lawsuit against Sprint

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

> I love it when you folks quote **** like this.

That's why we love you Bob, your passion.

>You have no clue what the costs of WLNP are to the carriers

Len Lauer, president of Sprint PCS "the investment the industry is making to
implement [WLNP] is more than $1 billion."

(last line from http://tinyurl.com/jt5j -- where Lauer also says it might
take up to three days to port a number)

What's SPCS's total market share? 12 percent? About $150 mill to pay their
share of WLNP, give or take. That's seven months to pick up the full nut,
assuming Lauer's somewhere in the ballpark.

---

› See More: lawsuit against Sprint

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Obtuse ... no. Real world yes ... I've mentioned on a number of times that I
> know a thing or two about what a rate increase is, as I've been an insurance
> broker for over 20 years ...
>
> WLNP is an extra charge, but it is not a rate increase, like some
> pseudo-lawyers here would like to think.

I pay all kinds of insurance to *reputable* insurance companies, and none of
them dare to raise my rate in the middle of an agreement term by calling it a
surcharge. Any insurance company or broker who thinks he can do so is simply a
crook. Genuine surcharges are *included* in the premium amount, and can only be
applied at the beginning of the *next* agreement term.

<<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. >>

I believe that the little insert in one of my previous paper bills that
talked about the WLNP fee did say that the fee "will incur until
Sprint's costs are recovered" or ome language like that. It did not
give any timeframe as to when the fee will cease, but it did say "until
Sprint's costs are recovered" and I am certain that I read that
somewhere.

Eric

"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >> 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.

Is that right? How many is numerous?

> They have given many other customers credits which more than offset the
fee
> resulting in a loss of revenue.

Is that right? How much?

> 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".

I don't know whether they purposely did that or not. They might not have
been told it was a tax. They might of thought of say that because they
didn't know what it specifically was. I don't know what they were exactly
told to say to the customer, do you?

> 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.

And I think you and the others are really blowing this out of proportion,
that everyone is pissed off. Hell fire, there's not even a real big problem
in this newsgroup, which consists mostly of a very very small percentage of
customers.
>
> >Then complain to the FCC or whatever government agency gave the
> >authorization to charge the fee.
>
> How did the FCC "Authorize" the charge?

I don't know ... Do you?
>
> By not telling them that they couldn't charge it?

Huhhh? I was under the impression that was something was officially passed
or authorized by the FCC. I don't have any cites for that though.

>
> 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.

Again, I was under the impression that the FCC did authorize that the
wireless markets could recap their expenses with this government mandate.

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.

What you mean is, they would itemize it differently on my bill? In
other words, if would be a rate increase if they called it a rate
increase, but if they say it isn't, then, well, gosh, it isn't?

As far as I can tell, your claim is that it's not a rate increase
because:
1. Sprint says so.
2. Since it's listed separately on the bill, Sprint might benevolently
remove it in the future.

You can argue till your blue in the face that your insurance industry
experience has taught you the right terminology, but I'll argue that
it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. Sprint is itemizing it
as a "surcharge" because they think they can get away with it.

The FCC authorization you mention so frequently means nothing more
than the FCC won't prohibit them from charging for it. That
authorization does _not_ override Sprint's contractural obligations,
and mis-representing that authorization as a mandate is inaccurate.

Sprint has all sorts of costs. Many of them are variable. Fuel goes up
and down in cost; electricity varies in cost. Unions demand higher
wages. When Sprint gives me a 1 or 2 year agreement to sign, they
promise to provide the service to me for that price. It's up to them
to budget and plan for these things.

If Sprint wants to honestly ask me if I am willing to pay them more
money, and that I may cancel without penalty if I choose not to, then
that's fine. But this is no differfent than a rate increase. <quack>

"tom ronson" <[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.
>
> That's why we love you Bob, your passion.
>
> >You have no clue what the costs of WLNP are to the carriers
>
> Len Lauer, president of Sprint PCS "the investment the industry is making
to
> implement [WLNP] is more than $1 billion."
>
> (last line from http://tinyurl.com/jt5j -- where Lauer also says it might
> take up to three days to port a number)
>
> What's SPCS's total market share? 12 percent? About $150 mill to pay their
> share of WLNP, give or take. That's seven months to pick up the full nut,
> assuming Lauer's somewhere in the ballpark.
>
Ah, thanks for posting that Tom ... Finally something to talk about ... I
just found something off of SPCS's site as well. A bit more dated, 10-11-01,
but it's official, as filed with the FCC. http://tinyurl.com/jthn

Click on the "Comments to the FCC" link. In this legal document, SPCS said
that their costs would be $94,526,000 to get it set up for 11-24-2002, but
I'm guessing that it's also based on their lower subscriber number back
then, so the cost will escalate not only by inflation, but by more
customers.

On top of that, they also said it would cost $52.7 Million each year to
administrate for the next two years. SPCS expected back then to pay up to a
total of $218 Million through 2004. Pages 3 & 4 outline the costs.

Again, those are 2001 dollars and customers they had back then that they are
talking about. It looks like this surcharge is going to be with us for
awhile.

Bob

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Obtuse ... no. Real world yes ... I've mentioned on a number of times
that I
> > know a thing or two about what a rate increase is, as I've been an
insurance
> > broker for over 20 years ...
> >
> > WLNP is an extra charge, but it is not a rate increase, like some
> > pseudo-lawyers here would like to think.
>
> I pay all kinds of insurance to *reputable* insurance companies, and none
of
> them dare to raise my rate in the middle of an agreement term by calling
it a
> surcharge. Any insurance company or broker who thinks he can do so is
simply a
> crook. Genuine surcharges are *included* in the premium amount, and can
only be
> applied at the beginning of the *next* agreement term.
>
What do think by emphasising the reputable, it will make your words any more
important here Lawrence? As to your emphasis on annual policies, sure ...
but that's with the insurance laws out there.

They are *not* included in the premium amount. They are separate line
charges ...

Bob

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

I'm saying what the carriers are saying right now. Nothing ... no charges to
move the account. Anyone else who is saying that there would be a charge is
just strictly thinking that they might. There have been no official
statements that the carriers would be charging a surcharge to move the
account.

If there have been, please provide some cites.

Bob

"norelpref" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

Of course not, but you knew that as you answered your own question below.

> 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 .

We aren't talking taxes here.

> 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.

Your example makes no sense. All we are talking about here is $1.10 per
phone to recap their costs, on something that the government has forced them
and the rest of the wireless providers to do.

> 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.

It's already been discussed on what that lawsuit's basis is, on a rate
increase. This is not a rate increase ...

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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".
>
> I don't know whether they purposely did that or not. They might not have
> been told it was a tax. They might of thought of say that because they
> didn't know what it specifically was. I don't know what they were exactly
> told to say to the customer, do you?

Sprint's reps are just that, Sprint's designated representatives in dealing with
customers. Sprint is responsible for ensuring their honesty and accuracy. If
Sprint reps defraud customers, even through ignorance and arrogance rather than
malice, and if Sprint neglects to correct its reps in a timely manner and repair
their damage, then Sprint is fully responsible for that fraud; and in that
sense, Sprint as a corporation is indeed acting maliciously even if individual
reps are not.

> Again, I was under the impression that the FCC did authorize that the
> wireless markets could recap their expenses with this government mandate.

The FCC does not give carriers the right to violate existing contracts (and then
hold customers to cancellation penalties!); nor, I think, does it even have the
authority to do so.

what are the limitations on taking your number with you, can it only be
within your state with every provider I know but what are the boundaries
geography wise?


"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >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.
>

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:10:37 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<[email protected]> said:

>
>"norelpref" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:21:19 GMT, "Bob Smith"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>If there have been, please provide some cites.
>
>Bob
>
Let me restate my question that you chose to ignore and turn around.

And your claim of "very little charge if any to switch numbers" is
based on what? Can you cite something other then what you seem to
remember hearing from somewhere?

tom ronson wrote:

<snip>

>
> 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.
>

If this really *is* about whether that's a reasonable charge or not, as some
have alleged, based largely on Verizon's claim, then it has to be more than
just PR at work here. I mean, the VZW CEO's remarks are the only specific
cost estimate even being cited here. I would think that, if any/all of you
are willing to dump SPCS and commit to them, wouldn't you at least make an
effort to confirm the truth of it? Even if it *is* what you want to hear?

>> 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.
>

Fair enough, but PR, when taken as virtually scientific fact, is going to
get believers into as much trouble as blind obeisance to the charges we've
imposed. If not more, as Verizon is likely to lock you into a whole new
contract before it reveals what it's *actually* going to do.

>> 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.
>

That's a little bit different, because there's some honest-to-God,
legally-defined fraud in MCI's immediate past to complicate that situation.
But the point remains made.

>> 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.
>

It's more than that, though. However, once again, point made.

> 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?

Do you really think it's going to add that much to the demand? For
$4.95/month (what Wireless Week magazine says the charge will be), that's
even more than 1KTV, and it hasn't really impacted us that much.

Besides, based upon what I've seen, I don't think we as far behind demand as
we've unfortunately led you to believe. I think our errors have run more
along the lines of network administration, than of engineering. I dare not
get more specific, and fear that may be too much information as is.
Hopefully, you know what I mean.

>
> All the best
>
> --tr
And to you.

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >
> > Obtuse ... no. Real world yes ... I've mentioned on a number of times
that
> I
> > know a thing or two about what a rate increase is, as I've been an
> insurance
> > broker for over 20 years ...
>
> An insurance broker career buys you very little in credibility
>
> >
> > WLNP is an extra charge, but it is not a rate increase, like some
> > pseudo-lawyers here would like to think.
> >
>
> It is an extra charge if it is legitimately paying for LNP. If, however,
> some of this fee goes strictly to the profit margin, then it is simply an
> across the board rate increase hidden in the LNP surcharge. This IS what
> the lawsuite is about. You can pant all you want about it being listed
> under the surcharge category so therefore it is not a rate increase. That
> is exactly what Sprint wants ... assuming they are doing what they are
> alledged to be doing in this lawsuite.
>
> Tom Veldhouse
>


I don't feel like looking this up, but why do you very consistently mis*****
lawsuit? :-)

> 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
>


I've been following this very long thread and laughed and giggled very very
much. I have legitimate questions......

1) These companies are public. If SPCS does in fact profit highly on the
1.10 a month from all these customers, then it would show up in their
quarterly report (or the next time a report comes out...). Are there
stockholders/financial folk following SPCS stock and can you verify if this
fee does in fact make a dent to SPCS' bottom line?

2) Can someone post links that can quote all wireless COs (preferably SPCS
and Verizon) to see how much money they did in fact spend on WNLP?

As I said, these are public companies....this information isn't classified
and unless they're Enroning the #s, I'd have to believe that the numbers
they put up are true. Perhaps I'm just young, dumb, and naive...... :-)

Cruz