Customer Service at SprintPCS

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:

> There have been some steps taken to attempt to improve customer service,
> but to see if its working, we'll have to wait.

It's good you are so loyal to Sprint, but I have seen no one post here
who has experienced improved Service. The horror stories continue. We
have seen affiliates go belly up, we have seen hidden price increases
disquised as Cost recovery fees, we have seen Executive Services
blocked, we see Sprint owned stores fake repairs, refuse to do upgrades,
etc, etc. We see activatiopn fees increase. We see *4 charged for, we
see longer hold times calling Sprint, with advocates that hang up on
you, or at best transfer you to a colleague pretending its to a
supervisor......

We see press releases about improved service, what can we turn to
as evidence of such improvements?

---

› See More: Customer Service at SprintPCS

"Phillipe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:
>
> > There have been some steps taken to attempt to improve customer service,
> > but to see if its working, we'll have to wait.
>
> It's good you are so loyal to Sprint, but I have seen no one post here
> who has experienced improved Service.

Then you've bypassed those threads. Quite a few of us have mentioned the
improved service, including the follow up quality control costs following
the original call into the CS dept.

> The horror stories continue. We have seen affiliates go belly up.

And this has to do with SPCS how? One had just declared Chapter 11.

> we have seen hidden price increases disquised as Cost recovery fees.

Of which, SPCS has included notification, both on their bills, in inserts
and online.

> we have seen Executive Services blocked.

And rightfully so. Not every problem needs to go up to Executive Services,
and when idiots here post the direct telephone numbers, Executive Services
receive an extraordinary amount of calls they shouldn't get. BTW, just who
says the customer needs to be in contact with the Executive Services Dept
anyway?

> we see Sprint owned stores fake repairs.

And what fake repairs are you talking about? Not upgrading the firmware or
the PRL? The stores really don't do anything else.

> refuse to do upgrades.

Maybe they don't have the upgrades loaded on their in house system? I'm not
saying that it's right, as those upgrades should be automatically downloaded
to each store, but it's possible the staff isn't aware of the new upgrade,
or that it may or may not be on their syste.

> etc, etc. We see activatiopn fees increase.

Whoopteedo ... Only a buck.

> We see *4 charged for,

Not any more ... for almost a year now.

> we see longer hold times calling Sprint, with advocates that hang up on
> you, or at best transfer you to a colleague pretending its to a
> supervisor......

About this alleged delay, this is just blather. I see people saying here
that they've been on hold for 20 minutes ... to speak with a rep, and it's
hasn't happened with yours truly for a couple of years now. I just did a
call into CS, to ask when my AA expired. After telling Claire "Annual
Agreement", it took no longer than 30 seconds to get a live rep.
Unfortunately, she said the system was down, and would be for at least an
hour, I still got in immediately. BTW, when the rep did initially answer,
she said the system was down before I asked my question.

>
> We see press releases about improved service, what can we turn to
> as evidence of such improvements?

No charges for #4, faster CS response, improved CS relations, quality
control follow up calls, applying credits on accounts that had coding
problems, applying credits on those accounts who complained about the WLNP
charges.

Bob

So it's always the customers' fault, what a great business pattern! Why not
you loyal Sprint fans persuade Sprint discontinue any non-unlimited usage
plan? Obviously Sprint has different vision..

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7lQ%[email protected]...
>
> 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.

"daye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So it's always the customers' fault, what a great business pattern! Why
not
> you loyal Sprint fans persuade Sprint discontinue any non-unlimited usage
> plan? Obviously Sprint has different vision..

No, it's not the customer's fault ... Did I say it was the customer's fault?
No ... I didn't!. What's more, if you are going to reply to the post, why
don't you do a full reply, to where I said "It was a bad P/R job by SPCS
though, by charging for it. They just shouldn't have tried to add the bad
pay/no credit accounts in the first place ..."

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7lQ%[email protected]...
> 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.

Liar, liar, liar. I haven't heard of this #4 thing until I read this post.
Intuitively, I made a try; and was subsequently charged by Sprint. I am a
long time customer, on a high monthly plan, with reasonably income if that
counts, but was still charged for one time use. So what's your point?

"daye" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:7lQ%[email protected]...
> > 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.
>
> Liar, liar, liar. I haven't heard of this #4 thing until I read this
post.
> Intuitively, I made a try; and was subsequently charged by Sprint. I am a
> long time customer, on a high monthly plan, with reasonably income if that
> counts, but was still charged for one time use. So what's your point?
>
And now you are calling me a liar? Long time customer? That's not what you
said in April ... http://tinyurl.com/kce7 . You said you were still in your
14 day trial period then.

SPCS was only applying the charge (as a specific charge and not as minutes
used) to their low minute, no credit check customers last year.

Are you saying that SPCS was charging you $$ since you initiated coverage
with SPCS back then.

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:P3P%[email protected]...

> And this has to do with SPCS how? One had just declared Chapter 11.

re: local Sprint affils ---- Doesn't this remove subscribers from the Sprint
totals? I mean if there's no deal there's no customers --- hence lower
subscriber counts. Maybe Quest will bump this, but not until after later
this year. It also hurts SPCS users directly in the area with closed local
solutions and reduced capacity.

It does make me wonder if SPCS is trying to break mom 'n pop so they can buy
cheaply at the bankruptcy court --- but I'd think Vzw would help keep it
from being a route.

> About this alleged delay, this is just blather. I see people saying here
> that they've been on hold for 20 minutes ... to speak with a rep, and it's
> hasn't happened with yours truly for a couple of years now.

It doesn't happen to you so it's blather? Interesting and insular position,
Bob.

> No charges for #4, faster CS response,

uses air time, so it's not complettly free.

>improved CS relations,

very subjective, and spotty in reality.

>quality control follow up calls,

"Hello, this is Sprint. Did we **** that last call up?" (it cracks me up
that you think they're calling you back after screwing up you acccount is a
plus. maybe that's the hint to being a satified PCS custmomer --- keeping
expectations looooooow.)

>applying credits on accounts that had coding problems,

you call them "problems" whereas a normal person might call them errors. And
how spiffy of SPCS, fixing something they'd screwed up to begin with. Yup,
put the bar on the floor and SPCS will get over it every time.

>applying credits on those accounts who complained about the WLNP
> charges.

And letting those out of contracts for this rate increase.

You ask for "cites" all the time, them throw a bunch of subjective crap on
the wall as proof that SPCS is the greatest thing since sliced white bread.
If you're not a SPCS salesgeek you should be --- then your praise for this
company whose nose looks to be pointed straight at the ground might be of
some value.

They've raised rates via the LNP channel and raised rates via
activations --- ya by "only a buck" --- but that's two in two months.
Where's the end of that trend, Bob?

I can tell you however that a 4900 makes a great flashlight ---- so SPCS
aint all bad.

--tr

"tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:P3P%[email protected]...
>
> > And this has to do with SPCS how? One had just declared Chapter 11.
>
> re: local Sprint affils ---- Doesn't this remove subscribers from the
Sprint
> totals? I mean if there's no deal there's no customers --- hence lower
> subscriber counts. Maybe Quest will bump this, but not until after later
> this year. It also hurts SPCS users directly in the area with closed local
> solutions and reduced capacity.

No, it doesn't remove subscribers from SPCS totals. The company filed for
reorganization, not to go out of business.
>
> It does make me wonder if SPCS is trying to break mom 'n pop so they can
buy
> cheaply at the bankruptcy court --- but I'd think Vzw would help keep it
> from being a route.

I have no clue what SPCS management is thinking, but I would suspect the
last thing they want is to see there affliates in trouble.
>
> > About this alleged delay, this is just blather. I see people saying here
> > that they've been on hold for 20 minutes ... to speak with a rep, and
it's
> > hasn't happened with yours truly for a couple of years now.
>
> It doesn't happen to you so it's blather? Interesting and insular
position,
> Bob.

So, Tom, how long was the wait time when you called into SPCS CS?

>
> > No charges for #4, faster CS response,
>
> uses air time, so it's not complettly free.

The point was that they were not charging the separate fee of $1.25 or
whatever that extra expense was.
>
> >improved CS relations,
>
> very subjective, and spotty in reality.

Lots of folks have mentioned the improvement.
>
> >quality control follow up calls,
>
> "Hello, this is Sprint. Did we **** that last call up?" (it cracks me up
> that you think they're calling you back after screwing up you acccount is
a
> plus. maybe that's the hint to being a satified PCS custmomer --- keeping
> expectations looooooow.)

It was much more professional than what you mention above ...
>
> >applying credits on accounts that had coding problems,
>
> you call them "problems" whereas a normal person might call them errors.
And
> how spiffy of SPCS, fixing something they'd screwed up to begin with. Yup,
> put the bar on the floor and SPCS will get over it every time.
>
> >applying credits on those accounts who complained about the WLNP
> > charges.
>
> And letting those out of contracts for this rate increase.
>
> You ask for "cites" all the time, them throw a bunch of subjective crap on
> the wall as proof that SPCS is the greatest thing since sliced white
bread.
> If you're not a SPCS salesgeek you should be --- then your praise for this
> company whose nose looks to be pointed straight at the ground might be of
> some value.

When have I actively praised them Tom? I've tried to be neutral in all my
posts, and relaying my experiences.
>
> They've raised rates via the LNP channel and raised rates via
> activations --- ya by "only a buck" --- but that's two in two months.
> Where's the end of that trend, Bob?

The comments were specific to the activation fee Tom, and that is what I
answered.
>
> I can tell you however that a 4900 makes a great flashlight ---- so SPCS
> aint all bad.

I wouldn't know. I own a 4700, A500, a 5300 and still have an unactivated
3500 sitting in a charger as we speak.

Bob

"tom ronson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped>

I missed this part of your prior comments, hence the follow up post.
>
> You ask for "cites" all the time, them throw a bunch of subjective crap on
> the wall as proof that SPCS is the greatest thing since sliced white
bread.

I've added more cites that anyone here, when asked. I've also posted my
email to SPCS and their reply. What have you done Tom? And since when have I
promoted SPCS? Come on now Tom, find some ... You seem so adament with your
comments, here's a suggestion, spend as much time as you need ...go find
those comments and post them ... right here in this thread.

> If you're not a SPCS salesgeek you should be --- then your praise for this
> company whose nose looks to be pointed straight at the ground might be of
> some value.

Again, post away those comments where I actively praise SPCS ...

Bob

Phillipe wrote:


>>There have been some steps taken to attempt to improve customer service,
>>but to see if its working, we'll have to wait.
>
>
> It's good you are so loyal to Sprint, but I have seen no one post here
> who has experienced improved Service. The horror stories continue.

And the horror stories will always continue, at every place where there
is customer service. Even Verizon Wireless has its share of people who
will never be happy, and will continue to blast their CS department.


> We have seen affiliates go belly up

And we've also seen affiliates do quite well. Alamosa PCS is one.
They're cash-flow positive at present. Why Horizon can't do this is
beyond me... you'd think if they didn't reach an agreement with Sprint
that was to their liking from day one, they'd not agree to it. While
Sprint could and should definitely cut them a little slack, I have a
feeling that horizon's problems aren't entirely Sprint's doing here.

Not to mention, service has continued. Has Horizon dropped coverage or
darkened their cells? No, they haven't. They continue to serve Sprint
customers too. If the agreement really were the cause of their
problems, I think they'd ask the bankruptcy court to terminate the
affiliate agreement outright and either go it on their own, or
liquidate. Yet Horizon doesn't want to do that, which is kind of telling...


> we have seen hidden price increases
> disquised as Cost recovery fees,

Ah, the WLNP battle cry. You CAN leave, you know.

> we have seen Executive Services
> blocked,

Not the first time... that's what happens when you post the number and
then have everyone call it for pidly little problems because they don't
want to wait a minute or two on hold with *2.

In time, the new Executive Services numbers will be found out, the
trolls will broadcast it, and again it will get blocked. And the cycle
will continue this way.


> we see Sprint owned stores fake repairs, refuse to do upgrades,
> etc, etc. We see activatiopn fees increase. We see *4 charged for, we
> see longer hold times calling Sprint, with advocates that hang up on
> you, or at best transfer you to a colleague pretending its to a
> supervisor......

Now, can you document any of this?

Bob Smith wrote:


>>The charging for *4 was one of Sprint's major ****ups. They spent a year
>>encouraging people to use it, saying it was free, now it comes out of your
>>minutes. You have the situation exactly reversed, it's been almost a year
>>that this change has been in effect, it wasn't charged before.
>>
>>Howard
>
>
> 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.


Actually, just a correction on this. I haven't done it myself, but I
THINK *4 is still being counted against airtime (NOT charged... charged
is when you get a separate fee for using it, which has never happened).

What Sprint DID eliminate was the $3.00 fee for ClearPay (bad credit)
customers to speak with a live rep. Which WAS a bad move to implement,
and a good move to eliminate.


> It was a bad P/R job by SPCS though, by charging for it. They just shouldn't
> have tried to add the bad pay/no credit accounts in the first place ...

Well, I partially disagree. Admittedly, people screw up on their
credit. That doens't mean ALL bad credit folks should be denied a
phone. However, ClearPay and Account Spending Limits were the wrong
approach, because the many deadbeats on that program abused it, and then
caused problems at both the stores and on CS hold times because they
simply couldn't grasp the concept that you needed to pay your bill in
full, rather than just pay only enough of your balance to be just under
your account spending limit and get service turned back on for that day.

Sprint should've continued with the deposit program, and then diligently
cut people off if they skipped on paying their bills more than just a
few times. And if Sprint REALLY wants to attract people who can't
handle a monthly bill, they should have left a prepay option open rather
than hand that market entirely to Virgin Mobile.

Phillipe <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:
>
>> There have been some steps taken to attempt to improve customer service,
>> but to see if its working, we'll have to wait.
>
> It's good you are so loyal to Sprint, but I have seen no one post here
> who has experienced improved Service.

Come on, I've done it just this past week, and you can check Google Groups
for other posts where I've noted a huge improvement in customer service.
Check for the e-mail address under which I'm posting right now, and search
alt.cellular.sprintpcs.

--
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]

"Isaiah Beard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
>
> >>The charging for *4 was one of Sprint's major ****ups. They spent a
year
> >>encouraging people to use it, saying it was free, now it comes out of
your
> >>minutes. You have the situation exactly reversed, it's been almost a
year
> >>that this change has been in effect, it wasn't charged before.
> >>
> >>Howard
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Actually, just a correction on this. I haven't done it myself, but I
> THINK *4 is still being counted against airtime (NOT charged... charged
> is when you get a separate fee for using it, which has never happened).

Yea, well I wasn't talking about minutes used, but the separate charge you
mention in the below paragraph.
>
> What Sprint DID eliminate was the $3.00 fee for ClearPay (bad credit)
> customers to speak with a live rep. Which WAS a bad move to implement,
> and a good move to eliminate.
>
>
> > It was a bad P/R job by SPCS though, by charging for it. They just
shouldn't
> > have tried to add the bad pay/no credit accounts in the first place ...
>
> Well, I partially disagree. Admittedly, people screw up on their
> credit. That doens't mean ALL bad credit folks should be denied a
> phone. However, ClearPay and Account Spending Limits were the wrong
> approach, because the many deadbeats on that program abused it, and then
> caused problems at both the stores and on CS hold times because they
> simply couldn't grasp the concept that you needed to pay your bill in
> full, rather than just pay only enough of your balance to be just under
> your account spending limit and get service turned back on for that day.

Hence my second sentence above. . There were and still are cell phone
pre-pay services, which fit those individuals needs.
>
> Sprint should've continued with the deposit program, and then diligently
> cut people off if they skipped on paying their bills more than just a
> few times. And if Sprint REALLY wants to attract people who can't
> handle a monthly bill, they should have left a prepay option open rather
> than hand that market entirely to Virgin Mobile.

Well, I actually like they got rid of those folks, and do the Virgin Mobile
deal. They still get $$ from Virgin to use the system, and they don't have
to provide the CS for those folks.

Bob

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.

daye wrote:

> So it's always the customers' fault, what a great business pattern!

Is hyperbole your only method of argument here?

Bob didn't say that. What he said was that a lot of problems can be
traced to Sprint's (failed) attempt at attracting subprime credit
customers through the ClearPay program. And yes, many of them DID cause
problems, not just for themselves, but for everyone. These were
customers who could not figure out the idea that if one doesn't pay
their bill on time, it's likely they'll lose their service. The result?
Lots of these people calling *2 to complain that their service was
shut off even though they're "only" a couple months behind on their
bill, and lots and lots of calls to *4 by these people to see just ow
long they can eek under the spending limits imposed on their accounts.

Does that make it the customer's fault? Well, to an extent that these
particular subscribers were part of the problem, yes. But the fault
also lies with Sprint for trying to go this route.


> Why not
> you loyal Sprint fans persuade Sprint discontinue any non-unlimited usage
> plan? Obviously Sprint has different vision..

So wait, you'd RATHER have plans that DON'T offer unlimited usage?
That's new....