lawsuit against Sprint

In article <7KBZa.31838$ff.9346@fed1read01>, "Jim-G" <[email protected]> says:

>The newspapers carried a story today that a class action lawsuit had been
>filed in San Diego against Sprint for their fees.

Great. We get what? $10 in a useless phone card, and the shysters collect
millions- then, our rates go up.

-Kenny

--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles, CA
Home: 3801 E. Pacific Coast Hwy #9, Long Beach, CA 90804-2014 (562) 961-7300
Work: 2052 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92606-4905 (949) 252-1111 X240

---

› See More: lawsuit against Sprint

[email protected] wrote:
> On 8/11/2003 6:27 AM, Paulw wrote:
>> letsgoflyers81 <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> It was only a matter of time. With any luck Sprint will lose and it
>>> will set a precedent that they can't get away with this kind of
>>> thing. I think the can of worms has officially been opened.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
>>> Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap
>>>
>>>
>> Now the rates will increase to pay for the cost
>
> Which would have been the honest thing for them to have done in the
> first place.
>
> It's pretty clear that they tried to evade the contract escape clause
> by framing this increase as a tax-induced fee. They're going to lose
> that case, and it's going to cost them both goodwill and extra cash.
> Their stockholders should give them a good reaming for this sort of
> nonsense.

Now hold on. Whether or not we were wrong to allow (or not allow) ETF-free
cancellations for it, we *never* characterized it as a tax-induced fee. We
stated pretty plainly and clearly that it was a cost recovery fee we were
allowed to charge. Not that we had to do so. The link to the announcement
about this fee has been psoted many a time. Go look for yourself.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:Lj1_a.125723$o%2.54485@sccrnsc02...

> Unless you sign on with Verizon taking that estimate as gospel, wind up
> under contract with them, and then find out it's a $3/month charge.

O/Siris, it's not a matter of what they're going to do --- it's what they
can say right this second. They won the PR war on this, and will be able to
sit back and watch / aggitate as this plays out.

> There is simply way too much wiggle room in such as has been said by
> Verizon.

No argument --- but they've got wiggle room --- Sprint's got papers filed in
San Diago. Don't look at this as right and wrong, this is PR my friend,
where a misstep can escalate into a nightmare.

> Verizon could be 100% honest, or they could be blowing smoke.

Verizon 100 percent honest? Nah, the telco's and their wireless couterparts
play hardball for real. Take the AT&T and Verizon wired deal a few weeks
back where they alledged the struggling MCI was messing with routing (over
wired lines) --- just their bringing it up led GAO to sit MCI to the side on
bidding for Guvment contracts as the allegations are worked out. MCI says
they didn't do anything wrong, and they may well not have. But the damage is
done, for a while at least. All as MCI is trying to get out from under the
bankruptcy court --- and AT&T and Verizon's actions were not real helpful
to that cause.

>Lord knows we haven't handled it well.

Nope, not well at all. The idea should be to point the gun at the other guys
and starrt shooting, not stick it in your own mouth and pull the trigger. (a
scene from Blazing Sadles comes to mind for some reason <grin>)

>But something seems a bit fishy about Verizon's 180 on this.

Ya, Sprint / others got played after Vzw decided that lemonade was an option
when presented with all those lemons. Your boy Lauer got blindsided, sorry
to say. But hey, it is $17 mill a month to Sprint, so it's not all bad.

Now, maybe you can explain to me how, with the data network as wobbly as it
is (in metro areas), adding the streaming offering from real networks will
help? See, I'd of thought that getting the infrastructure humming with the
current demand before adding to it would be a more logical way to go. Maybe
this is the reason for the new found hostility towards the data users of the
system?

All the best

--tr

R0B, Wonder how much your arguements can be used in the San Diego court
action, if they monitor this group. Perhaps you should leave your
arguements for the courtroom where the professional get paid for the PR.
The only one that matters is a judge's opinion.

>Now hold on. Whether or not we were wrong to allow (or not allow) ETF-free
>cancellations for it, we *never* characterized it as a tax-induced fee.

Call *2 and ask. This is exactly how they characterize it.

Luckily those of us who read their bill inserts carefully (and don't thrown them away assuming they
are spam), and read these NG's know better.

However, Jane Soccermom probably didn't read the billing insert and when she calls CS, she has an
excellent chance of being told that it is a "Tax" an "FCC Mandated Charge" or some other such
explanation.

Is it Jane Soccermom's fault for not reading the insert closely, or Sprint Customer Service's fault
for intentionally lying?

I don't know. Maybe a little of both. But please don't act like Sprint hasn't tried to frame this
charge to neophytes (and even some people on this group) as a tax-induced fee, because indeed they
have. Repeatedly.

>Great. We get what? $10 in a useless phone card, and the shysters collect
>millions- then, our rates go up.

Basically, yes.

Except that your rate can't go up until your contract ends and then you are free to go elsewhere
with the WLNP you have been paying for.

Sprint loses more than the consumer here because we have more choices than they do.

Class-actions suck for everyone but the lawyers.

However, if there are no penalties, corporate abuse will continue. What are you gonna do? Not
sue anyone for fear they will increase rates?

Were it not for fear of legal penalties, companies would resort to all kinds of things to ream
you. Heck, after putting you under contract, they could decide to just stop completing your
calls altogether. There has to be checks and balances, responsibility and penalties - and
unfortunately, this is the only system we have in place.

If you're late on your bill, or Sprint thinks that you have transgressed against them, you don't
think they would penalize you? You know they would. Late fees, credit record dings, per MB
charges, $150 early termination fees, reconnection fees - man they've come up with all kinds of
ways to punish you if they come to the conclusion that you have done them wrong.

The comsumers certainly don't get a free pass.

If Sprint had not done wrong, there would be no lawsuit, and hence no costs to pass on, and no
rate increases. Don't blame the customer. They didn't try to backdoor a rate increase and then
refuse people's attempts to leave their contract.

So, what is the lesson here?

Adhere to consumer law, don't try to screw the customer, and do the right thing.

You can't blame the customer here. We tried to warn them.

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:kf1_a.126398$uu5.18358@sccrnsc04...
> Now hold on. Whether or not we were wrong to allow (or not allow) ETF-free
> cancellations for it, we *never* characterized it as a tax-induced fee. We

False:

1) A veritable plethora of reports in this newsgroup and in other forums
(Sprintusers.com, Howardforums.com) indicate that Sprint reps, and even
managers, were stubbornly asserting that the WLNP surcharge was a "tax," or that
"the government is making us charge it," or that "all the carriers charge it,"
or that "the government calculated it." Lies, lies, lies, and more lies.

2) My July bill specifically listed the WLNP surcharge under "Taxes." That's
right, not "Surcharges & Fees," but "Taxes." A very big lie, and one for which
I have documented paper evidence.

"Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> When I called and complained to *2 they transferred my call to
> Cancellation.

That's OK as long as they let you cancel without penalty.

"Kenneth Crudup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <7KBZa.31838$ff.9346@fed1read01>, "Jim-G" <[email protected]> says:
> >The newspapers carried a story today that a class action lawsuit had been
> >filed in San Diego against Sprint for their fees.
>
> Great. We get what? $10 in a useless phone card, and the shysters collect
> millions- then, our rates go up.

The primary goal is to force Sprint to affirmatively inform subscribers of their
right to cancel without penalty, due to Sprint's deceptive rate increase.

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
> news:kf1_a.126398$uu5.18358@sccrnsc04...
> > Now hold on. Whether or not we were wrong to allow (or not allow)
ETF-free
> > cancellations for it, we *never* characterized it as a tax-induced fee.
We
>
> False:
>
> 1) A veritable plethora of reports in this newsgroup and in other forums
> (Sprintusers.com, Howardforums.com) indicate that Sprint reps, and even
> managers, were stubbornly asserting that the WLNP surcharge was a "tax,"
or that
> "the government is making us charge it," or that "all the carriers charge
it,"
> or that "the government calculated it." Lies, lies, lies, and more lies.
>
> 2) My July bill specifically listed the WLNP surcharge under "Taxes."
That's
> right, not "Surcharges & Fees," but "Taxes." A very big lie, and one for
which
> I have documented paper evidence.


Then we must be getting two different bill formats. My bill from on line,
ending July 12th says:

Taxes
Federal Tax 2.38
North Carolina State Wireless 911 Surcharge 2.40
North Carolina State Sales Tax - Services & Usage 4.25
Surcharges & Fees
Federal E911 1.20
Federal Wireless Number Pooling And Portability 3.30
Federal Universal Service Fund 1.60

$15.13


As you can see, the WNPP charges are definitely under the surcharges & fees
section.

Bob::Thinking everyone here is making too big a stink on this WNP
situation::


begin 666 clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kenneth Crudup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <7KBZa.31838$ff.9346@fed1read01>, "Jim-G" <[email protected]>
says:
> > >The newspapers carried a story today that a class action lawsuit had
been
> > >filed in San Diego against Sprint for their fees.
> >
> > Great. We get what? $10 in a useless phone card, and the shysters
collect
> > millions- then, our rates go up.
>
> The primary goal is to force Sprint to affirmatively inform subscribers of
their
> right to cancel without penalty, due to Sprint's deceptive rate increase.
>
How many times do you have to be told it's not a rate increase? If it were a
rate increase, your plan, excluding taxes and surcharges would increase.
Taxes and surcharges are a separate charge, outside of what the plan costs.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
> > news:kf1_a.126398$uu5.18358@sccrnsc04...
> > > Now hold on. Whether or not we were wrong to allow (or not allow)
> ETF-free
> > > cancellations for it, we *never* characterized it as a tax-induced fee.
> We
> >
> > False:
> >
> > 1) A veritable plethora of reports in this newsgroup and in other forums
> > (Sprintusers.com, Howardforums.com) indicate that Sprint reps, and even
> > managers, were stubbornly asserting that the WLNP surcharge was a "tax,"
> or that
> > "the government is making us charge it," or that "all the carriers charge
> it,"
> > or that "the government calculated it." Lies, lies, lies, and more lies.
> >
> > 2) My July bill specifically listed the WLNP surcharge under "Taxes."
> That's
> > right, not "Surcharges & Fees," but "Taxes." A very big lie, and one for
> which
> > I have documented paper evidence.
>
>
> Then we must be getting two different bill formats. My bill from on line,
> ending July 12th says:
>
> Taxes
> Federal Tax 2.38
> North Carolina State Wireless 911 Surcharge 2.40
> North Carolina State Sales Tax - Services & Usage 4.25
> Surcharges & Fees
> Federal E911 1.20
> Federal Wireless Number Pooling And Portability 3.30
> Federal Universal Service Fund 1.60
>
> $15.13
>
>
> As you can see, the WNPP charges are definitely under the surcharges & fees
> section.
>
> Bob::Thinking everyone here is making too big a stink on this WNP
> situation::

Phillipe, thinking he wants to email Bob some SCAM, since he wont
complain about it.

"Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snipped>

> >
> > Bob::Thinking everyone here is making too big a stink on this WNP
> > situation::
>
> Phillipe, thinking he wants to email Bob some SCAM, since he wont
> complain about it.

Phillipe, just what plan are you on right now? Is this charge really
affecting you that much?

I'm spending close to $115 plus another $15+ for taxes and surcharges, for 3
phones, 2000 AT minutes, Vision & the F&CA option. I'm not defending SPCS as
some of their reps have misrepresented what this charge is for, but I do
believe there is a substantial cost that SPCS is incurring with getting WLNP
implemented and it is something that has been authorized to pass on to the
customer ...

As to that one and only one statement that Lawrence likes to keep referring
to about Verizon Wireless's president saying the cost of WLNP is only $.10
to $0.15 cents per line, I've said it before and will say it again, that I
believe the VW president is just saying something, but doesn't have a clue
as to what the actual cost will be.

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> How many times do you have to be told it's not a rate increase? If it were
a
> rate increase, your plan, excluding taxes and surcharges would increase.
> Taxes and surcharges are a separate charge, outside of what the plan
costs.
>
> Bob
>
>

Says you. But the lawsuite is based upon an entirely different premise.

Tom Veldhouse

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 2) My July bill specifically listed the WLNP surcharge under "Taxes."
That's
> right, not "Surcharges & Fees," but "Taxes." A very big lie, and one for
which
> I have documented paper evidence.
>
>

I don't think you do ... here is what I have (for two lines):

Surcharges & Fees
Federal Universal Service Fund 1.64
Federal E911 0.80
Federal Wireless Number Pooling And Portability 2.20

Tom Veldhouse