Dear Sprint PCS,

- Nehmo –
> > So you're saying that a Sprint bill is dishonest enough to require
> > inspection of five minutes by someone as well-versed as yourself.
But
> > not so dishonest as to require someone, a regular subscriber, to
pore
> > over it.

- O/Siris -
> Why the heck does it HAVE to be dishonest? Look, I just got back from
> having breakfast with my son at a pancake house. They messed up his
> order and gave him something he didn't want. Unless WE said
something,
> they weren't going to catch it. And if my son had eaten it, I'd be
> liable for ordering something else. That's not dishonest of them.

> You "ate" (so to speak) Roadside Assistance for *6 months*.

- Nehmo –
I didn't eat it at all. And it wasn't put in front of me on a plate
either. It wasn't even something I would normally expect form a
restaurant.

Let's say you ate regularly in a restaurant for six months and paid your
checks just by trustingly handing them your credit card. Something
happens that causes to go over your old bills. You discover the
restaurant has been regularly charging you a fee to give your car a jump
if it doesn’t start. But you never asked them for that, and you never
used it. On demand, you would expect a full refund – not ten bucks.

Your analogy fails because food in a restaurant is tangibility obvious,
and consumption of it either happens or doesn't. Roadside is a form of
insurance. If you don't use it, you don’t get anything for your money.
To use it, of course, you at least need to know you have it. And for it
to be legitimate, a customer has to have knowingly subscribed to it.

Out of curiosity as to how one would use Roadside, I just went to
Sprint's Roadside page
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ue...roadsideRescue
The page doesn't tell you how to use it; it says I should have gotten a
"mailer" explaining that if I had subscribed. I never received a mailer
nor any email notifying me of Roadside.

How many others has this happened to?


--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

---

› See More: Dear Sprint PCS,

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

>
> - Nehmo –
> I didn't eat it at all. And it wasn't put in front of me on a plate
> either. It wasn't even something I would normally expect form a
> restaurant.

It was on the bill- plain as day from the sounds of it.

>
> Let's say you ate regularly in a restaurant for six months and paid your
> checks just by trustingly handing them your credit card.

Your first mistake. Anybody with the disposable income to take such a
relaxed view of personal finance shouldn't have their panties in such a
bunch over such a small charge.

>Something
> happens that causes to go over your old bills. You discover the
> restaurant has been regularly charging you a fee to give your car a jump
> if it doesn’t start. But you never asked them for that, and you never
> used it.

Which was plainly obvious on the bill- it is not the company's fault that
you treat your finances so lightly.

> On demand, you would expect a full refund – not ten bucks.

Expectations and reality can be two different things.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > On demand, you would expect a full refund – not ten bucks.
>
> Expectations and reality can be two different things.
>

And, actually, no. If I paid for it ten times, the most I would expect
is refund for the last time I paid it.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

"O/Siris" <rØbjvargas@comcâst.nêt> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > On demand, you would expect a full refund – not ten bucks.
>
> Expectations and reality can be two different things.
>

And, actually, no. If I paid for it ten times, the most I would expect
is refund for the last time I paid it.


That would have been my expectation as well. As I said, they CAN be two
different things.

In article <[email protected]>, nehmo54
@hotmail.com says...
> I didn't eat it at all. And it wasn't put in front of me on a plate
> either. It wasn't even something I would normally expect form a
> restaurant.
>

Sure it is. I expect restaurants to get the order right. Failing that,
I expect them to correct it. But I *don't* expect to partake of it and
*then* to have them correct it.

The "plate" in this case was your monthly bill. The one you opted not
to view.

As a rep, I've had customers in your situation. I provided two months'
restitution. $10. No more. Your terms and conditions report that the
very act of paying the bill constitutes acceptance of all charges on it
unless you call before the next bill cycle to make corrective attempts.
Actually, I think it says you have 30 days from receipt, but that's
effectively the same thing.

It was on your bill, your bill was sent to you every month, and you paid
it. After that became a repeated action on your part, you lost any
cause for doubt from Sprint PCS.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+

- Nehmo -
> > ¿Habla español?

- Scott Stephenson -
> You need to examine your own sentence structure and grammar before
throwing
> barbs like that, troll child.

- Nehmo -
You are welcome to point out any errors you find. But in the
construction at issue, Steve's meaning was easy to misinterpret. When I
responded accordingly, he resorted to name-calling and (usenet)
shouting. I'm not thin-skinned, but those actions gave me license.

- Nehmo -
> > So you're saying that a Sprint bill is dishonest enough to require
> > inspection of five minutes by someone as well-versed as yourself.
But
> > not so dishonest as to require someone, a regular subscriber, to
pore
> > over it.

- Scott Stephenson -
> It called consumer responsibility. If you are stupid enough to simply
pay
> the bill because that is what is expected, you get what you deserve.

- Nehmo -
You're the type person who would say a person deserved to be burglarized
because he or she left a window open.

--
*********************
* Nehmo Sergheyev *
*********************

Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:

> You are welcome to point out any errors you find. But in the
> construction at issue, Steve's meaning was easy to misinterpret. When I
> responded accordingly, he resorted to name-calling and (usenet)
> shouting. I'm not thin-skinned, but those actions gave me license.

I'm not the only one calling you a troll. You still haven't argued my point
that it is your own responsibility to read your bills. Remember my statement
about working ISP tech support and having people sit on their hands for a week
or two before calling? I told every one of those people, "Next time, don't
wait. If you have a problem and it is repeatable, if it happens more than once
or twice, you give me a call ASAP and I will take care of you." It wasn't in my
best interests as a tech support rep to have people sitting there with
problems. Angry customers are never a good thing to have around. You want to
fix the problems when they come up -- that's just common sense. But you can't
read minds, and it isn't always possible to know there is a problem.

Likewise, if something happened that shouldn't, if you don't tell your cellular
carrier, they might not know.

Guess what? I was recently set up on a two-month free trial of PCS Vision and
got billed $15 the first month (which is the regular monthly rate for unlimited
Vision). Guess what else? At that point, I didn't fuss and fume here about how
Sprint was trying to screw me. I assume it was an accident. It's possible it
wasn't, but it doesn't matter because I read my bills every month, and I
called, and spent a few minutes talking to a rep, was credited, and was NOT
billed for the second month of the free trial - so whatever it is that got
screwed up had obviously been corrected as soon as I called.

Stuff happens. Doesn't matter who your carrier is; stuff happens. Wireless
phone companies ALL have billing issues. Read Google Groups and you'll find
that the others do too. Doesn't mean it's OK, but it does happen. Stop being
childish and take responsibility for your own finances.

> You're the type person who would say a person deserved to be burglarized
> because he or she left a window open.

That's not the issue here.

The issue is that your house was broken into and the door was left wide open,
and you left it that way for several months. Then you walked in here
complaining that people were stealing from you, but you turned around and said
you didn't even realize the door was open, when it had been sitting open for
months.

No one's saying Sprint was right to bill you improperly, if that's what they
did -- we're saying pay attention and if you do have a problem you will be able
to get it fixed. When you keep on being billed for something for months and
then claim "I didn't know," that does nothing good for your credibility. I can
see one or two months - but seven or eight? Come on. Use some common sense, if
you have any at all. Read your bills when you get them. You could have resolved
this problem last summer when it happened.

Accept some responsibility, mmmmkay, Trollboi?

OBTW: Have fun finding another carrier. Please, not Verizon or Nextel - I read
the Verizon and Nextel newsgroups pretty regularly and don't wish to see your
whining there either.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

"Nehmo Sergheyev" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> - Nehmo -
> > > ¿Habla español?
>
> - Scott Stephenson -
> > You need to examine your own sentence structure and grammar before
> throwing
> > barbs like that, troll child.
>
> - Nehmo -
> You are welcome to point out any errors you find. But in the
> construction at issue, Steve's meaning was easy to misinterpret. When I
> responded accordingly, he resorted to name-calling and (usenet)
> shouting. I'm not thin-skinned, but those actions gave me license.

I found the meaning quite easy to interpret as intended.

>
> - Nehmo -
> > > So you're saying that a Sprint bill is dishonest enough to require
> > > inspection of five minutes by someone as well-versed as yourself.
> But
> > > not so dishonest as to require someone, a regular subscriber, to
> pore
> > > over it.
>
> - Scott Stephenson -
> > It called consumer responsibility. If you are stupid enough to simply
> pay
> > the bill because that is what is expected, you get what you deserve.
>
> - Nehmo -
> You're the type person who would say a person deserved to be burglarized
> because he or she left a window open.
>

Actually, I've taken no such position. But I would take exception to
someone not taking responsibility for the burglary because they didn't take
the time to check the windows and blaming everyone but themselves. That
would be more in line with what I have been saying- you'll notice no comment
from me (good or bad) on the inclusion of the charges on your bill. I have
simply commented on your very lazy way of handling your financial
responsibilities. That would be akin to not checking the windows.