Results 61 to 75 of 224
- 08-12-2003, 01:44 PM #61PhillipeGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Yes, but this cost was a new one, outside of the costs incurred by the
> > > carriers. This change was ordered by the government, and since they
> > mandated
> > > that WLNP must take place, also said that the carriers could recap that
> > > expense.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, but if they are actually making a profit on the fee ... then it is
> not
> > recompensation, but rather a rate increase ... hence the lawsuite. If
> they
> > make up the costs and immediately eliminate the fee ... then things change
> a
> > bit, but Sprint has not declared they plan to do this, or even that this
> fee
> > is temporary. If they continue to charge this for 5 years, that will be
> > well over $1 Billion in revenue.
> >
> > Tom Veldhouse
>
> I love it when you folks quote **** like this. You have no clue what the
> costs of WLNP are to the carriers, or how long it's going to be changed for,
> or whether a profit is going to be made ... All you people do it throw ****
> on the walls and hope it will stick ... Show some cites on this ... instead
> of just ranting away ...
>
> Bob
>
>
I ignore anybody that sprinkles gratuitous obscenities in their POSTs.
Now to KILLFILE this Mr. Smith.
› See More: lawsuit against Sprint
- 08-12-2003, 01:45 PM #62PhillipeGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, but this cost was a new one, outside of the costs incurred by the
> carriers. This change was ordered by the government, and since they mandated
> that WLNP must take place, also said that the carriers could recap that
> expense.
The government did not mandate a $1.10 charge, the government did not
mandate Sprint violate their contracts with tack-on fees.
- 08-12-2003, 01:47 PM #63Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I love it when you folks quote **** like this. You have no clue what the
> costs of WLNP are to the carriers, or how long it's going to be changed
for,
> or whether a profit is going to be made ... All you people do it throw
****
> on the walls and hope it will stick ... Show some cites on this ...
instead
> of just ranting away ...
>
> Bob
>
All Sprint has to do is say, "we plan to charge this until the costs of WLNP
have been recompenstated and then the fee will cease". They have not
indicated any such thing. Nor have they indicated that it will go to a
lower maintenance fee once costs have been recompensated. Nor have they
explained why their costs are as high as they indicate, which over $100
million by November. Sprint has done nothing to indicate their
accountability. However, there is plenty of doubt shed on this because of
the size of the fee and the fact that every line of service is charge this
fee and anybody under contract has nothing they can do about it. Because of
this ... these people have a right to understand this fee down to the
smallest detail ... certainly a fee that adds up to over $100 million in a
matter of months on the backs of consumers that have no choice in the matter
.... this needs accountability.
And ... like I have said before ... I don't think they are "up to no good".
I do think it looks suspicious and that they should elaborate on this new
fee. The fact is currently, you, I and anybody else reading this have NO
WAY to determine whether the fee is legitimate or not. The other fees on
the bill are easy to determine and understand, but not his fee.
Tom Veldhouse
- 08-12-2003, 01:53 PM #64tom ronsonGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 6 months? Try counting with your fingers and you'll find out it's 5
months.
Wasn't it June? June thru November is 6 months, at least in this end of NC.
But lets use your five months --- that's still $100 million.
> I've heard some people conjecture here that there would be a cost to move
> the phone number from one carrier to another.
I recall Lauer saying that it was going to cost something to move a number,
and how the customer's wireless "experience" will suffer as a result. I'll
see if I can find the article.
> Who says the media is all over their ass? So far, the only ones on SPCS's
> ass are about 5 to 10 folks in here.
Huh? I read a story, from a newpaper's web site, that told the story of a
class action suit filed in San Diego, Calif. --- which had nothing to do
with this forum. While the "all over their ass" might be premature knowing
how the media loves a salacious story and puts a faux effort forth to
protect the consumer this could (and likely will) easily make it from San
Diego to a national outlet. If only one of the majors takes it on they'll
all pile in. Reuters nibbled around the edge of this in a story last week,
what do you suppose that was for?
> I'm betting that SPCS will be one of the first ones ready.
We'll see.
>Not like Verizon did originally ...
Funny their change of tune --- keep an eye on this --- it's bigger than you
think.
> I don't think so.
re: Vzw buying Sprint. Okie Dokie, but there's a good sized consolidation
coming, and Vzw scooping up a cash strained SPCS is easily one of the
possibilities.
- 08-12-2003, 01:54 PM #65Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> What I have a problem is with folks like Lawrence and you, misusing the
term
> "Rate Increase" as this phrase has nothing to do with what a rate
increase
> is ...
>
> ***** about the extra surcharge all day long if you want, but get it
right,
> and call it a surcharge instead of a rate increase.
>
> Bob
OK ... let's try another tact. If Sprint decides they want to increase
rates on all plans by $1.10 per plan, but they are not allowed to because of
contract and/or mandate, so they decide to take on a surcharge that is
allowed ... how does this differ? My hypothetical example is single motive
.... they want to make $1.10 per plan.
It is simply being suggested by the lawsuite that Sprint has inflated the
LNP charge to make a profit .. because they are not allowed to increase
rates. In other words, people here (except you) are calling it a rate
increase [in essense] rather than an actual surcharge, which Sprint is
calling it. Semantics mean nothing as opposed to ethics. Call it what you
will, but Sprint needs to justify the surcharge because the customers have
no choice but to pay it per their contract.
Tom Veldhouse
- 08-12-2003, 02:00 PM #66Nomen NescioGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
><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
For what it's worth, my July WLNP is listed under "Taxes" similar to your bill. Replace "Aurora"
and "Illinois" with my city and state, tack on a "Wireless Subscriber" and "High Rate Surcharge"
under Surcharges & Fees, and it would look like my bill.
WLNP is definitely under the taxes section and not the surcharge header on my bill, though.
Seems bills difffer.
You guys offer Lawrence an apology. (though Lawrence shouldn't hold his breath for one)
I haven't gotten my August bill yet. Maybe they have changed it since.
- 08-12-2003, 02:00 PM #67Nomen NescioGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
>> 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.
>Are they really going through so much trouble?
Let's see. They have had to let numerous people out of their contracts for free resulting in a
loss of revenue. They have given many other customers credits which more than offset the fee
resulting in a loss of revenue. Their CSR's spend who knows how long fraudulently trying to
convince pissed-off customers that this thing is a "tax" or that it is "mandated by the FCC".
They have lost a PR battle with their biggest rival which may result in a loss of revenue. Now
they are having judges rule against them in consumer lawsuits which are costing them money and
goodwill which will result in .... you guessed it ... more lost revenue.
Yeah! I'd say they are going through a whole ****load of trouble for that little $1.10 nickel-
and-dime routine.
>Then complain to the FCC or whatever government agency gave the
>authorization to charge the fee.
How did the FCC "Authorize" the charge?
By not telling them that they couldn't charge it?
If I don't tell you that you can't smack me in the head, am I "authorizing" you to do it?
The FCC issued no opinion or calculation related to any "recovery fees". So by not prohibiting
it, they "authorized" it by Sprint's (and your) logic. This is extremely twisted logic, IMHO.
I could use this arguement to imply consent for just about anything I do.
Heck, officially the federal government authorizes me to run around my living room reciting
Edgar Allen Poe passages. Does this mean that they care one way or the other if I do it?
That is entirely up to me. If I did so, and you were annoyed by it, would you complain to the
government that they "authorized" me to do it?
I think this "authorization" thing has confused some of you folks. It doesn't really mean
anything other than they didn't forbid it. By this rationale, the FCC has also authorized the
CEO of Sprint to have intercourse with an inflatable doll.
- 08-12-2003, 02:07 PM #68norelprefGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:36:13 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>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
Is your coffe analogy a joke? What if they give the coffee away for
free but charge a $4.50 surcharge. Does that mean you got it for
free? The cost you pay for the service is the cost that you write the
check for. It does not matter what they call it. The reason the
government mandated taxes are charged seperately is because that money
is collected by Sprint, the amount is not set by Sprint, but passed
on to the government and managed by a specific government program .
The WLNP charge charged by Sprint, is managed by Sprint, collected by
Sprint, Sprint decides how much to charge and how much of it to spend
directly on Sprint and Sprint only assetts. This makes it a Sprint
charge for service and no different then adding $1.10 to your existing
monthly service charge. What if they lower everyones plan amount by
$20 but charge a $21.10 WLNP fee? The end result is you still pay
more.
I'll tell you what, my local county just mandated a 1% raise on all
cell phones in the county. I am going to pass this government
mandated charge I am FORCED to comply with over to Sprint to offset MY
costs of having a Sprint phone. Tell me, how this is any different to
what Sprint is doing to their customers under an existing contract.
They got burned in thier plan to force customers into such long
contracts that they thought was going to be to thier advantage, now
they want to raise the rates you pay to them on a monthly basis AND
prevent you from getting out of the contract. I would say that that
is NOT going to fly in court.
The FCC "allowing" them to pass the charges on does NOT bypass and
rewrite existing contract laws.
- 08-12-2003, 02:12 PM #69Bob SmithGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > I love it when you folks quote **** like this. You have no clue what the
> > costs of WLNP are to the carriers, or how long it's going to be changed
> for,
> > or whether a profit is going to be made ... All you people do it throw
> ****
> > on the walls and hope it will stick ... Show some cites on this ...
> instead
> > of just ranting away ...
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> All Sprint has to do is say, "we plan to charge this until the costs of
WLNP
> have been recompenstated and then the fee will cease". They have not
> indicated any such thing. Nor have they indicated that it will go to a
> lower maintenance fee once costs have been recompensated. Nor have they
> explained why their costs are as high as they indicate, which over $100
> million by November.
SPCS hasn't said diddley squat, yet you expect them too? LOL. They don't
have to say anything ... The only ones talking about this here are folks
that have absolutely no facts to back up their statements.
So, long story short ... you have nothing to back up your prior comments
then Tom?
> Sprint has done nothing to indicate their
> accountability. However, there is plenty of doubt shed on this because of
> the size of the fee and the fact that every line of service is charge this
> fee and anybody under contract has nothing they can do about it. Because
of
> this ... these people have a right to understand this fee down to the
> smallest detail ... certainly a fee that adds up to over $100 million in a
> matter of months on the backs of consumers that have no choice in the
matter
> ... this needs accountability.
>
> And ... like I have said before ... I don't think they are "up to no
good".
> I do think it looks suspicious and that they should elaborate on this new
> fee.
I don't think it looks suspicious. They included information, listed below,
which I just got from my online billing.
"Surcharges and Fees - The surcharges in this section generally
recover the costs incurred by Sprint in complying with various federal and
state mandates. Charges that appear in this section of your invoice,
including charges associated with Federal Wireless Number Pooling and
Portability, Federal and State Universal Service Funds (USF) and Federal
E911*, are neither taxes nor government-imposed assessments. The Federal USF
charge is calculated using the FCC-prescribed contribution factor, which may
change on a quarterly basis. Neither Federal nor state law requires carriers
to impose these charges but carriers are permitted to recover their costs of
complying with these federal and state mandates.
Call 1 866-770-6690 for more information, including the current
Federal USF invoice surcharge.
*Please note that current availability of E911 services is very
limited. E911 service is dependent upon several factors, including the
ability of your local public safety agency to receive and process this
information and the capabilities of your equipment. "
> The fact is currently, you, I and anybody else reading this have NO
> WAY to determine whether the fee is legitimate or not. The other fees on
> the bill are easy to determine and understand, but not his fee.
The fee is legitimate as mentioned in the above quote.
Bob
- 08-12-2003, 02:14 PM #70Bob SmithGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
"Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I love it when you folks quote **** like this. You have no clue what the
> > costs of WLNP are to the carriers, or how long it's going to be changed
for,
> > or whether a profit is going to be made ... All you people do it throw
****
> > on the walls and hope it will stick ... Show some cites on this ...
instead
> > of just ranting away ...
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
> I ignore anybody that sprinkles gratuitous obscenities in their POSTs.
>
> Now to KILLFILE this Mr. Smith.
Sounds good to me Phillipe. As to my comments, what else do you call
unfounded comments?
Bob
- 08-12-2003, 02:21 PM #71norelprefGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:21:19 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Most likely, there won't be any additional cost, save for
>cancelling the contract prematurely, if one wants to jump ship before the
>contract ends.
And this is based on what?
You seem to be all about setting people straight and wanting proof and
facts and then enlighten us with that statement.
- 08-12-2003, 02:30 PM #72Nomen NescioGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
>Oh, I must be mistaken then. Some government agency went through the steps
>to tell the wireless providers could recap their expenses from the
>government mandate to initiate WNLP.
What "steps" did they go through to tell the wireless providers what to charge for WLNP recovery?
They said "if you want to raise your rates to recover your costs, go ahead". Do you really
think they needed the FCC's permission for this? Couldn't everyone have changed the rates
without the FCC's blessing?
They never said they could violate current contracts. If they did, I missed that part.
If the FCC was so deeply involved in this fee, what did they tell the carriers to charge?
>> Do you understand the point?
>
>Yes ... I do. Apparently you don't.
Okay, we want to get personal? Fine.
>And your plan rates haven't changed ... have they?
Yes, you half-brained ****wit. They have gone up $3.30 due to my multiple lines. Wrap it, slap
it, unbundle it and smack it ... the non-mandated taxes and surcharges a/k/a My Calling Plan
Rates have indeed gone up.
If they divide my plan rate, and call one half of it the "calling plan rate", and the other half
a "phone surcharge" ... has my calling plan really been cut in half? No, i'm paying the same.
The calling plan rate is sum of the bill minues all MANDATED taxes and surcharges. Arbitrary
charges are rate increases.
And the ****ing sky is blue and the grass is green.
>Which judgement is that? That the customer has the option of bailing out of
>the contract early?
The court judgement you inbred imbecile. What frigging rock have you been living under?
Whaaaaaaaaaa? I hear Kobe Bryant is in some kind of trouble. Whaaaaaaaaaaaat trouble? I
didn't hear nuttin 'bout no trouble.
>No, and I quoted it earlier today, saying basically that I thought it was a
>bogus number.
You think every numer is bogus but Sprint's.
Tell me, how do you type so proficiently with Len Lauer's dick in your mouth.
Len Lauer is Sprint PCS's CEO for those who don't like his nutsack on a daily basis.
>No officials from any wireless provider has confirmed that cost.
So how do you know they are bogus then? They certainly haven't rebutted the numbers.
>>Yes, but this cost was a new one, outside of the costs incurred by the
>carriers.
People get hit with new charges every day. Welcome to planet earth. I get hit with them all
the time on my bill too. They also have their costs reduced to (recent decline in fuel prices
helped). New charges happen, old ones go away, people eat pizza .... what the **** does any of
this have to do with the price of horse**** in Japan?
>This change was ordered by the government,
Like the every increasing taxes I pay every month? You mean a mandate like that?
>and since they mandated that WLNP must take place, also said that the carriers could recap that
>expense.
They also said that Sprint could lick a dog's ass. Doesn't mean they have to do it.
- 08-12-2003, 02:30 PM #73norelprefGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:34:07 GMT, "Bob Smith" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I love it when you folks quote **** like this. You have no clue what the
>costs of WLNP are to the carriers, or how long it's going to be changed for,
>or whether a profit is going to be made ... All you people do it throw ****
>on the walls and hope it will stick ... Show some cites on this ... instead
>of just ranting away ...
>
>Bob
Kind of like what you said further up in this thread about ..
>Most likely, there won't be any additional cost, save for
>cancelling the contract prematurely, if one wants to jump ship before the
>contract ends.
You have NO CLUE what they are going to charge to transer a phone
number but yet gave everyone a figure of "Probably won't be any
additional charge". Where did you pull that from? Does your ****
just slide down the wall?
- 08-12-2003, 02:32 PM #74FreeGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
I guess the San Diego judge agreed with me... $.48 here, $.48 there,
it adds up to real money (to paraphrase Ev Dirksen).
>From: Newguy ([email protected])
>Subject: Re: Increase in Surcharges
>Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
>Date: 2003-06-10 22:16:19 PST
>
>you really have a sad life sir... i wish i could do something to make it
>more worthwhile than to actually remember what your "Federal Telephone
>Number Pooling" surchage was the previous month and feel a need to spend
>precious time to complain about 48 cents.
>
>but now you say i'm wasting time worrying about your sad life and calling
>mine sad by now, but see i'm not complaining about 48 cents... i'm surfing
>the newgroups for enjoyment.
>
>unilateral increase LOL poor thing.
>>"Free" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>> From my May statement to June, I have an increase in the "Federal
>> Telephone Number Pooling" surcharge. Up only $.48, but I still don't
>> like this unilateral increase in my price. Does Sprint have any
>> legitimate cost increases that they are passing on, or is this just a
>> price/profit increase?
- 08-12-2003, 02:35 PM #75Bob SmithGuest
Re: lawsuit against Sprint
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped>
> OK ... let's try another tact. If Sprint decides they want to increase
> rates on all plans by $1.10 per plan, but they are not allowed to because
of
> contract and/or mandate, so they decide to take on a surcharge that is
> allowed ... how does this differ? My hypothetical example is single
motive
> ... they want to make $1.10 per plan.
The government said they could start charging for the service to recap their
costs. That's all there is to it. Whether SPCS is making a profit, I have
absolutely no clue whether they are or aren't. Do you?
>
> It is simply being suggested by the lawsuite that Sprint has inflated the
> LNP charge to make a profit .. because they are not allowed to increase
> rates.
And if the government hadn't give them the ok to add the charge, they
wouldn't have.
> In other words, people here (except you) are calling it a rate
> increase [in essense] rather than an actual surcharge, which Sprint is
> calling it. Semantics mean nothing as opposed to ethics. Call it what
you
> will, but Sprint needs to justify the surcharge because the customers have
> no choice but to pay it per their contract.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
Tom, the proper use of words is very important, and hence my point about
others calling this a rate increase. As to justifying the surcharge, just
what do you want? A breakout of what their prior, current & future expenses
will be for WLNP?
If it is, here's a challenge for you and everyone else for that matter then.
Either send a letter off to SPCS as a customer, or more preferrably as a
stockholder, and ask them for an explanation and breakdown of the cost to
offer WLNP and the amount billed to the customer. Or, contact a reporter and
ask them to specifically follow up on this matter.
Or, contact the FCC and ask them what they think should be fair ...
Bob
Similar Threads
- Sprint PCS
- alt.cellular.verizon
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat