously used.


    "Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]ax.com...
    > On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 22:06:48 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no
    >>change-
    >>the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement. Your need to hold
    >>them responsible for the decision of an unaffiliated company is rather sad
    >>and the quote above does not apply to this situation.

    >
    > So, if one of your suppliers decides to not renew with you, and this
    > makes you unable to deliver your product to your customer, that makes
    > you not responsible for the commitments made to your customers??? It
    > sure doesn't work that way in my industry.
    >
    > Sprint's coverage, which is the product that Sprint is offering,
    > changed, to Cowboy's detriment, from that which existed when he signed
    > up. It's irrelevant as to why it changed. It's too bad that one of
    > Sprint's partners backed out, but Sprint is responsible for the final
    > product, and for having contingencies when such unfortunate things
    > happen. Sprint did ultimately change the coverage, by choosing not to
    > find another roaming partner in that area.
    >
    > Joe Huber
    > [email protected]






  12. #12
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update


    "Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 22:06:48 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>But as discussed here and ignored by you ad nauseum, Sprint made no
    >>change-
    >>the roaming partner chose not to renew the agreement. Your need to hold
    >>them responsible for the decision of an unaffiliated company is rather sad
    >>and the quote above does not apply to this situation.

    >
    > So, if one of your suppliers decides to not renew with you, and this
    > makes you unable to deliver your product to your customer, that makes
    > you not responsible for the commitments made to your customers??? It
    > sure doesn't work that way in my industry.


    If that were the case, then yes. However, the loss of this roaming
    agreement (a non-guaranteed part of the service, BTW) did not impact the
    ability of Sprint to provide its native coverage

    >
    > Sprint's coverage, which is the product that Sprint is offering,
    > changed, to Cowboy's detriment, from that which existed when he signed
    > up.


    Sprint's coverage remained the same- non-guaranteed roaming coverage
    changed.

    >It's irrelevant as to why it changed. It's too bad that one of
    > Sprint's partners backed out, but Sprint is responsible for the final
    > product, and for having contingencies when such unfortunate things
    > happen.


    Actually, no they are not, no more than they are responsible for the
    maintenance and upkeep of that system.

    >Sprint did ultimately change the coverage, by choosing not to
    > find another roaming partner in that area.
    >

    There is no other roaming partner option in the area in question, as
    mentioned in the original thread about this subject. Now what would you
    propose Sprint do? After all, you are convinced that this is their fault-
    what is their option now? How do they fix something that they didn't own in
    the first place, did not guarantee and do not have a like product available
    to substitute?

    I love it when the entitlement children get involved- everything is a
    god-given right and the big corporate monster is always out to screw the
    customer.





  13. #13
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update


    "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >I completely agree with this assessment. Sprint is responsible for
    >termination of the roaming coverage that they had previously advertised and
    >that the customer had previously used.
    >
    >


    Responsible how? The roaming partner terminated the agreement, not Sprint.
    At least try to get the facts straight.





  14. #14
    Joseph Huber
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:27:46 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >There is no other roaming partner option in the area in question, as
    >mentioned in the original thread about this subject. Now what would you
    >propose Sprint do? After all, you are convinced that this is their fault-
    >what is their option now? How do they fix something that they didn't own in
    >the first place, did not guarantee and do not have a like product available
    >to substitute?


    Easy...build some towers and provide native coverage. Why did Sprint
    offer roaming coverage for that area in the first place? To entice
    customers to sign up with Sprint so that Sprint. could make money,
    period! Hey, making money is good! It pays my salary. At some
    point, Sprint must have seen some benefit to providing coverage in
    that area, or they wouldn't have enetered into a roaming agreement in
    the first place.

    If Sprint wasn't willing to make the committment to provide service to
    those customers that joined because of the roaming coverage, they
    shouldn't have offered roaming coverage in the first place, and passed
    on the revenue.

    Hiding behind the "roaming coverage isn't guaranteed" fine print after
    the salesperson shows the customer the coverage map to assure him that
    Sprint is a good choice for coverage is sleazy. Fortunately, Sprint
    took the high road and let Cowboy out of his agreement when Sprint
    failed to live up to it's part of the agreement. I respect them for
    that.

    >I love it when the entitlement children get involved- everything is a
    >god-given right and the big corporate monster is always out to screw the
    >customer.


    Oh please, get off your stinkin' high horse. I never said any such
    thing.

    Joe Huber
    [email protected]



  15. #15
    Joseph Huber
    Guest

    Re: Waived ETF Update

    On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:29:53 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Responsible how? The roaming partner terminated the agreement, not Sprint.
    >At least try to get the facts straight.


    Why is it so hard for you to understand that the vendor who sells the
    final product is ultimately responsible for supporting that product?
    Do you work in an industry that doesn't operate this way?

    Joe Huber
    [email protected]



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast