Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

My July bill has a $2.20 charge for Number Portability.

Problem is there is no number portability. Maybe in November,
although all the cell phone companies are fighting that.
I understand Verizon will not institute that charge until that
service exists in fact.

I call Sprint (*2) to enquire why I being charged for a service
I am not receiving, and they say it is a cost recovery.

I am complain about paying for a service I am not receiving, and they
transfer me to CANCELLATION.

Luckily my Advantage Agreement long ago expired.


Looks like I'm going to Verizon, and then I can get the Kyocera 7135
that Sprint decided not to carry. With my son across the country already
on Verizon (it had far the best coverage in Wahington, D.C.) the free
unlimited Verizon to Verizon is a big plus.

Who ever even hinted that Sprint is trying to be more customer friendly.

I didn't experience that today.

---

› See More: Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

You're paying for it one way or another no matter who you sign up with.
It's just a matter of perception and marketing. Sprint makes it separate
on the bill so you can see what you're paying for, while Verizon simply
includes it in the overall cost (just one of the reasons they charge
more on average for the same type of plan).

The FCC mandated it, and it is, in fact, quite expensive. It is costing
the industry a billion dollars just to get ready for it. The reason is
that it changes the fundamental way calls are routed throughout all of
the nation's phone systems.

*ALL* of Sprint's and Verizon's call-routing systems have to be replaced
or upgraded to be able to handle ported numbers, and it affects nearly
all of their other systems as well, from roaming to billing to customer
service.

All of those upgrades cost serious money. If it's not a separate change,
it's built into your monthly charge, because the FCC sure as heck isn't
paying for it...

As for actually paying for number portability as a service to you -
that's different. That comes as a charge when you actually go to have
your number ported. Then Sprint or whoever can charge you $30 to port
your number. That's not a monthly-charge thing.

The monthly charge is simply to cover the costs of upgrading their
systems to handle ported numbers, and it's something they've been
working on for years. If they waited until all of the upgrades were
complete to start recouping the costs from customers, it would just
throw them further into to debt, something they're not going to do
unnecessarily, especially to satisfy a government mandate.

--
Rich Brome
Phone Scoop
http://www.phonescoop.com/


Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> My July bill has a $2.20 charge for Number Portability.
>
> Problem is there is no number portability. Maybe in November,
> although all the cell phone companies are fighting that.
> I understand Verizon will not institute that charge until that
> service exists in fact.
>
> I call Sprint (*2) to enquire why I being charged for a service
> I am not receiving, and they say it is a cost recovery.
>
> I am complain about paying for a service I am not receiving, and they
> transfer me to CANCELLATION.
>
> Luckily my Advantage Agreement long ago expired.
>
>
> Looks like I'm going to Verizon, and then I can get the Kyocera 7135
> that Sprint decided not to carry. With my son across the country already
> on Verizon (it had far the best coverage in Wahington, D.C.) the free
> unlimited Verizon to Verizon is a big plus.
>
> Who ever even hinted that Sprint is trying to be more customer friendly.
>
> I didn't experience that today.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Rich Brome) wrote:

> <snip> Attempted explanations for Sprints' new charges.

Sorry. I'm still quiting Sprint.


>
>
> Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > My July bill has a $2.20 charge for Number Portability.
> >
> > Problem is there is no number portability. Maybe in November,
> > although all the cell phone companies are fighting that.
> > I understand Verizon will not institute that charge until that
> > service exists in fact.
> >
> > I call Sprint (*2) to enquire why I being charged for a service
> > I am not receiving, and they say it is a cost recovery.
> >
> > I am complain about paying for a service I am not receiving, and they
> > transfer me to CANCELLATION.
> >
> > Luckily my Advantage Agreement long ago expired.
> >
> >
> > Looks like I'm going to Verizon, and then I can get the Kyocera 7135
> > that Sprint decided not to carry. With my son across the country already
> > on Verizon (it had far the best coverage in Wahington, D.C.) the free
> > unlimited Verizon to Verizon is a big plus.
> >
> > Who ever even hinted that Sprint is trying to be more customer friendly.
> >
> > I didn't experience that today.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

"Rich Brome" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's just a matter of perception and marketing. Sprint makes it separate

Absolutely false. Verizon, and I think some other carriers, are *not*
attempting to impose a new charge (a.k.a. rate increase) on customers with a
current agreement ("contract"). This is a *fundamental* difference: Other
carriers respect existing agreements, whereas Sprint does not. Worse, many
Sprint reps and even Sprint bills tell outright lies in order to defraud
customers of their right to cancel without penalty.

> The FCC mandated it, and it is, in fact, quite expensive. It is costing
> the industry a billion dollars just to get ready for it. The reason is

Verizon estimates the cost at 10-15 cents per line. Sprint's $1.10/line charge
is either absurdly overblown (by a full order of magnitude!), or Sprint is only
1/10 as efficient as Verizon.

Lawrence G. Mayka wrote:
> "Rich Brome" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> It's just a matter of perception and marketing. Sprint makes it
>> separate
>
> Absolutely false. Verizon, and I think some other carriers, are *not*
> attempting to impose a new charge (a.k.a. rate increase) on customers
> with a current agreement ("contract"). This is a *fundamental*
> difference: Other carriers respect existing agreements, whereas
> Sprint does not. Worse, many Sprint reps and even Sprint bills tell
> outright lies in order to defraud customers of their right to cancel
> without penalty.
>
>> The FCC mandated it, and it is, in fact, quite expensive. It is
>> costing
>> the industry a billion dollars just to get ready for it. The reason
>> is
>
> Verizon estimates the cost at 10-15 cents per line. Sprint's
> $1.10/line charge is either absurdly overblown (by a full order of
> magnitude!), or Sprint is only 1/10 as efficient as Verizon.

You forgot option #3. That Verizon is, perhaps, vastly understating the
cost, wittingly or otherwise.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

"O/Siris" <robjvargas@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message
news:A2nZa.111988$o%2.48640@sccrnsc02...
> You forgot option #3. That Verizon is, perhaps, vastly understating the
> cost, wittingly or otherwise.

Possible but unlikely. Verizon's estimate of 10-15 cents per line was
specifically an estimate of how much Verizon might eventually charge if it felt
it needed to (after number portability service actually becomes available).
Common sense dictates leaving oneself as much wiggle room as possible. Verizon
obviously felt quite confident that the cost of number portability will not
exceed 15 cents per line.

This is part of Sprint's incentive plan to get people to switch to Verizon
in November. Not everyone knew about the number portability law, but since
Sprint charges their clients for it now, they are bringing up your
awareness. And it would be a shame not to take advantage of it since you've
been paying for it for the 5 months before November. They want to make sure
you get your money's worth.

I keep hearing how Sprint is working on their Customer Service issues.
Clearly I see evidence every time I deal with them that they are trying to
reduce the lines and hold times by eliminating as many clients as they can.
When they've eliminated at least half of their clients, they feel they will
be more adequately staffed to meet your needs.


"Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> My July bill has a $2.20 charge for Number Portability.
>
> Problem is there is no number portability. Maybe in November,
> although all the cell phone companies are fighting that.
> I understand Verizon will not institute that charge until that
> service exists in fact.
>
> I call Sprint (*2) to enquire why I being charged for a service
> I am not receiving, and they say it is a cost recovery.
>
> I am complain about paying for a service I am not receiving, and they
> transfer me to CANCELLATION.
>
> Luckily my Advantage Agreement long ago expired.
>
>
> Looks like I'm going to Verizon, and then I can get the Kyocera 7135
> that Sprint decided not to carry. With my son across the country already
> on Verizon (it had far the best coverage in Wahington, D.C.) the free
> unlimited Verizon to Verizon is a big plus.
>
> Who ever even hinted that Sprint is trying to be more customer friendly.
>
> I didn't experience that today.

No one is stopping you. Actually we are just waiting for the day. You
are not going to be any happier with your new carrier until you can
change out of that one as well.

All the people here did was show you that the other carriers that you
think are just in this to provide customers with free calls, free
minutes, unlimited access, and no dropped calls ever are different
than Sprint PCS.

Have your son really check his bill (fine print) and see what it
shows. Talk to the reps at the Verizon customer care center (billing),
not the sales reps. See what happens.

You said that your son's phone works great in D.C. which is great for
him. That doesn't mean it's going to work for you. Where are you at?
You need to check with the people that have phones from different
carriers in your location. Get the phone company that works best where
YOU are going to be at. It doesn't make a difference if your son is on
Verizon and you are on SPCS/AWS/Cingular/Nextel/ and/or T-Mobile. They
all talk to each other and usually are located right close to each
other.

GOODBYE
Ralph





Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Rich Brome) wrote:
>
> > <snip> Attempted explanations for Sprints' new charges.
>
> Sorry. I'm still quiting Sprint.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
> > <[email protected]>:
> > > My July bill has a $2.20 charge for Number Portability.
> > >
> > > Problem is there is no number portability. Maybe in November,
> > > although all the cell phone companies are fighting that.
> > > I understand Verizon will not institute that charge until that
> > > service exists in fact.
> > >
> > > I call Sprint (*2) to enquire why I being charged for a service
> > > I am not receiving, and they say it is a cost recovery.
> > >
> > > I am complain about paying for a service I am not receiving, and they
> > > transfer me to CANCELLATION.
> > >
> > > Luckily my Advantage Agreement long ago expired.
> > >
> > >
> > > Looks like I'm going to Verizon, and then I can get the Kyocera 7135
> > > that Sprint decided not to carry. With my son across the country already
> > > on Verizon (it had far the best coverage in Wahington, D.C.) the free
> > > unlimited Verizon to Verizon is a big plus.
> > >
> > > Who ever even hinted that Sprint is trying to be more customer friendly.
> > >
> > > I didn't experience that today.
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

"Ralph Patuki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> YOU are going to be at. It doesn't make a difference if your son is on
> Verizon and you are on SPCS/AWS/Cingular/Nextel/ and/or T-Mobile. They

The original post specifically mentioned that "the free unlimited Verizon to
Verizon is a big plus." So for him, moving to his son's carrier is indeed a
significant advantage--provided that Verizon meets his needs otherwise.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Rich Brome) wrote:

> You're paying for it one way or another no matter who you sign up with.
> It's just a matter of perception and marketing. Sprint makes it separate
> on the bill so you can see what you're paying for, while Verizon simply
> includes it in the overall cost


You've been sitting in with the marketing Vice Presidents for both
companies, so you know this?

I suspect Sprint charges less to get more market share. They lose money
on every customer, but they make it up in volume.

P.S. Hows their stock price doing lately?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Ralph Patuki) wrote:

> No one is stopping you. Actually we are just waiting for the day. You
> are not going to be any happier with your new carrier until you can
> change out of that one as well.
>
> All the people here did was show you that the other carriers that you
> think are just in this to provide customers with free calls, free
> minutes, unlimited access, and no dropped calls ever are different
> than Sprint PCS.
>
> Have your son really check his bill (fine print) and see what it
> shows. Talk to the reps at the Verizon customer care center (billing),
> not the sales reps. See what happens.
>
> You said that your son's phone works great in D.C. which is great for
> him. That doesn't mean it's going to work for you. Where are you at?
> You need to check with the people that have phones from different
> carriers in your location. Get the phone company that works best where
> YOU are going to be at. It doesn't make a difference if your son is on
> Verizon and you are on SPCS/AWS/Cingular/Nextel/ and/or T-Mobile. They
> all talk to each other and usually are located right close to each
> other.
>
> GOODBYE
> Ralph

Yup, everyone's Customer Service sucks, but Verizon sucks less. Consumer
Reports survey said so. Sprint's coverage where I live is such swiss
cheese its awful, T-Mobile, the German cell company is of course worse,
and AT&T has the worst customer Service.

If I want a Kyocera 7135, I have to go Verizon, and I like the
way they are standing up to the RIAA.

Phillipe wrote:

>
> If I want a Kyocera 7135, I have to go Verizon, and I like the
> way they are standing up to the RIAA.

Oh, you mean by caving in and giving up the list of customer Names?

This is all you need to know about Sprint's Number Portability Charges and your contract.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Good story about Sprint and Nextel being sued over these new "fees".

Most important note in story is:

"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."

Luckily Sprint finally emailed me back:

=======

I apologize for the delay in responding.

Upon review of your account, I noticed that your one-year PCS
Advantage Agreement has already satisfied as of [Date, xx, 2003 (in the
past)].

Thank you for contacting Sprint.

==========

Notice the well English grammar the Sprint rep used.

"Notice the well English grammar the Sprint rep used." And yours
is.........?

Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003...0323_28_23.txt
>
> Good story about Sprint and Nextel being sued over these new "fees".
>
> Most important note in story is:
>
> "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."
>
> Luckily Sprint finally emailed me back:
>
> =======
>
> I apologize for the delay in responding.
>
> Upon review of your account, I noticed that your one-year PCS
> Advantage Agreement has already satisfied as of [Date, xx, 2003 (in the
> past)].
>
> Thank you for contacting Sprint.
>
> ==========
>
> Notice the well English grammar the Sprint rep used.

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