Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Lawrence G. Mayka
    Guest
    Sprint is under a (temporary) court injunction to let subscribers cancel without
    penalty, due to Sprint's imposition of a rate increase under the guise of a tax:

    http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003...0323_28_23.txt

    "That couple of dollars charged for `USA Regulatory Taxes' on Sprint PCS
    cellular phone bills is now the subject of a court order that means customers
    who don't want to pay it can break their service contracts.

    "The ruling came in a suit filed by Utility Consumers Action Network, a San
    Diego group. Attorneys for the group argued that the fees are really a hidden
    rate increase, and customers are allowed to end contracts when their rates are
    increased.
    ....
    "Michael Shames, the executive director of the Utilities Consumers Action
    Network, said the group's attorneys won a temporary restraining order on July 16
    against Sprint that forces the company to release customers from their contracts
    if they object to the fees.

    "The court ruled that the charges were created and named by the company, not by
    law, and the bill language is misleading."





    See More: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty




  2. #2
    Steven J Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    Lawrence G. Mayka <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "That couple of dollars charged for `USA Regulatory Taxes' on Sprint PCS
    > cellular phone bills is now the subject of a court order that means customers
    > who don't want to pay it can break their service contracts.
    >
    > "The ruling came in a suit filed by Utility Consumers Action Network, a San
    > Diego group. Attorneys for the group argued that the fees are really a hidden
    > rate increase, and customers are allowed to end contracts when their rates are
    > increased.
    > ...
    > "Michael Shames, the executive director of the Utilities Consumers Action
    > Network, said the group's attorneys won a temporary restraining order on July
    > 16 against Sprint that forces the company to release customers from their
    > contracts if they object to the fees.
    >
    > "The court ruled that the charges were created and named by the company, not
    > by law, and the bill language is misleading."


    Spot on. Hopefully this will turn into a win for the consumers' group.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]



  3. #3
    Phillipe
    Guest

    Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Sprint is under a (temporary) court injunction to let subscribers cancel
    > without
    > penalty, due to Sprint's imposition of a rate increase under the guise of a
    > tax:
    >
    > http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003...0323_28_23.txt
    >
    > "That couple of dollars charged for `USA Regulatory Taxes' on Sprint PCS
    > cellular phone bills is now the subject of a court order that means customers
    > who don't want to pay it can break their service contracts.
    >
    > "The ruling came in a suit filed by Utility Consumers Action Network, a San
    > Diego group. Attorneys for the group argued that the fees are really a hidden
    > rate increase, and customers are allowed to end contracts when their rates
    > are
    > increased.
    > ...
    > "Michael Shames, the executive director of the Utilities Consumers Action
    > Network, said the group's attorneys won a temporary restraining order on July
    > 16
    > against Sprint that forces the company to release customers from their
    > contracts
    > if they object to the fees.
    >
    > "The court ruled that the charges were created and named by the company, not
    > by
    > law, and the bill language is misleading."
    >
    >


    Every CSR I spoke to on Monday August 11, denied there was any such rule.
    Is this only for the 9th Circuit?



  4. #4
    letsgoflyers81
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty


    I'm not sure of the specifics of the injunction. But if you have a copy
    of the Advantage Agreement and the insert of the WNLP insert, they
    clearly state that they will let you go without paying the ETF. It's
    there in writing. Push hard enough and you should get through to
    someone.

    --
    Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
    Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap




  5. #5
    DUFUS
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty


    You will be let out of your contract with the company IF you are within
    30 days of your July bill print date.....If you call in to cancel on
    day 32....pay the cancellation fee!

    --
    Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
    Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap




  6. #6
    Nomen Nescio
    Guest

    Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    >You will be let out of your contract with the company IF you are within
    >30 days of your July bill print date.....If you call in to cancel on
    >day 32....pay the cancellation fee!


    I'm not so sure about that.

    People who may have been told in the initial 30 days that they couldn't cancel without an ETF
    should now have relief under this injunction.

    Since most people received notice over 30 days ago (I got mine in June), is it your position that
    this ruling applies to noone?




  7. #7
    Chris Russell
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    The only Terms of Service that are effective are the ones on-line.
    There is no provision to cancel due to the added fees.

    --
    Chris

    Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com


    letsgoflyers81 <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    >
    > I'm not sure of the specifics of the injunction. But if you have a copy
    > of the Advantage Agreement and the insert of the WNLP insert, they
    > clearly state that they will let you go without paying the ETF. It's
    > there in writing. Push hard enough and you should get through to
    > someone.
    >
    > --
    > Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
    > Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  8. #8
    Chris Russell
    Guest

    Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    Looks like at best the ruling only affects CA and at worst only the
    county in CA the Superior Court judge's court is located.

    --
    Chris

    Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com


    "Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > Sprint is under a (temporary) court injunction to let subscribers cancel without
    > penalty, due to Sprint's imposition of a rate increase under the guise of a tax:
    >
    > http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003...0323_28_23.txt
    >
    > "That couple of dollars charged for `USA Regulatory Taxes' on Sprint PCS
    > cellular phone bills is now the subject of a court order that means customers
    > who don't want to pay it can break their service contracts.
    >
    > "The ruling came in a suit filed by Utility Consumers Action Network, a San
    > Diego group. Attorneys for the group argued that the fees are really a hidden
    > rate increase, and customers are allowed to end contracts when their rates are
    > increased.
    > ....
    > "Michael Shames, the executive director of the Utilities Consumers Action
    > Network, said the group's attorneys won a temporary restraining order on July 16
    > against Sprint that forces the company to release customers from their contracts
    > if they object to the fees.
    >
    > "The court ruled that the charges were created and named by the company, not by
    > law, and the bill language is misleading."
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  9. #9
    Lawrence G. Mayka
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > The only Terms of Service that are effective are the ones on-line.
    > There is no provision to cancel due to the added fees.


    You are incorrect. Here are the Terms:

    http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/in...sPrivacy.jsp#9

    They say:

    "If we change a material term of the Agreement and that change has a material
    adverse effect on you, you may terminate the Agreement without an early
    termination fee by calling 1-888-211-4727 within 30 days after the invoice date
    of the first invoice your receive after the changes go into effect."

    Obviously, a rate increase (a.k.a. new surcharge) in the middle of the agreement
    term is materially adverse to the subscriber.





  10. #10
    Chris Russell
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    Check out this language in the Terms and Conditions, Terms of Service
    section under Agreement:

    "If we change a material term of the Agreement and that change has a
    material adverse effect on you, you may terminate the Agreement without
    an early termination fee by calling 1-888-211-4727 within 30 days after
    the invoice date of the first invoice your receive after the changes go
    into effect. 'You understand and agree that taxes, Universal Service
    fees and other charges imposed by the government or based on government
    calculations may increase or decrease on a monthly basis, and that this
    paragraph does not apply to any increases in such taxes, Universal
    Service fees and other charges.'"

    This made it pretty clear before there was a notice on the bills of the
    increase that these charges and fees would not be grounds for
    cancellation. By the way, I went to the website to read the new terms
    of service after I saw the notice on my bill that they had changed.

    --
    Chris

    Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com


    [email protected]am (Chris Russell) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > The only Terms of Service that are effective are the ones on-line.
    > There is no provision to cancel due to the added fees.
    >
    > --
    > Chris
    >
    > Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
    >
    >
    > letsgoflyers81 <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > >
    > > I'm not sure of the specifics of the injunction. But if you have a copy
    > > of the Advantage Agreement and the insert of the WNLP insert, they
    > > clearly state that they will let you go without paying the ETF. It's
    > > there in writing. Push hard enough and you should get through to
    > > someone.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
    > > Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap
    > >

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  11. #11
    Lawrence G. Mayka
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > into effect. 'You understand and agree that taxes, Universal Service
    > fees and other charges imposed by the government or based on government
    > calculations may increase or decrease on a monthly basis, and that this
    > paragraph does not apply to any increases in such taxes, Universal
    > Service fees and other charges.'"
    >
    > This made it pretty clear before there was a notice on the bills of the
    > increase that these charges and fees would not be grounds for
    > cancellation. By the way, I went to the website to read the new terms
    > of service after I saw the notice on my bill that they had changed.


    Wrong. Read it again, carefully. The exception only applies to fees "imposed
    by the government or based on government calculations." The WLNP charge is
    certainly not imposed by the government, nor is it calculated by the government.
    Sprint made up the $1.10/line out of its own head.





  12. #12
    Chris Russell
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    You didn't read far enough:

    If we change a material term of the Agreement and that change has a
    material adverse effect on you, you may terminate the Agreement without
    an early termination fee by calling 1-888-211-4727 within 30 days after
    the invoice date of the first invoice your receive after the changes go
    into effect. *****You understand and agree that taxes, Universal Service
    fees and other charges imposed by the government or based on government
    calculations may increase or decrease on a monthly basis, and that this
    paragraph does not apply to any increases in such taxes, Universal
    Service fees and other charges.*****

    --
    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]
    > > The only Terms of Service that are effective are the ones on-line.
    > > There is no provision to cancel due to the added fees.

    >
    > You are incorrect. Here are the Terms:
    >
    > http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/in...sPrivacy.jsp#9
    >
    > They say:
    >
    > "If we change a material term of the Agreement and that change has a material
    > adverse effect on you, you may terminate the Agreement without an early
    > termination fee by calling 1-888-211-4727 within 30 days after the invoice date
    > of the first invoice your receive after the changes go into effect."
    >
    > Obviously, a rate increase (a.k.a. new surcharge) in the middle of the agreement
    > term is materially adverse to the subscriber.
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  13. #13
    Chris Russell
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    Those are calculations imposed by the FCC.

    --
    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]
    > > into effect. 'You understand and agree that taxes, Universal Service
    > > fees and other charges imposed by the government or based on government
    > > calculations may increase or decrease on a monthly basis, and that this
    > > paragraph does not apply to any increases in such taxes, Universal
    > > Service fees and other charges.'"
    > >
    > > This made it pretty clear before there was a notice on the bills of the
    > > increase that these charges and fees would not be grounds for
    > > cancellation. By the way, I went to the website to read the new terms
    > > of service after I saw the notice on my bill that they had changed.

    >
    > Wrong. Read it again, carefully. The exception only applies to fees "imposed
    > by the government or based on government calculations." The WLNP charge is
    > certainly not imposed by the government, nor is it calculated by the government.
    > Sprint made up the $1.10/line out of its own head.
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  14. #14
    Carl.
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    What calculations? All I have ever heard of is the requirement for LNP.

    If $1.10 is a government calculated fee, why don't other carriers charge the
    same thing?

    "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Those are calculations imposed by the FCC.
    >
    > --
    > 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]
    > > > into effect. 'You understand and agree that taxes, Universal Service
    > > > fees and other charges imposed by the government or based on

    government
    > > > calculations may increase or decrease on a monthly basis, and that

    this
    > > > paragraph does not apply to any increases in such taxes, Universal
    > > > Service fees and other charges.'"
    > > >
    > > > This made it pretty clear before there was a notice on the bills of

    the
    > > > increase that these charges and fees would not be grounds for
    > > > cancellation. By the way, I went to the website to read the new terms
    > > > of service after I saw the notice on my bill that they had changed.

    > >
    > > Wrong. Read it again, carefully. The exception only applies to fees

    "imposed
    > > by the government or based on government calculations." The WLNP charge

    is
    > > certainly not imposed by the government, nor is it calculated by the

    government.
    > > Sprint made up the $1.10/line out of its own head.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003





  15. #15
    Lawrence G. Mayka
    Guest

    Re: Re: Sprint ordered to let subscribers leave without penalty

    "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Those are calculations imposed by the FCC.


    False. The FCC did not come up with Sprint's wild $1.10/line. Sprint's WLNP
    charge is certainly not "calculated by the government."





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast