Sprint's official BBB response. What a sick f'ing joke.

"TxsgrnTx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >How am I being ridiculous? If Sprint's definition of service, as you
> >describe it, means EXACTLY that. I am covered in TX as long as I drive
to
> >Oklahoma to use the phone. Is that right?
> >
> I didn't say anything remotely like this.

Yes, you did. You said that Sprint IS providing me a service if I use the
phone period, even if it's outside an area that they advertise as receiving
service. The analogy is exagerated, in hopes that it would make sense to
you. Apparently, I'm not getting the point across.

> Within the Sprint network, there can still be many reasons why at some
point
> you might not be getting your signal from a Sprint tower where you had
> previously gotten a signal. I had many calls from people who were with
> Verizon, Cingular etc. - they were calling their CSR but they got
Sprint -
> because they were getting their signal from Sprint at that moment.
>
> In your home when you tried to make a call did you go into roaming, did
you get
> a signal from another carrier?

I specifically had roaming turned off, so the phone would basically think
for a few seconds, then return to the main screen without ever ringing.

---

› See More: Sprint's official BBB response. What a sick f'ing joke.

"TxsgrnTx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >f Sprint advertises and tells me they have coverage in a certain area,
and
> >they DON'T, that's false advertising. And when I begain having trouble,
> >that is EXACTLY what they continued to say.
> >
> >
>
> Then they had a reason to tell you that.

Yeah, to screw me out of $150. I'm telling you, there is no service in
Little Elm. If you're lucky enough to be on a call when you drive into the
area, you *might* be able to complete the call, if you're lucky. Dialing
out or receiving calls from the area just doesn't happen. When you approach
the area, the signal gets progressively worse until you are at no bars or
the no signal icon.

Justin dude...sorry to hear about all your bad luck. Get over it man
damn!

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

"TxsgrnTx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Because I'm posting negatively about Sprint, or because someone's also
being
> >ridiculous?
>
> If you mean me - I am not being ridiculous - I have told you exactly why
you
> couldn't get out of your contract with no ETF. Exactly, Justin, with no
ifs,
> and, or buts.
>
> Now I am out of here - enough is enough.


And EXACTLY what you're saying is that Sprint can charge you the $150 fee if
you sign up for service because you were told you would get coverage in an
area, when in fact there is no coverage in that area.

The analogy is correct. Using your logic, Sprint can advertise service on
the moon and if you fly back to earth and use the phone, they're providing
you with service on the moon.

"davec8100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Justin dude...sorry to hear about all your bad luck. Get over it man
> damn!
>
> --
> Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
> Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

I would, but uh, I haven't got the final bill yet. Soon as it comes and
reflects the balance I'm told it will, I'll be gone for good. Besides,
there are a couple of people defending false advertising and the $150 fees,
which just isn't right in cases where Sprint doesn't provide service as
advertised.

>Yes, you did. You said that Sprint IS providing me a service if I use the
>phone period, even if it's outside an area that they advertise as receiving
>service.

Again it is your choice to use the phone - whether you are in a Sprint service
area or in roaming - you dial the phone, you talk, you hang up - all your
choice. You have a phone in your hand provided by Sprint, you have a Sprint
plan, you have a Sprint contract. You make the decision to either let that
phone stay turned off the entire month - or pick up that phone and make calls.
Sprint is providing the ability to make a call even if you make calls when you
are not in a Sprint coverage area. You accept that service when you dial a
number and talk, period - no matter where you are. If you had a Verizon
phone, Cingular Phone and Sprint phone all sitting in front of you - you have
service with all of them - you decide to make a call - you pick up Verizon and
make your call - you are in roaming and you get your signal from AT&T, Sprint
or any other carrier - on this call - you are billed by Verizon - you chose to
use Verizon - even though you were not getting your signal from Verizon on that
call.

>I specifically had roaming turned off, so the phone would basically think
>for a few seconds, then return to the main screen without ever ringing.
>

Did it ever occur to you to enable roaming just once to see what happened?

I said I was out of her and I am - my blood pressure is rising - now that we
know exactly why you couldn't cancel without ETF - maybe someone can else can
get it through your hard head. Again you are smarter than this Jason - you
need to think about it.

> How am I being ridiculous? If Sprint's definition of service, as you
> describe it, means EXACTLY that. I am covered in TX as long as I drive to
> Oklahoma to use the phone. Is that right?
>
> If Sprint advertises and tells me they have coverage in a certain area, and
> they DON'T, that's false advertising. And when I begain having trouble,
> that is EXACTLY what they continued to say.

Your not being ridiculous. But You know as well as most that the
coverage maps are an "Estimated" footprint of service. There is no way
to say or show the exact coverage of signal.
You said it worked fine when you first got it, and then that is
gradually got worse.. That sound like your area is growing with
subscribers, and there are too few towers now to handle them all.. and
as to "my" understanding, I was taught that signal range decreases when
more people are accessing the tower.. so that "may" have something to do
with things. Or mabey the phone just sucks.. who knows.. If it is a
growth problem, hopefully Sprint will be adding more towers when they
get the lisences.. They did say they are adding around 1,700 new towers
in the coming year. So I wouldn't really call it false advertising,
becuz there is no accurate way o tell.. And I think those coverage maps
say that too.

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

But you did have the 15 days.. so if you NEVER had service , you shoulda
turned right around and headed back to the store to RETURN the phone the
moment you tried to make your first call.. It doesnt take 15 days to
figure out "Hey I don't have service at my home" It would take me the
minute I got home to figure that out.

"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "TxsgrnTx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >Because I'm posting negatively about Sprint, or because someone's also
> being
> > >ridiculous?
> >
> > If you mean me - I am not being ridiculous - I have told you exactly why
> you
> > couldn't get out of your contract with no ETF. Exactly, Justin, with no
> ifs,
> > and, or buts.
> >
> > Now I am out of here - enough is enough.
>
>
> And EXACTLY what you're saying is that Sprint can charge you the $150 fee if
> you sign up for service because you were told you would get coverage in an
> area, when in fact there is no coverage in that area.
>
> The analogy is correct. Using your logic, Sprint can advertise service on
> the moon and if you fly back to earth and use the phone, they're providing
> you with service on the moon.
>
>

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

"TxsgrnTx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Yes, you did. You said that Sprint IS providing me a service if I use
the
> >phone period, even if it's outside an area that they advertise as
receiving
> >service.
>
> Again it is your choice to use the phone - whether you are in a Sprint
service
> area or in roaming - you dial the phone, you talk, you hang up - all your
> choice. You have a phone in your hand provided by Sprint, you have a
Sprint
> plan, you have a Sprint contract. You make the decision to either let
that
> phone stay turned off the entire month - or pick up that phone and make
calls.
> Sprint is providing the ability to make a call even if you make calls
when you
> are not in a Sprint coverage area. You accept that service when you dial
a
> number and talk, period - no matter where you are. If you had a Verizon
> phone, Cingular Phone and Sprint phone all sitting in front of you - you
have
> service with all of them - you decide to make a call - you pick up
Verizon and
> make your call - you are in roaming and you get your signal from AT&T,
Sprint
> or any other carrier - on this call - you are billed by Verizon - you
chose to
> use Verizon - even though you were not getting your signal from Verizon on
that
> call.

Ok, I suppose we're going to have to agree to disagree. I think there is
plenty reason to let someone out of a contract when you're not providing a
service in an area where you advertise service, especially if it's where
someone lives. I suppose you think that is a good reason to charge someone
$150. Fine. We don't agree.

> >I specifically had roaming turned off, so the phone would basically think
> >for a few seconds, then return to the main screen without ever ringing.
> >
>
> Did it ever occur to you to enable roaming just once to see what happened?

No, I didn't try that. I didn't want to ever risk incurring roaming
charges, so I used the free LG 1010 phone, which I think isn't even capable
of roaming.

> I said I was out of her and I am - my blood pressure is rising - now that
we
> know exactly why you couldn't cancel without ETF - maybe someone can else
can
> get it through your hard head. Again you are smarter than this Jason -
you
> need to think about it.

I understand completely that you and Sprint think this was a reason not to
let someone out early. But I disagree. And, honestly, continually being
told that I was receiving service *in Little Elm* was beginning to get just
a little insulting, seeing as how I was the one trying to use the phone, not
them.

Anyways, go drink a beer (it's a depressant and lowers BP), and have a good
weekend!

"Ryan Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > How am I being ridiculous? If Sprint's definition of service, as you
> > describe it, means EXACTLY that. I am covered in TX as long as I drive
to
> > Oklahoma to use the phone. Is that right?
> >
> > If Sprint advertises and tells me they have coverage in a certain area,
and
> > they DON'T, that's false advertising. And when I begain having trouble,
> > that is EXACTLY what they continued to say.
>
> Your not being ridiculous. But You know as well as most that the
> coverage maps are an "Estimated" footprint of service. There is no way
> to say or show the exact coverage of signal.
> You said it worked fine when you first got it, and then that is
> gradually got worse.. That sound like your area is growing with
> subscribers, and there are too few towers now to handle them all.. and
> as to "my" understanding, I was taught that signal range decreases when
> more people are accessing the tower.. so that "may" have something to do
> with things. Or mabey the phone just sucks.. who knows.. If it is a
> growth problem, hopefully Sprint will be adding more towers when they
> get the lisences.. They did say they are adding around 1,700 new towers
> in the coming year. So I wouldn't really call it false advertising,
> becuz there is no accurate way o tell.. And I think those coverage maps
> say that too.

I believe that is correct with CDMA, from what I've learned here and from
people more knowledgeable than I am. And, had Sprint ever told me they were
adding towers within the next few months to this area, I would have waited.
Anyways, I'm getting tired. Unlike Phil, I don't enjoy arguing just for the
sake of arguing. I just initially wanted to rant at a less than honest
reply I received from Sprint. Have a good weekend.

"Ryan Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But you did have the 15 days.. so if you NEVER had service , you shoulda
> turned right around and headed back to the store to RETURN the phone the
> moment you tried to make your first call.. It doesnt take 15 days to
> figure out "Hey I don't have service at my home" It would take me the
> minute I got home to figure that out.

I did have the fifteen days, last December. The phone service didn't start
degrading until about June. A little late for the 15 day period.

> Sounds like sprint did everything they could to
> accommodate you. Do you
> really think it's worth it to them to adjust their towers to > cover just
your
> house OR to build a new site? Get real.

Did you miss his ordeal the past month?
Did you miss all the SprintPCS lies?
= Kept reassuring he had coverage
= Kept saying it was just a matter of a different phone
= Promised credits on next Bill and to waive ETF, and then charged ETF fee
anyway. Executive Services can (if they want) apply credits instantly. They did
that for me a while back, although it takes overnight to show on the web.

> Thank you. I'm glad someone actually understands.


Justin, many of us understand. SprintPCS employees will continue to make it out
to somehow be your fault.

> Post it ONCE , and then shut up.


SprintPCS employees post ad nauseum about new PRLs, or how great the 8100 is,
but Justin can't tell us the "REST OF THE STORY"???

TxsgrnTx <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Your phones did work - you used the service period.
>>
>>So what? Does that give Sprint the right to tell me I will have service in
>>the middle of the Pacific, only I can only use the phone if I drive to a
>>beach in California?
>
> You are being ridiculous now - you are smarter than that.

I'm going through the same thing with Verizon, but I'm giving them
time to resolve my coverage problem, since they've resolved coverage
problems for me in the past.

I'm right on the edge of VZW coverage here in the Mojave Desert.
Further south and west, in Victorville, Adelanto, Hesperia and the
more-populated areas of Apple Valley, coverage is great, but I'm
up right against a couple of the big hills/small mountains (depending
on how you look at them

And because of the terrain, I can understand why it might be tougher
to properly cover _this_ part of Apple Valley.

On the other hand, Sprint works well here.

Since I work from home and thus am here much of the time, yes, it does
make a difference to me if I can't use the phone, and yes, I am willing
to terminate both lines of service if the problem is not ultimately
resolved, and no, I will not pay the ETF on either line.

Little coverage problems are one thing - all carriers have problem
areas. I do firmly believe, however, that not being able to use the phone
in the areas where I am most often is a problem worthy of getting out of
the contract.

I hope it doesn't come to that with VZW, since the service has been good
up until now.

But quite frankly, the problem with Justin wasn't that he never had
service at home - maybe you are forgetting that it worked well for six
months and then suddenly didn't.

But maybe that's ok with you?

--
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]