Customer Service at SprintPCS

In article <[email protected]>,
John Goerzen <[email protected]> wrote:

> I have placed approximately 20 calls within the past 1.5 weeks so may
> be able to provide you some more reliable data.

Sprint can not be making a profit when a customer calls at that
frequency.

---

› See More: Customer Service at SprintPCS

John Goerzen <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 888-211-4727 (which will likely be the same people you get with
> *2), I have usually be on hold 5 minutes or less, occasionally up to
> 10 minutes.

888-211-4PCS is the landline number SPCS advertises to get to CS and as
far as I can tell, it's the same people.

> Having said all that, today I experienced hold times in excess of 30
> minutes at all of these places.

Ouch. Anyone else seeing that today?

--
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]

Had to call 3 tmes last week at 6pm eastern (bad time to call, I would
guess)--about five minues each time, but reason for 2nd call was poor
service from first c/s guy-second call, lady very helpful fast service,
same for 3rd call--in the distant past have had the 20 min up holds for
human--appears better now.

Steven J Sobol <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> John Goerzen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > At 888-211-4727 (which will likely be the same people you get with
> > *2), I have usually be on hold 5 minutes or less, occasionally up to
> > 10 minutes.
>
> 888-211-4PCS is the landline number SPCS advertises to get to CS and as
> far as I can tell, it's the same people.
>
> > Having said all that, today I experienced hold times in excess of 30
> > minutes at all of these places.
>
> Ouch. Anyone else seeing that today?
>
> --
> 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]

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

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What substantive issues? I replied to your 360 degree turn from one post,
to
> another ...

Now I do need chemicals --- a 360 degree turn puts you right back on course,
right?

>IOW, you spent 90+ minutes seaching through Google, and couldn't
> find any post to quote ... Is that about the gist of it?

If this were a Wed I'd have 90+ minutes to do anything --- but since this is
my day from hell I just don't have the time to allocate to this mostly
trivial pursuit.

> buh buh ...

Huh? Is that your hooka bubbling?

<grin>
>
>

"tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What substantive issues? I replied to your 360 degree turn from one
post,
> to
> > another ...
>
> Now I do need chemicals --- a 360 degree turn puts you right back on
course,
> right?

Well, in a prior post, you said I was always praising SPCS, then in the post
I replied to, you start off showing my previously reported complaint (that's
180 deg.), and THEN, in the same post, you say I'm on my knees with SPCS ...
(Another 180 deg turn). If my addition is correct, that's 360 deg.
>
> >IOW, you spent 90+ minutes seaching through Google, and couldn't
> > find any post to quote ... Is that about the gist of it?
>
> If this were a Wed I'd have 90+ minutes to do anything --- but since this
is
> my day from hell I just don't have the time to allocate to this mostly
> trivial pursuit.

Ah ... Trivia Pursuit, a most excellent game, especially in NTN's format
(SIX) at my local watering hole on Thursday nights ... Same thing goes for
Showdown on Tuesday nights ... www.ntnnetwork.com ... .
>
> > buh buh ...
>
> Huh? Is that your hooka bubbling?
>
> <grin>

I was always too cheap to get a hooka ... Had a bong. I don't even want to
say how many times folks would tip that over and then yell those infamous
words ... "OH **** ... Bong water ..."

Bob::remembering those days from far, far, far ago::

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

> I think about a 3-5 minute hold time with any large corporation is very
> good... as long as you get a good result when you call.

Ya, I'd probably think that the service "experience" was okay at 3 minutes,
if there was a good result. As a note, I don't think Vzw ever had me sit on
their service lines for over a minute --- and of the few calls placed to
them only one call was handled by an idiot. I actually asked him if he used
to work for Sprint the guy was so clueless.

>> Expecting to have a call answered in under a minute during peak hours
(say lunchtime
> on a Monday) is just expecting too much --

Who said a thing about calling at peak times --- ****, I don't go to the
bank or a resteraunt at noon, why would I call folks for serivce then? I'm a
pretty flexable customer --- and if calling at 3 am would provide me
something other than a wait for a mouthbreather, well then 3 am it is.
Pretty simple, don't you think?

And you do recall how O/Siris told us that part of the game is to get the
customer off the line, or he looses a $50 a week or month, or whatever,
bonus ---- that's not a service first approach to things, is it?

>it doesn't matter how busy you think you are or how important you think you
are... lol,

lol urself -- I'll bet you aint got the nut to say that to my face, punk.

>I bet I don't even get a call answered or transferred that quickly when I
call
> the hospital or doctor's office.

You're doing business with the wrong doctor or hospital -- and with that
smart-ass of yours I'd get that problem solved PFQ.

> This is actually more common on Sanyo phones I have found

Well, Sprint said it was a capacity issue --- so I'll take them at their
word.

Seriously --- get with better / faster doctors --- at least if you go around
talking trash in the real world that is.

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

> Well, in a prior post, you said I was always praising SPCS, then in the
post
> I replied to, you start off showing my previously reported complaint
(that's
> 180 deg.), and THEN, in the same post, you say I'm on my knees with SPCS
....
> (Another 180 deg turn). If my addition is correct, that's 360 deg.

Ya, but I told you I needed chemicals to get thru this one --- let me look
closer at my contradictoy musings when I'm only doing 4 things at once,
rather than the 12 I've got going today.

I can say my point was that you are far more generous with your position
than I would ever be. I'll leave it at that, for this session.

> Ah ... Trivia Pursuit, a most excellent game, especially in NTN's format

Man I live it, so I don't play it that often.

>"OH **** ... Bong water ..."

lmao --- you're a good **** Bob --- there's no doubt about that.

--tr

"tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ya, I'd probably think that the service "experience" was okay at 3
minutes,
> if there was a good result. As a note, I don't think Vzw ever had me sit
on
> their service lines for over a minute --- and of the few calls placed to
> them only one call was handled by an idiot. I actually asked him if he
used
> to work for Sprint the guy was so clueless.
>

I wonder if SPCS will become the poster-child for poor customer service?

"Yea I called, but they pulled a Sprint on me..."
"The SOB went Sprintal on me..."

Seriously, I have seen a little improvement at SPCS over the last year. I
still dread the infamous "trouble ticket" though.


--
Mike

tom ronson <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Eric" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I think about a 3-5 minute hold time with any large corporation is very
>> good... as long as you get a good result when you call.
>
> Ya, I'd probably think that the service "experience" was okay at 3 minutes,
> if there was a good result. As a note, I don't think Vzw ever had me sit on
> their service lines for over a minute --- and of the few calls placed to
> them only one call was handled by an idiot. I actually asked him if he used
> to work for Sprint the guy was so clueless.


Heh. In the Ohio market -- I just recently moved from Cleveland -- you
get the VZW call center in Columbus, Ohio if you dial *611. My experiences
were pretty much the same. Between 60 and 90 seconds.

I think that that is above average, however. I don't think 3-5 minutes is
outrageous when you consider that a carrier will not be able to afford to
staff its call centers such that you'll always get in in 5-10 seconds like
some people expect.

> And you do recall how O/Siris told us that part of the game is to get the
> customer off the line, or he looses a $50 a week or month, or whatever,
> bonus ---- that's not a service first approach to things, is it?

No, it's not. Part of the solution to _that_ is to make your CSRs more than
trained monkeys reading from a script, so that they can actually _solve_
problems. This is something that most companies have a very hard time doing.

I've worked tech support. You have to be very careful about balancing between
not spending enough time with the customer, and spending too much time. It was
difficult for me to hit that sweet spot - I enjoyed working with my customers
and ended up spending too much time with them and not getting all of my
other tasks done (although the customers loved the attention, or so my
boss told me

--
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]

<<I actually asked him if he used to work for Sprint the guy was so
clueless. >>

I bet you are just as charming on the phone as you are here on usenet.

<<I'll bet you aint got the nut to say that to my face, punk.>>

I bet I wouldn't even waste my time on you in person, punk. Honestly,
who talks like that online anymore, anyways?

<<and with that smart-ass of yours I'd get that problem solved PFQ. >>

Yeah, I'll be sure to take the adice of someone calling me a "punk".
The only smart ass here is you.

<<Seriously --- get with better / faster doctors --- at least if you go
around
talking trash in the real world that is. >>

Your life must be pretty bland if all you have to do is sit around,
complain endlessly about a cell phone company, thinks too highly of
himself to wait onhold for more than one minute, and get all offended at
a sarcastic remark. Get over yourself... you are not that important,
and resorting to challenging people online means you aren't that tough,
either. I feel sorry for losers like you, and too bad i won't be
reading any more of your childish, elementary school-level posts.

>The low plan prepay folks,
>without a credit check, who probably shouldn't of had cellular service first
>place.

Bob,

You make alot of high-horse assumptions.

I know people who have been the victim of identity theft, or have just had the misfortune of
having a similar name or something else that has cause them to have "bad credit". It is more
common than you think.

Credit reports are compiled by private for-profit companies with very little safeguards for
accuracy, and the correction process can be lengthy, if it can be repaired at all.

These people are no more or less deserving that you are to have a cellphone.

What about people who have been laid off through no fault of their own? How about people who
lost much of their money through corporate scanadals, embezzlement, etc. You don't know
people's stories. Yet you claim they "probably shouldn't have cellular phones". You just
generalize based on a few critera. You're an elistist wannabe-accepted as better than the less
fortunate media-fed sheep. Your pompous and bigoted generalizations and knee-jerk judgements
of people say much about you. These declarations probably say more about your own insecurities
than your merits as a person "worthy" of cellular service.

We have the highest unemployment in a decade. That hardworking taxpayer that has been supporting
the nanny state (and your mother's Social Security Checks) for 4/5ths of his life, who may have
been laid off due to cooked books by "cellphone worthy" corporate executives should be searching
for payphones in his job hunt or to keep in touch with family in case of emergencies or
necessity? They may actually need cellphones more than the guy who sits at his desk all day
with a landline. They shouldn't be able to contact their children and families to coordinate
with each other? Wife pregnant .... oh well, better not go on that job interview. A moderate
amount of payphone usage would actually cost more than a lower priced cellphone plan these days
... assuming he could even find such a phone in a well-lit and safe place that actually worked
and wasn't covered with smegma.

The people who invested money in the management of Sprint PCS, only to see their money cut my
80% probably don't "deserve" cellphones either.

Everyone, even those down on their luck, should have reasonable access to modern cellular
technology. As payphones vanish across the nation, and the price of pay calls skyrocket, cells
are no longer the luxury they once were. They are a tool which will benefit people from all
walks of life.

Sure there are some scumbags here and there who just try to scam everyone they come in contact
with, but the laid off guy, or the person with "a bad rating from a private virtually
unregulated error-prone consumer information-gathering and selling company" does not
automatically fall under this fiefdom type attitude from your "**** doesn't stink" exhaulted
high horse.

You, Bob, are in no position to judge anyone. And if people need to call *4 often, it sounds
like they are trying their best to be responsbile and not go over their allotted minutes.
Scammers would just run up the bill and not care how much of a bag they left Sprint holding.
And now, if they are paying for *4, that's just more opportunist revenue-enhancement for Sprint.
Kicking people when they are down has become a cottage industry. The stock in predatory check
cashing companies has continued to climb during this economy.

There for bet the grace of god, Bob.

If I were you, I would keep the bigoted, classist, undeserved and assumption based judgements of
other to yourself.

You come off like a complete asshole in my honest opinion. But, at least I base that judgement
from reading your positions on issues. Not from your FICO score.

"An Metet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >The low plan prepay folks,
> >without a credit check, who probably shouldn't of had cellular service
first
> >place.
>
> Bob,
>
> You make alot of high-horse assumptions.
>
> I know people who have been the victim of identity theft, or have just had
the misfortune of
> having a similar name or something else that has cause them to have "bad
credit". It is more
> common than you think.

I don't doubt it. I just said that they probably should not have actively
went after that market. By the way, if you are going to do a post off a
quote, then do the full quote and not out of context. I said "Well, one can
put into this perspective, though. The only folks who were charged for
calling #4, were calling it consistantly, using up the system resources much
more than the regular customers. The low plan prepay folks, without a credit
check, who probably shouldn't of had cellular service first place." This
full quote comes from my post dated 8-17 @ 3:04 PM.

And that quote had to do with the post talking about charging those folks
who were ones calling CS multiple times a day. That post had no comment
about SPCS's active marketing for low credit accounts.

What's more, this thread is based on hindsight, on how SPCS approached a
market that none of the other providers want to serve. They lost a lot of
money on this class of folks and eventually either cut those folks out or
put them on a regular plan, as they had qualified to be on a regular plan.
>
> Credit reports are compiled by private for-profit companies with very
little safeguards for
> accuracy, and the correction process can be lengthy, if it can be repaired
at all.
>
> These people are no more or less deserving that you are to have a
cellphone.

I never said they weren't. There are a lot of services available on pre-pay
with other carriers.
>
> What about people who have been laid off through no fault of their own?
How about people who
> lost much of their money through corporate scanadals, embezzlement, etc.
You don't know
> people's stories. Yet you claim they "probably shouldn't have cellular
phones".

And there are a lot of folks who had bad credit, as they just never paid
their bills either. Again, I said that the company should not have actively
pursued those folks as customers. No other carrier was, and because SPCS
did, they lost money on those accounts.

> You just
> generalize based on a few critera. You're an elistist wannabe-accepted as
better than the less
> fortunate media-fed sheep. Your pompous and bigoted generalizations and
knee-jerk judgements
> of people say much about you. These declarations probably say more about
your own insecurities
> than your merits as a person "worthy" of cellular service.

And you make assumptions you know nothing about yours truly.
>
> We have the highest unemployment in a decade. That hardworking taxpayer
that has been supporting
> the nanny state (and your mother's Social Security Checks) for 4/5ths of
his life, who may have
> been laid off due to cooked books by "cellphone worthy" corporate
executives should be searching
> for payphones in his job hunt or to keep in touch with family in case of
emergencies or
> necessity?

Absolutely not. Again, there were pre-pay plans through other providers at
the time. Not the

> They may actually need cellphones more than the guy who sits at his desk
all day
> with a landline. They shouldn't be able to contact their children and
families to coordinate
> with each other? Wife pregnant .... oh well, better not go on that job
interview. A moderate
> amount of payphone usage would actually cost more than a lower priced
cellphone plan these days
> .. assuming he could even find such a phone in a well-lit and safe place
that actually worked
> and wasn't covered with smegma.
>
> The people who invested money in the management of Sprint PCS, only to see
their money cut my
> 80% probably don't "deserve" cellphones either.

So, who's making political and social comments now? You are!.

>
> Everyone, even those down on their luck, should have reasonable access to
modern cellular
> technology. As payphones vanish across the nation, and the price of pay
calls skyrocket, cells
> are no longer the luxury they once were. They are a tool which will
benefit people from all
> walks of life.

Yes, but it's also a business, not a social service. You make it sound like
it should be a social service.
>
> Sure there are some scumbags here and there who just try to scam everyone
they come in contact
> with, but the laid off guy, or the person with "a bad rating from a
private virtually
> unregulated error-prone consumer information-gathering and selling
company" does not
> automatically fall under this fiefdom type attitude from your "****
doesn't stink" exhaulted
> high horse.

So, you think that SPCS should act like a social service and offer service
to everyone? SPCS is a business, not a government agency.
>
> You, Bob, are in no position to judge anyone.

Oh, when was I judging anyone? I wasn't from the post where you applied the
misquote.

> And if people need to call *4 often, it sounds
> like they are trying their best to be responsbile and not go over their
allotted minutes.

Or that they had the wrong plan to begin.

> Scammers would just run up the bill and not care how much of a bag they
left Sprint holding.
> And now, if they are paying for *4, that's just more opportunist
revenue-enhancement for Sprint.
> Kicking people when they are down has become a cottage industry. The
stock in predatory check
> cashing companies has continued to climb during this economy.

Wait a minute, there was no extra charge for #4 was there, previous to
adding this new class of customers? IIRC, there was no charge to use #4.
That use to be a free service, until those low credit, low minute new
accounts started accessing it multiple times a day, accessing the system
resources. Charging minutes for accessing #4, happened after SPCS noticed a
high system resource use, and could determine that the bulk of those calls
came from the no credit, low minute plans. When that was noticed, they
charged everyone minutes to access their accounts. Really wasn't a big deal,
as it took a minute or two access the data.

The specific extra charge of $3 was to speak to CS, which those folks were
doing on a much higher scale that they rest of the customers.
>
> There for bet the grace of god, Bob.
>
> If I were you, I would keep the bigoted, classist, undeserved and
assumption based judgements of
> other to yourself.

Gee, how so nice of you to try to judge me. As if I give two shakes about
what you say ...

> You come off like a complete asshole in my honest opinion. But, at least
I base that judgement
> from reading your positions on issues. Not from your FICO score.

Honest? If you were honest, you would have provided a full quote, instead of
a partial one, out of context and then follow up with this bull****
manifesto above about how uncaring I am about low or no credit accounts.

HAND ...N,

Bob

Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> writes:

> Just out of curiosity, what prompted you to call 20 times?

Some background on this was posted here, but basically:

1. I placed an order for a Sanyo 6400 on 8/8.

2. I called on 8/11 and 8/12 and got ambiguous status reports

3. On 8/13, they said that the order was canceled because the 6400 was
sold out, and placed an order for the 4900 instead.

4. On 8/15, they said that the order for the 4900 was never placed and
thus placed a second one.

5. On 8/16, they confirmed the second order was indeed placed, in
process, and would go out Monday.

6. On 8/18, some departments said the order was processing; others
gave me the same ambiguious response I got on #2, and the CSR said
there was no record of the order at all. Apparently 8/15 was the
last day that the 4900s were sold, and they again ran out of stock.

7. I had to figure out how to get the plan reverted (this was a 2nd
line for an existing account) and see what other options they'd
give me.

Keep in mind that through all of this, they would claim to transfer me
to different departments but send me to a "this number is not in
service" recording instead, or tell me to call other departments. I'd
say for any given query, I'd make an average of 2-3 calls just to find
the person to give an answer. Their systems for order taking and
tracking appear to be highly haphazard and disjoint; no one department
can provide a full picture, and they sometimes have differing
information.

-- John

In article <[email protected]>,
John Goerzen <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lawrence Glasser <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, what prompted you to call 20 times?
>
> Some background on this was posted here, but basically:
>
> 1. I placed an order for a Sanyo 6400 on 8/8.
>
> 2. I called on 8/11 and 8/12 and got ambiguous status reports
>
> 3. On 8/13, they said that the order was canceled because the 6400 was
> sold out, and placed an order for the 4900 instead.
>
> 4. On 8/15, they said that the order for the 4900 was never placed and
> thus placed a second one.
>
> 5. On 8/16, they confirmed the second order was indeed placed, in
> process, and would go out Monday.
>
> 6. On 8/18, some departments said the order was processing; others
> gave me the same ambiguious response I got on #2, and the CSR said
> there was no record of the order at all. Apparently 8/15 was the
> last day that the 4900s were sold, and they again ran out of stock.
>
> 7. I had to figure out how to get the plan reverted (this was a 2nd
> line for an existing account) and see what other options they'd
> give me.
>
> Keep in mind that through all of this, they would claim to transfer me
> to different departments but send me to a "this number is not in
> service" recording instead, or tell me to call other departments. I'd
> say for any given query, I'd make an average of 2-3 calls just to find
> the person to give an answer. Their systems for order taking and
> tracking appear to be highly haphazard and disjoint; no one department
> can provide a full picture, and they sometimes have differing
> information.


This is definitely a job for executive services to fix.

Phillipe wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> they don't
>> want to wait a minute or two on hold with *2.
>
> I have never seen it below 10 minutes in the last 3 months. Nice try.

Nice try back. The entire 8 hours I was on shift last night, wait time for
Consumer Care never exceeded 3 minutes, Business Services got as high as 8
minutes, and Vision Tech Support never got above 12 minutes. We saw not
only average hold, but longest hold, too.

We *have* been that bad in the past, and still get that way at times. I'm
curious, though, how often in that "last 3 months" you've actually seen the
hold times.
--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them