lawsuit against Sprint

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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
>
Tom, I wasn't commenting on the lawsuit ... well maybe, on a side note I am,
only because it's in this thread with a subject line saying "lawsuit against
Sprint". What I'm referring to is Lawrence's consistant misuse of the phrase
"RATE INCREASE". It's not a rate increase ...

I'm the first one to hate it when someone posts an anology, but here's a
good one to explain what a rate increase is, in simple terms.

A grocery store sells coffee for $4.00 /lb. A sudden freak weather front
moves into Columbia, and half of the coffee beans on the trees go bad.
Coffee futures go through the roof and it costs more to buy current stocks
of coffee beans from the distributors. The grocery store now charges $4.50/
lb for coffee. That's a rate increase on the product.

Our plans have not changed price. The overall cost has gone up because of an
additional surcharge (WLNP), but the additional cost was not part of the
plan we signed up for. Taxes and surcharges are not included in the plans
offered by the providers. They are separate charges from the plans offered.

Bob

---

› See More: lawsuit against Sprint

>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 ...

"Authorized" means nothing. I have been "authorized" to sell you my 1974 Ford Pinto for
$175,368.95. It's a straw man arguement. They've always been able to charge whatever they wanted.

As far as recovering costs, why not do it on the utilization end?

From all accounts, they are going to charge you for using it ($15-$30 lump sum) even after you have
been paid for it.

They'll more than make up for the costs by whacking people with the transfer fees when they
actually use WLNP.

The only people who are going to lose on WLNP are those who's customers leave them for other
carriers.

Companies should concentrate on preventing churn rather than nickel and diming. In the end, that
will be 100x more profitable. The "I paid for it, I might as well use it" mentality could be a
potential problem to those profiteering on the fee.

"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >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 ...
>
> "Authorized" means nothing. I have been "authorized" to sell you my 1974
Ford Pinto for
> $175,368.95. It's a straw man arguement. They've always been able to
charge whatever they wanted.

Yea, well ... I'll take it, but only if the gas tank is modified ... . As
to the authorization, methinks that the government has a bit more influence
saying it's ok, instead of you ...
>
> As far as recovering costs, why not do it on the utilization end?

Good point. In saying that though, they already have the OK to do it now. So
why not recapture those costs now, instead of having to wait.
>
> From all accounts, they are going to charge you for using it ($15-$30 lump
sum) even after you have
> been paid for it.

Oh? When and where have these numbers been mentioned in any SPCS statement.
I'd like a company cite to back up your statement here.
>
> They'll more than make up for the costs by whacking people with the
transfer fees when they
> actually use WLNP.

And you know this how?

>
> The only people who are going to lose on WLNP are those who's customers
leave them for other
> carriers.

Don't you get it? Every wireless carrier will be charging those fees in Nov.
A few wireless providers are charging it now, to cover their costs to
implement it.
>
> Companies should concentrate on preventing churn rather than nickel and
diming. In the end, that
> will be 100x more profitable. The "I paid for it, I might as well use it"
mentality could be a
> potential problem to those profiteering on the fee.


Who says anyone is making a profit on this charge now? Although it hasn't
been mentioned ... yet, I'm sure that each carrier has incurred a
significant cost to have WNLP in place by November.

Bob

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

I respect your opinion, but I can't help wondering why if it is so insignificant, that Sprint is
going through so much trouble over it.

Apparently they think is is worth the lawsuits and bad publicitity, so it must be important to
someone.

I think people just don't like being lied to, and resent having a possible legitimate cost recovery
measure used for profiteering.

I think that if Sprint had shot the customers straight, offered them an out from the contract up
front, and been fair with the estimates, very very few people would have complained. I just would
have said "okay" and paid it.

But, it's the "broken windows" theory that people are trying to prevent. $3.30 today, $5 tomorrow,
$10 next month, $20 next year. The little things tend to become big things if they aren't
addressed quickly. We've all seen it happen before. If the preceident is set that they can get
away with it once, history has proven that they will try it again, in a more grand fashion. Like
someone said, what's next "Air Conditioning Cost Recovery for OSHA mandates". Why not? Consumers
have to be vigilant in today's business climate.

I think that is where the stink eminates.

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

> Our plans have not changed price. The overall cost has gone up because of an
> additional surcharge (WLNP), but the additional cost was not part of the
> plan we signed up for. Taxes and surcharges are not included in the plans
> offered by the providers. They are separate charges from the plans offered.

Finbe but the "Fee" Sprint charges is way in excess of what is needed to
recover their cost. It is oversized because it contains a backdoor price
increase

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

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

Fair is fair, and honesty is honesty. Do you really want to
do business with a dishonest company??

In my case, I was out of contract, so I called up RETENTION, to offset
the $1.10 increase, I got a $5.99/month decrease, and a $100 credit.
I'm ready for the next backdoor price increase.

O/Siris wrote:
> *
>
> 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 *

Yes, the insert very clearly states that it's not a tax or mandated fee
but what the reps say is a different story. I've had at least 3 reps
tell me that it's a tax. When I read the insert they say that it might
not technically be a tax, but the surcharge is mandated by the FCC.
Then I read it again and they say WLNP is mandated by the FCC,
therefore it doesn't qualify for canceling without the ETF. Only after
going around in circles, talking to sups, and going to
cancellation/retention did they admit that although WLNP is mandated,
the fee is not a tax nor enforced by the government. I don't care what
an insert says if the reps claim the exact opposite even when you're
looking right at it and reading it back to them. Many people will take
the reps' word for it. And many that don't might not get someone to
admit it to them and just say, "contact our legal department." Not
many people will go through the time and trouble of suing for $150.
That's what Sprint is counting on, for people to believe the lies of
the CS reps and stay with Sprint paying an extra $1.10 per month or
fork over $150 for leaving. This is either a case of gross negligence
on behalf or the reps not being informed of what the WLNP fee is, or
flat out fraud by Sprint by having the reps tell customers that it's a
tax. I hope the lawsuits start coming and it costs Sprint millions.
I'd pay a few bucks a month extra if it gets Sprint to engage in
ethical business practices.

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

<<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.>>

My July bill clearly listed WLNP under "Surcharges and Fees", not under
"Taxes". Odd how it is listed in different places on peoples' bills.

Phillipe wrote:
> *In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Phillipe, just what plan are you on right now? Is this charge
> really
> > affecting you that much?
>
> Fair is fair, and honesty is honesty. Do you really want to
> do business with a dishonest company??
>
> In my case, I was out of contract, so I called up RETENTION, to
> offset
> the $1.10 increase, I got a $5.99/month decrease, and a $100 credit.
> I'm ready for the next backdoor price increase. *

I wasn't out of contract. But I guess they saw my $125/mo plan and
decided they wanted to keep me. All I got was a $60 credit. WLNP+E911
for a year for me costs $54. The credit offset the surcharges for me,
so I took it and dropped the issue with Sprint. Maybe if I was out of
contract I could have gotten something better. I told them it wasn't
about getting a better deal. It was about evening things up because
they're trying to scam us, period.

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

"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.

How many times do you need to be told that Sprint's deceptive naming does not
change the truth? The WLNP charge is not a tax, it is neither mandated nor
calculated by the government, it is not an optional add-on for an offered
service. It is simply a rate increase, nothing else.

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> Tom, I wasn't commenting on the lawsuit ... well maybe, on a side note I
am,
> only because it's in this thread with a subject line saying "lawsuit
against
> Sprint". What I'm referring to is Lawrence's consistant misuse of the
phrase
> "RATE INCREASE". It's not a rate increase ...
>
> I'm the first one to hate it when someone posts an anology, but here's a
> good one to explain what a rate increase is, in simple terms.
>
> A grocery store sells coffee for $4.00 /lb. A sudden freak weather front
> moves into Columbia, and half of the coffee beans on the trees go bad.
> Coffee futures go through the roof and it costs more to buy current stocks
> of coffee beans from the distributors. The grocery store now charges
$4.50/
> lb for coffee. That's a rate increase on the product.
>
> Our plans have not changed price. The overall cost has gone up because of
an
> additional surcharge (WLNP), but the additional cost was not part of the
> plan we signed up for. Taxes and surcharges are not included in the plans
> offered by the providers. They are separate charges from the plans
offered.
>
> Bob
>


By the lawsuite's definitition it is a rate increase, disguised as a fee
allowed by government mandate. I did not say that I agree or disagree, just
that it is indeed the premise of the lawsuite.

Tom Veldhouse

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

<Sigh> Do you actually believe that you can read *my* bill from afar? My bill
dated July 6, 2003, says (for 3 lines, business-class but individually liable):

Taxes
Aurora City and State Excise Tax 7.90
Federal Tax 2.08
Federal E911 1.20
Federal Wireless Number Pooling and Portability 3.30
Illinois State Wireless 911 Surcharge 2.25
Surcharges & Fees
Federal Universal Service Fund 1.41

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:10:52 GMT, "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >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 ...
>>
>> "Authorized" means nothing. I have been "authorized" to sell you my 1974
>Ford Pinto for
>> $175,368.95. It's a straw man arguement. They've always been able to
>charge whatever they wanted.
>
>Yea, well ... I'll take it, but only if the gas tank is modified ... . As
>to the authorization, methinks that the government has a bit more influence
>saying it's ok, instead of you ...

Huh?

Sprint can charge $1,000 for a 10 minute calling plan is they wish. The government will let
them do it. There are no laws against it. This is the rationale for Sprint's saying that the
government "allows" them to charge the WLNP fee. It's a straw man arguement. Anything that is
not expressly forbidden by law, Sprint can claim that the "government allows" them to charge -
and make it sound like some kind of official mandate. Which it isn't.

Do you understand the point?

I personally have nothing to do with it.


>> As far as recovering costs, why not do it on the utilization end?
>
>Good point. In saying that though, they already have the OK to do it now. So
>why not recapture those costs now, instead of having to wait.


Because we have contracts already locking in our rates.

Thus, the lawsuits .... and judgements against Sprint.

Not to mention that nobody is able to use WLNP yet.




>> They'll more than make up for the costs by whacking people with the
>transfer fees when they
>> actually use WLNP.
>
>And you know this how?


Life experience.


>> The only people who are going to lose on WLNP are those who's customers
>leave them for other
>> carriers.
>
>Don't you get it? Every wireless carrier will be charging those fees in Nov.
>A few wireless providers are charging it now, to cover their costs to
>implement it.


As long as they don't violate the contract or let people out for free, everybody can charge what
they want and the free market will sort it out.

Verizon says they are going to charge 15 cents if anything. Did you miss that cite?


>>
>> Companies should concentrate on preventing churn rather than nickel and
>diming. In the end, that
>> will be 100x more profitable. The "I paid for it, I might as well use it"
>mentality could be a
>> potential problem to those profiteering on the fee.
>
>
>Who says anyone is making a profit on this charge now?


Me, Verizon, well just about everybody really. Nobody has been able to produce numbers
requireing $1.10 per line per month starting right now.


> Although it hasn't
>been mentioned ... yet, I'm sure that each carrier has incurred a
>significant cost to have WNLP in place by November.


They also incurred costs to gas up the company vehicles and provide health insurance to
employees.

Companies have costs. So do customers. There's a newsflash.

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Who says anyone is making a profit on this charge now?

Basic math? $1.10 * 18.8 million subs come out to over $20.6 mill per month.
It'd be very hard to believe that Sprint will spend anywhere near the $123
mill they'll collect in the 6 months before they're forced to offer number
portability.

Then, when someone goes to take their number what will SPCS charge? $30?
$60? $120?. Is there a limit?

And frankly what it's called doesn't matter a flip, the cost to own a SPCS
phone, all things being equal, went up with this new charge. And saying that
its for required equipment is a little disingenuous. SPCS is required to
have transmitters that stay on frequency in order to provide the service,
but those are included in the final price --- as should this line item be.

The bottom line is that no matter the argument Sprint will lose on this
deal --- 'cause you can't put a price on ill-will and bad PR, and Sprint is
using it up quickly with this little horse and pony show. All that has to
happen is one of the big media outlets to run with this and Sprint's going
to hemorrhage badly. Ya, you'll be sitting here saying about how it's fair
because it was added below the tax line, but none of it will matter because
you can't explain this away with logic --- because as you know logic doesn't
apply when the media is all over your ass.

As I've said before, jacking the customers around when the door is fixing to
open seems like incredibly bad business sense. We'll see once WLNP goes live
(what do you want to bet Sprint says they wont be ready) --- but give this
things got legs, and none of it will be good for SPCS, in the long run.

The funny part is that within 2 years even you'll be writing out your
monthly check to Vzw --- after they buy what's left of SPCS at the auction.

In article <[email protected]>,
"tom ronson" <[email protected]> says:

>The funny part is that within 2 years even you'll be writing out your
>monthly check to Vzw --- after they buy what's left of SPCS at the auction.

<snort>

Please- pass that around- it's *good* stuff. Let's try *this* prediction, as
it's more grounded in reality:

In a mere 6 months after this has ended, NOBODY will give a sh*t- not old
customers, nor will it discourage new signups.

-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