Results 16 to 30 of 31
- 07-26-2003, 12:32 PM #16starwarsGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
>I don't know the whole situtation but reguardless of the situtation you
>did sign a 1 year or 2 year contract and it does state that if you
>terminate it early you are apt to pay the fee?
Subject to certain requirements. Right? I mean you did read the whole thing didn't you?
If they decide to raise you plan rate to $2,000 per month tomorrow via an "Air Conditioning the
Call Center Fee" which is mandated by OSHA standards and which they are "allowed" to recover, is
it your official position that you are bound by the contract to pay it?
>And that fee is added due to federal regulations, and even if you go to
>another carrier that new fee will already be incorperated into your
>bill. My guess is you should have finished out your contract.
Is this one of those "if you say it often enough someone will believe it" things?
Not all other carriers have incorporated the fee, some have incorporated it differently, some
have not charged anything at all, and the fee is not imposed "by government regulations".
Costs of doing business in the U.S. vary sometimes month-to-month. Everything that we buy, sell,
or trade is effected by federal regulations. If it is not a direct tax, then everybody gets to
decide for themselves what they are going to charge, if anything.
Given that WLNP costs MAYBE 10 cents per line per month to implement, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT IN
ANY WAY SHAPE OF FORM REQUIRE THAT SPRINT CHARGE YOU $1.10 PER LINE FOR NUMBER POOLING OR
PORTABILITY.
People with multiple lines obviously pay more than $1.10.
If they charge nothing, 1 cent, or $100 per line per month ... the gub'mint doesn't care. They
"allow" them to do so in the same way that they "allow" me to sell my 1974 Ford Pinto to you for
$785,000.
Whether you want to pay that much for my Pinto is up to you, and the Federal Government allows me
to charge it, but nobody can force you to pay it. That's 100% up to you. And so it is in the
case of WLNP. "Allowed" and "Required" are so mutually exlusive, that those who can't tell the
difference need to run, not walk, but RUN to the nearest book store and buy a dictionary.
I can't beleive we have to keep explaining this to grown adults. The public schools have failed
us miserably.
› See More: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
- 07-26-2003, 12:44 PM #17O/SirisGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:
> False. Verizon does not charge such a fee. If, when number
> portability is actually available, Verizon then charges such a fee,
> it will be roughly 10-15 cents per line. Sprint's $1.10/line is
> roughly ten times the actual cost, and is being levied on existing
> customers effectively contrary to agreement.
Y'know, guys, I don't want to knock Verizon, and this isn't REALLY about
them at all. But I think you're making a logical error in treating their
CEO's words as gospel. No one really knows what the effect of WLNP is
really going to be. If it's going to cause an explosion of defections, or
if it's going to be just a trickle. Treating their CEO's words like a firm
commitment as you've done is using them out of context. That is certainly
their expectation, and it may wind up being accurate. But it was, and is,
an estimate. Obviously, there's LOTS of room for fudging and still do
better than we have on this charge, but it's still just an estimate.
>
> Once again: The number portability surcharge is neither required nor
> calculated by any government body. The FCC "allows" it only in the
> same sense that the FCC "allows" wireless carriers to charge a
> monthly rate to cover their costs of providing service. In other
> words, the surcharge is simply a rate increase, and it is a shocking
> violation for Sprint to list it under "Taxes," as it does on my
> latest bill. Indeed, the government has a strong claim in seizing
> all money collected in this fashion, since by definition a tax is
> money earmarked to be paid to a government body.
I'm not certain of this (I'd have to go find my own bill, and I'm too lazy
to read it), but I *think* it says somewhere on the bill that the section in
question includes taxes *and* surcharges.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them
- 07-26-2003, 12:46 PM #18O/SirisGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
Humor Guy wrote:
> What is the big deal about paying $1.10 a month? Are people really
> this hard up? Does paying the $1.10 prevent you from participating in
> a function that would normally have used this $1.10 that you have to
> pay Sprint now? I just want to know....I'm not being a jerk....but I
> just don't (seriously) understand.
It isn't the amount itself, really. It's the way in which it was
implemented. And, according to research done out there, it becomes (for a
few more days yet) a legitimate way to release one's self from the contract,
as the contract itself states can be done.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them
- 07-26-2003, 04:26 PM #19Chris RussellGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
But don't kid yourself, Verizon will build those fees into their rate
structure. The shareholders will not stand for Verizon not recovering
those costs if most of the other cell companies are doing the recovery.
What ATT did was totally unfair to the new customers, since all the
customers will benefit from number pooling.
--
Chris
Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
"Arthur Dent" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What carrier that you are going to change to will not be charging
> > similar fees? You're making much ado about something that you can not
> > change and will be obligated to pay if you want a cell phone. It's
> > stated by the FCC that carriers may (they do not HAVE to, but most if
> > not all will) charge a fee to recover their costs for wireless line
> > portability.
>
> > Chris
>
> Yes I know that paying a recovery fee for Fed programs is pretty much
> inevitable with any carrier out there. The most notable exception is of
> course Verizon who is not currently charging a recovery fee for Pooling
> and/or Portablility. What's more, AT&T and Cingular DO charge a flat fee to
> recover costs of Fed programs, but they charge less than Sprint. The same
> $35 monthly plan in the same service taxing area will yeild a lower bill
> after taxes and surcharges are applied with AT&T, Cingular, or Verizon than
> the same $35 with Sprint. Another point to note is that AT&T did not add
> its recovery fee to existing customers' plans, only new plans given to new
> customers or existing customers switching to the new plans. Sprint has
> decided to act like my cable company and announce a rate hike. The
> difference being I can always shut off my cable service with no fee since
> I'm not under a contract.
>
> The much ado for myself is that I feel it's wrong to unilaterally
> change the fees thereby upping my charges without me having any say about
> it. If I were to accept the extra fee then I'd have no problem, but the
> fact is I don't accept this rate hike by Sprint and there are other choices
> available to me at a lower monthly cost for equivelent service, IMO.
>
> As always YMMV.
>
> ** I also want to add that a very nice Sprint rep has helped me end my
> service with no ETF. This kind soul apparently understands Sprint's T&C's
> and has renewed my opinion of Sprint.
>
>
>
>
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
- 07-26-2003, 04:45 PM #20Chris RussellGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
I know that on my bill it is NOT listed under Taxes and Regulartory
Related Charges. It is listed lower under Surcharges and Fees. The
amounts listed on my July 2 bill are:
Federal Universal Service Fee (mandated by Congress) 0.97
Federal E911 (Mandated by FCC for inplementation) 0.41
Federal Telephone Number Pooling (eagerly desired by consumers, but
unwilling to pay for it) 0.47
from the current TOS on-line:
We also invoice you for fees that we collect and remit to the government
such as Universal Service, and for surcharges that we collect and keep
to pay for the costs of complying with government mandates such as
number pooling and portability, and Enhanced 911 service. These charges
are neither taxes nor government imposed assessments.
Remember that the federal government are exsperts at requiring un-funded
mandates to states and industries. These are examples of this process.
I guess that most people didn't see that Cingular was sued by the fed
gov a few months ago because they hadn't properly shown the FCC how they
were going to implement E911.
As to Verizon, they will recover those costs from customers or the
shareholders will be screaming mad, since all the other companies are
recovering those costs.
--
Chris
Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What carrier that you are going to change to will not be charging
> > similar fees? You're making much ado about something that you can not
> > change and will be obligated to pay if you want a cell phone. It's
>
> False. Verizon does not charge such a fee. If, when number portability is
> actually available, Verizon then charges such a fee, it will be roughly 10-15
> cents per line. Sprint's $1.10/line is roughly ten times the actual cost, and
> is being levied on existing customers effectively contrary to agreement.
>
> Once again: The number portability surcharge is neither required nor calculated
> by any government body. The FCC "allows" it only in the same sense that the FCC
> "allows" wireless carriers to charge a monthly rate to cover their costs of
> providing service. In other words, the surcharge is simply a rate increase, and
> it is a shocking violation for Sprint to list it under "Taxes," as it does on my
> latest bill. Indeed, the government has a strong claim in seizing all money
> collected in this fashion, since by definition a tax is money earmarked to be
> paid to a government body.
>
>
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
- 07-26-2003, 07:30 PM #21Arthur DentGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
"Pac-Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> To Auther Dent,
>
> I don't know the whole situtation but reguardless of the situtation you
> did sign a 1 year or 2 year contract and it does state that if you
> terminate it early you are apt to pay the fee?
>
I honestly do not need the line I had with Sprint any longer and I was fully
prepared to pay the ETF since it would have been about the cost of riding
out the contract. However, Sprint's T&C's give me the right to cancel
without the ETF so now I'm up $150. I'm not trying to swindle the company
and if they had not upped the number pooling/portability charge then I would
have paid the ETF fair and square.
> And that fee is added due to federal regulations, and even if you go to
> another carrier that new fee will already be incorperated into your
> bill. My guess is you should have finished out your contract.
>
The fee has been raised as a result of a federal mandate, but the fee itself
is not mandated. That is why we are all free to cancel our service without
penalty. If I still needed the line, I would have done nothing and
continued to use the service with the higher fee, but my situation is
different and I prefer to keep my $150 since I'm not obligated to give it to
Sprint.
- 07-26-2003, 07:32 PM #22Arthur DentGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
"Humor Guy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What is the big deal about paying $1.10 a month? Are people really this
hard
> up? Does paying the $1.10 prevent you from participating in a function
that
> would normally have used this $1.10 that you have to pay Sprint now? I
just
> want to know....I'm not being a jerk....but I just don't (seriously)
> understand.
>
No big deal, it's just I don't need the line with Sprint anymore. I would
have paid the ETF had Sprint not raised the WLNP fee, thereby giving me an
out of the agreement.
- 07-26-2003, 07:34 PM #23Arthur DentGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
"starwars" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Whether you want to pay that much for my Pinto is up to you, and the
Federal Government allows me
> to charge it, but nobody can force you to pay it. That's 100% up to you.
And so it is in the
> case of WLNP. "Allowed" and "Required" are so mutually exlusive, that
those who can't tell the
> difference need to run, not walk, but RUN to the nearest book store and
buy a dictionary.
>
> I can't beleive we have to keep explaining this to grown adults. The
public schools have failed
> us miserably.
>
Well said.
- 07-26-2003, 08:40 PM #24starwarsGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
>Remember that the federal government are exsperts at requiring un-funded
>mandates to states and industries.
Don't forget about the mandates to individuals. That "Universal Service" **** comes from us the
users, not the industry or the state. Same for the 10 or so other taxes and fees. Since i've been
using wireless my service taxes have increased every few months, or new taxes have been added. I
have never once had a carrier reduce the cost of my calling plan simply because the government has
dipped futher into my pocket through one of their "mandates". **** happens. The carriers have
always viewed that as my problem. And, so it has been. I have never demanded a rate reduction due
to increased government mandates on me. Anybody who has not just falled off the watermelon wagon
realizes that government sticking you with the costs of their projects is one of the main costs of
doing business in the U.S. Always has been, always will be.
So, Sprint got hit with a mandate. Big ****ing deal. I'm sure all of us users will be hit with
another one in the months to come, and my ass isn't going to call asking for a rate discount
because of it. The responsibility for solving that problem is mine, at the ballot box. And so it
for Sprint. Maybe their lobbyists went out and got drunk that night instead of trying to kill the
motion per their marching orders. Aint my problem.
Welcome to reality. They got hit with some stupid mandate like we have been hit with for years and
now they want someone else to pony up for it. Tough ****. Actually, they don't just want us to pony
up for it, but they want to make it an entirely new profit generating "product" by charging
multiple times what the mandate actually costs to implement.
It sure as heck isn't happening to this subscriber. They knocked $10 off my plan so I would agree
to pay the $1.10 fee.
Some cost recovery.
Wonder what the shareholders think of that.
- 07-26-2003, 09:17 PM #25Steven J SobolGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I love how people are so willing to give out information that may get others
>>sued...
>
> Sprint's attorneys are going to spend time and money to sue him over a fee that they are not
> legally entitled to collect?
>
> Sure they are. And I have flaming monkeys shooting out of my ass.
>
> Despite what you think of them, they aren't that stupid.
You give them a lot more credit than I would. On the whole, my experiences
with Sprint have been positive, but they are still a telephone company. As
a consumer and a former tech support guy for a local ISP who has had to
deal with the telco's bull****, I can tell you that they do a lot of stuff
that makes no sense. I'm sure I've whined about SBC's horrid handling of
my home account over in comp.dcom.xdsl or comp.dcom.telecom more than once,
for example.
Granted, this does apply more to the landline operations than to the
wireless operations. But the telco mentality still prevails quite often.
Plus, does suing make any sense? No. I don't think so. Are there major
costs to Sprint PCS to doing so? Probably not. Either they have attorneys
on their payroll or on retainer, or they might do what I am doing to collect
a debt from someone who screwed me -- I took the matter to court. The
law firm I retained to do the work is billing it as a collections case,
which means they get paid if and only if I get paid (same deal as a
collections agency, except that the collections agencies don't have
lawyers working for them).
So, you might be right, and I hope you are, but I wouldn't bet the farm
on it.
At the very least, people who are trying to get the ETF waived (which,
in this case, they should!) need to make sure they document everything,
in the event that Sprint decides not to do the right thing.
--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Svcs. [The Fusion of Content & Connectivity]
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]
- 07-26-2003, 09:19 PM #26Steven J SobolGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
Chris Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> But don't kid yourself, Verizon will build those fees into their rate
> structure. The shareholders will not stand for Verizon not recovering
> those costs if most of the other cell companies are doing the recovery.
> What ATT did was totally unfair to the new customers, since all the
> customers will benefit from number pooling.
Chris, I'd argue that Verizon can just eat the fees because they're already
one of the most expensive wireless carriers out there. I have lines with
both Sprint PCS and Verizon...
--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Svcs. [The Fusion of Content & Connectivity]
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]
- 07-26-2003, 09:21 PM #27Steven J SobolGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
Pac-Man <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> To Auther Dent,
>
> I don't know the whole situtation but reguardless of the situtation you
> did sign a 1 year or 2 year contract and it does state that if you
> terminate it early you are apt to pay the fee?
>
> And that fee is added due to federal regulations, and even if you go to
> another carrier that new fee will already be incorperated into your
> bill. My guess is you should have finished out your contract.
Just so everyone understands..
WIRELESS LOCAL NUMBER PORTABILITY COSTS THE CARRIERS. THERE IS _NO_
MANDATE FROM THE FCC THAT THE CARRIERS MUST PASS ON THE COSTS TO THE
CUSTOMERS - WHICHEVER CARRIERS DO SO, DO SO OF THEIR OWN VOLITION.
Come on. This has been said many times already.
--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Svcs. [The Fusion of Content & Connectivity]
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]
- 07-26-2003, 09:25 PM #28starwarsGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
>But don't kid yourself, Verizon will build those fees into their rate
>structure. The shareholders will not stand for Verizon not recovering
>those costs if most of the other cell companies are doing the recovery.
Have you ever owned a stock?
Verizon shareholders would be THRILLED if Verizon didn't "recover" the nickel or so this thing
probably truly costs to implement.
It is much, much, much, much, much more profitable to retain current customers than to get their
nickels for WLNP in the form of surcharges ... and the fact that they aren't being shady about it
may actually help them attract more customers from other carriers who will use WLNP to throw more
money at Verizon and their shareholders. Not charging for WLNP could well be immensly more
profitable than charging for it. It is currently one of the things that is setting Verizon apart
from it's competition. You can't buy that type of advertising and respect. Print on the
brochures that you aren't "passing on the costs" that the other carriers are, and you may not
need that $100 million commerical during the Superbowl. You really think Sprint is going to make
money with this nonesense, and Verizon is going to lose a penny from it?
I don't think so.
We all know that this "mandate" does not cost anywhere even in the ballpark of $1 per line per
month.
Retained subcribers, new subscribers, and a better reputation is worth FAR more than the
relatively piddling amount that this "mandate" really costs to implement.
Not one shareholder in their right mind wants to see paying customers alientated by nickel and
diming every last cost. They look at the big picture.
It probably costs Wireless Companies tons more money when the Postal Service raises postage
rates, and when jet feul prices go up and FedEx and UPS raise their shipping rates.
This WLNP thing should go under the "cost of doing business" column, and they should try to make
up for whatever this costs by retaining and attracting more customers. They already round 1
minute and 1 second calls up to two minutes (some people have done extensive research on the
subject and suggest that certain carries round 45 second calls up to two minutes). "Activiation
Fees" which are nothing but pure unearned revenues, etc. Don't cry for the carriers, they have
been finding creative ways to gouge you for years. Eating this WLNP mandate isn't going to
decrease revenues for strong companies, and charging it won't help the bottom line for weak
companies.
It's a silly little thing that the savvy companies are using to their advantage, and the less
savvy are shooting themselves in the foot with.
Trust me on this one. Verizon shareholders DO NOT want to see these fees charged to Verizon
customers just as they are being given a free pass to jump ship.
I'm sure the "activiation fee" alone from the new subscriber who used WLNP to come to Verizon
will be more than cover the cost of implementing WLNP for that customer for 100 years.
Retention and expansion is the key to increased profitability. Not penny-dipping.
- 07-27-2003, 06:48 AM #29tom ronsonGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
"starwars" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I can't beleive we have to keep explaining this to grown adults. The
public schools have failed
> us miserably.
Depends on the definition of "us" --- if you mean as a person trying to make
their way thru life dealing with idiots, yes, then the system has failed
miserably. But if you are FedGovCo and want to fool all of the people all of
the time then having a collection of tax paying potted plants is a far
better way to go. No tricky questions like, 'Ah, Mr Bush? Didn't you base
this here war on WMD? --- and what's all that redacted stuff about the
Saudis and 9/11?' verses 'Ya buddy--- kick that Iraqi ass Mr. president sir,
we're behind you 100 percent' even when much of the rest of the world is
thinking that American leadership is comprised of ruthless bullies on the
world stage, being 'led' by a man who cant eat a pretzel without nearly
choking to death. I mean come on, which group of people would you rather
lead, if you were an idiot yourself?
Look to California for a hint if you want to see how far along the master
plan is --- here's a one word hint --- Arnold.
Speaking of the intelligence of telcos, here's a neat little story showing
that Verizon isn't above handing a garden hose to the man who is drowning
.....
http://tinyurl.com/i5xd
--tr
- 07-27-2003, 11:03 AM #30Chris RussellGuest
Re: Sprint won't adhere to their own contract...
I don't think they will give up $7-9 million/mo. $100 million/yr is not
chump change and "the street" won't ignore Verizon's not recovering
these fees. Because Verizon (and ATTWS) are more expensive, I have the
Cingular Nation Plan and Sprint PCS as backup. In my job driving an 18
wheeler, I need full US coverage and with SPCS I can roam in an even
larger area of the US with PRL 10019.
--
Chris
Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Chris Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But don't kid yourself, Verizon will build those fees into their rate
> > structure. The shareholders will not stand for Verizon not recovering
> > those costs if most of the other cell companies are doing the recovery.
> > What ATT did was totally unfair to the new customers, since all the
> > customers will benefit from number pooling.
>
> Chris, I'd argue that Verizon can just eat the fees because they're already
> one of the most expensive wireless carriers out there. I have lines with
> both Sprint PCS and Verizon...
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Svcs. [The Fusion of Content & Connectivity]
> 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
> Steve Sobol, Proprietor
> 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Similar Threads
- Sprint PCS
- Motorola
- General Cell Phone Forum
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat