lawsuit against Sprint

"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.

To his defense (as if he needs/wants it) he did say Most likely.......

---

› See More: lawsuit against Sprint

O/Siris <robjvargas@sprÓntpcs.com> 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.

You clearly weren't on the phone when I talked to the various
representatives at Sprint. "We" may mean "you," however, it is not
representative of "all" the people at Sprint. I was repeatedly told it
was a tax, and that Sprint had every "right" to charge it regardless of
contract status.

They blew it on this one, in my opinion. As someone else pointed out,
they should have left those of us on contract alone, and enforced the
fees on out of contract and new customers.

They ("you") deserve to be sued. I had the papers in-hand to sue them
myself when they put me through the circus. I finally got what I was
after to begin with...a credit for the fees every remaining month on my
contract.

Joel

Bob Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

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

People often do things on principle. That was my view in this. The fact
that Sprint imposed a new charge on me, yet didn't believe they sould
let me "escape" the contract was absurd.

It could have been $.10 a month out of my $120 monthly bill, and I still
would have complained.

Joel

Thomas T. Veldhouse <[email protected]> wrote:

> Perhaps ... but then why is the 911 SURCHARGE listed under Taxes? Clearly
> there is a billing mistake or .... Are you sure you aren't changing the
> order so as not to be wrong?

Sprint doesn't make billing mistakes...ever. =)

Joel

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.

Though I cannot speak for you, I asked what surcharges are included
before I signed the contract, and again when I was in the "trial"
period. (Which was a multi-phone call ordeal.)

That said, material information on the cost of the plan was gathered at
the onset of the contract. The material information was changed in the
course of the contract period. Key words: material change. Look at the
TOCs and you'll see the direct reference.

Joel

Bob Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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

Surcharge / Rate Increase

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

The bottom line is the out of pocket costs increase...and they increase
because Sprint has added a new charge. Not because they were told to,
but because they made a business reason to do so.

Joel

Bob Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> Then complain to the FCC or whatever government agency gave the
> authorization to charge the fee.
>
> Bob

The FCC doesn't tell cellular phone companies how much they can charge
for service. In fact, they're highly unregulated (when compared to their
wireline counterparts).

Saying that the FCC (or other government agency) gave them permission to
charge the fee is like saying that the FCC (or other government agency)
said they could stop having nights start at 7:00 PM.

It doesn't wash. It's a line they use to obfuscate the issue.
Apparently, it's a line some people buy into.

Joel

Cruz Gracia <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

I don't think anyone is going to claim SPCS is making a profit on this
deal. It is meant to defray costs. At issue is the underhanded, dishonest
way the fee increase is being handled.

> 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...... :-)

Verizon Wireless is NOT public. The joint venture is still privately owned,
even though the corporate parents are public.

Besides, WLNP may or may not be broken out in the financial statements.
Depends on whether the amount being spent on WLNP is deemed "material"
(relevant) or not.


--
JustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services
22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
Steve Sobol, Proprietor
888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * [email protected]

Bob Smith wrote:
> 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 [/B]

Your logic then would be...

$100 for 2000 Anytime Minutes, Unlimited Nights & Weekends, PCS2PCS
$4 WLP
$1 For my uncle fee
$2 Prez needs new Caddie fee
$1 cuz Prez's wife needs new BMW fee
$.50 Watercooler fee
$.25 Doughnut fee

"Hey, we didn't our rates! Those are fees, dude. Fees! Our Service
Plans are still $100 a month!!" --- BS

Stop charging fees and what not.

If the cost of business increases, increase the cost of your plan.
Period.

This is EXACTLY the reason why Sprint DID put it under the
regulatory/tax section.

If they increased the plan, imediately everyone will take notice, and
quite a few people will exercise their option to cancel service without
penalty.

But if they slip it under the Regulatory/Fee section, some people won't
notice, and when they do, it will be after the 30 day cancellation
window after Sprint alters the "Agreement".

The government didn't impose these fees on the customers.

Yes, they imposed new regs that may require additional costs to the
cell phone companies. That's the cost of doing business.

If you can't handle the cost, raise our rates. Don't sneak it in as a
BS regulatory fee hoping the majority of the people don't catch it.

I didn't read the entire article, but if I was the judge, I would order
Sprint to send out a seperate notice informing them of the rate
increase in fees being put on by Sprint.

My bill had them under "Taxes", which lead me to believe it was the
Government imposing the taxes. Of course, the wording "Taxes" was
"Regulatory Charges and Taxes" the previous month, or something to that
effect.

http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/sho...5&pagenumber=3

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

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

Good question. I can't find anything concrete or any cites, but I suspect
that one can only change their wireless provider and keep their number if
they stay in the same area code, save for the larger MTA's which have
multiple area codes, like LA, NYC, Chicago and others.

Bob

"Joel Horner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1fzlhz8.1ea8ado1oe0nw6N%[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.
>
> Though I cannot speak for you, I asked what surcharges are included
> before I signed the contract, and again when I was in the "trial"
> period. (Which was a multi-phone call ordeal.)
>
Which contract are you talking about Joel? The one from 3 to 4 years ago
(you've been with SPCS at least that long haven't you?) or the one you are
currently on? When you did ask, was it before this June? I'm only asking as
this new surcharge started in June ...

> That said, material information on the cost of the plan was gathered at
> the onset of the contract. The material information was changed in the
> course of the contract period. Key words: material change. Look at the
> TOCs and you'll see the direct reference.
>
> Joel

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

> 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...).

It'll be the next quarterly report (for SPCS at least)

>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?

Don't need to be either of those, go to Yahoo and set up a "portfolio"

> 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?

There was one in one of the messages you read in this thread (if you indeed
read them all, as you said) -- SPCS pres Lauer said $1 billion cost to the
industry.

> 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.

Don't dismiss the "Enroning the #s" angle --- see the numerous AOL news
stories which outline the various ways numbers can be jiggered around.

>Perhaps I'm just young, dumb, and naive...... :-)

Perhaps.

"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I don't think anyone is going to claim SPCS is making a profit on this
> deal.

And SPCS certainly had better not --- or they'll be toast.

>It is meant to defray costs.

Or so they say.

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

No, but Sprint will now collect more than $100 million between now and the
start of the plan they are collecting for. So, unless they can justify this
HIGH cost in only 5 months, there is something seriously wrong with this
high surcharge. Since this is the only charge on the bill that can not be
directly determined by rate plan, feature, government mandate or tax ...
this is the only charge that becomes directly questionable. This charge
simply sticks out like a sore thumb as a possible case of deception.

> >
> > 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.

Are you speaking for Sprint? Or are you just assuming that you know what
they would do?

>
> > 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?

YES! At least, to an oversight group.

>
> 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.

I wouldn't be fool enough to own the stock right now. As a customer, I vote
with my dollars. If Sprint is no longer the value that I feel I should be
getting, I will switch providers. If I find (and it is all a matter of
perception) that Sprint is outright ripping me off (the jury is still out on
that), I will go further legally to push my concerns. However, I will not
write them a letter so that their PR team and lawyers can sit and think
about the answer at their leisure. I will pin somebody down on the phone,
take my business elsewhere, or get an attorney.

>
> Or, contact the FCC and ask them what they think should be fair ...

Their OPINION is irrelavent ... they don't oversee the rates. That comes
down to civil law.

Tom Veldhouse

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

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

Bad habit when typing quickly... why, are you the group *****checker?

Tom Veldhouse