Be happy you Dont have Sprint - They are screwing US Soldiers

At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
> Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>
> "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him $0.75
> per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
> complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
> irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
> about
> his problem."
>
> http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...military-eh-he...

While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer contributes to
his or her own problem.

In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed overseas by
converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to the states he
never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a ton of calls at
$0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow deduce telepathically
he wanted to turn his service back on.

Sprint obviously could've handled this in a more consumer-friendly way by
rerating his bill after the fact, but they had no obligation to. They did,
however, offer to forgive half the bill and agreed to setup a payment plan.

However, that's not nearly as a good a Consumerist story as "Evil
Corporation Screws Patriotic Defender of Freedom." ;-)

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org...
> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer contributes to
> his or her own problem.

The author is unfortunately not as clear of a story teller as he could be too.

> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed overseas by
> converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to the states he
> never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a ton of calls at
> $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow deduce telepathically
> he wanted to turn his service back on.

Actually, I suspect he figured that since his original "deactivation" letter
specified he'd be back in March, that Sprint would store that fact in their
database and re-activate the phone (on its regular plan) at that point -- the
navy man didn't realize that even while his phone was "inactive" it
technically could still make phone calls, albeit at $0.75/minute. This
strikes me as an entirely reasonable assumption (most people would think that
if they "deactivated" their phone it wouldn't make phone calls anymore!), and
I think that if the navy man can produce a copy of that letter, Sprint should
admit that it was a communications error (that no one told the navy man that
his assumption was incorrect) and charge him whatever he'd have been billed
back on his regular plan.

> Sprint obviously could've handled this in a more consumer-friendly way by
> rerating his bill after the fact, but they had no obligation to.

If this ends up in small claims court I suspect there's a good very chance the
court will feel differently about Sprint's obligations. While it surely is
documented somewhere all the terms and conditions of temporarily deactiving a
phone, unless Sprint can demonstrate that they informed the navy man of the
specifics it's likely the court will go with the "reasonable person's"
interpretation of what should have been expected.

---Joel

In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
> > Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
> >
> > "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him $0.75
> > per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
> > complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
> > irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
> > about
> > his problem."
> >
> > http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...military-eh-he...
>
> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer contributes to
> his or her own problem.
>
> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed overseas by
> converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to the states he
> never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a ton of calls at
> $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow deduce telepathically
> he wanted to turn his service back on.
>

Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
what it says:

1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006 through
March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged, and paid,
$30/month during this suspension).

2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
assumed this meant his service was restored.

3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the normal
rate he expected for his plan.

4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
$0.75/minute plan.

How exactly did he contribute to the problem?

> Sprint obviously could've handled this in a more consumer-friendly way by
> rerating his bill after the fact, but they had no obligation to. They did,
> however, offer to forgive half the bill and agreed to setup a payment plan.

So you think Sprint is in the right to suddenly, without warning, and
without being asked, change his plan?

If he had used his phone *during the time he requested suspension* and
they had billed him $500, you'd have a good point, but this clearly has
nothing to do with that.

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
following in
news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:

> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>> > Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>> >
>> > "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>> > $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>> > complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>> > irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>> > about
>> > his problem."
>> >
>> > http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>> > e...
>>
>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>
>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>
>
> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
> what it says:
>
> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>
> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>
> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>
> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
> $0.75/minute plan.
>
> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?

By not looking at the bill for nine months?

>

The Bob wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
> following in
> news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:
>
>> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>>>> Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>>>>
>>>> "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>>>> $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>>>> complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>>>> irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>>>> about
>>>> his problem."
>>>>
>>>> http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>>>> e...
>>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>>
>>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>>
>> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
>> what it says:
>>
>> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
>> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
>> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>>
>> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
>> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>>
>> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
>> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>>
>> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
>> $0.75/minute plan.
>>
>> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?
>
> By not looking at the bill for nine months?
>
>
>

Err. . . . What might the bill have told him? According to the story
above, he was being billed at his normal and expected rate!

If I get a normal bill, I write a check for the amount of the bill. If
the amount is not the normal and expected amount I will want to know why
before paying it!

The Bob wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
> following in
> news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:
>
>> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>>>> Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>>>>
>>>> "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>>>> $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>>>> complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>>>> irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>>>> about
>>>> his problem."
>>>>
>>>> http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>>>> e...
>>>
>>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>>
>>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>>
>>
>> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
>> what it says:
>>
>> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
>> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
>> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>>
>> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked.
>> He assumed this meant his service was restored.
>>
>> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
>> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>>
>> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
>> $0.75/minute plan.
>>
>> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?
>
> By not looking at the bill for nine months?

Who told you he didn't look at his bill for 9 months? Or did you just
make that up? He claims that during that 9 months he was billed
correctly (which he presumably knew from looking at the bill) and as
expected and then, after 9 months, they raised him to the 75 cent rate.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 01:34:00 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

>The Bob wrote:
>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> amazed us all with the
>> following in
>> news:reply_in_group-EDCA97.21574626052008@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> In article <g1dchu$k4c$1@aioe.org>,
>>> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>>>> At 25 May 2008 06:17:50 -0700 AllenHarkleroad wrote:
>>>>> Sprint: Military? Here's your bill for $500.00
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sprint thanked Ryan for his tour with the Navy by charging him
>>>>> $0.75 per minute for airtime, resulting in a $500 bill. When Ryan
>>>>> complained, Sprint's customer service representatives called him
>>>>> irresponsible, and gently explained that they couldn't care less
>>>>> about
>>>>> his problem."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://consumerist.com/tag/charges/?...-military-eh-h
>>>>> e...
>>>> While I sympathize with the "victim" in the story, as usual, The
>>>> Consumerist always glosses over the part where the consumer
>>>> contributes to his or her own problem.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
>>>> overseas by converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to
>>>> the states he never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a
>>>> ton of calls at $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow
>>>> deduce telepathically he wanted to turn his service back on.
>>>>
>>> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
>>> what it says:
>>>
>>> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006
>>> through March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged,
>>> and paid, $30/month during this suspension).
>>>
>>> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
>>> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>>>
>>> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the
>>> normal rate he expected for his plan.
>>>
>>> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
>>> $0.75/minute plan.
>>>
>>> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?
>>
>> By not looking at the bill for nine months?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Err. . . . What might the bill have told him? According to the story
>above, he was being billed at his normal and expected rate!
>
>If I get a normal bill, I write a check for the amount of the bill. If
>the amount is not the normal and expected amount I will want to know why
>before paying it!

That's not exactly what was said. First, the customer said,

"When I returned in May, vice March, I turned on my cell phone and the
service was restored. I have used my cell phone since May 2007 with a
radical phone bill, from $60-150 a month, but the statements reflected
time I went over my minutes, so I complied and have been paying my
bill."

So he used the phone for several months and got "radical" phone bills,
to which he (possibly mistakenly) attributed to minutes used over his
limit. Then he says his bill jumped after that point. By his own
admission, those bills prior to the $500 one were not "normal."

And early in his letter, he stated he incurred large charges during
his training in MS because he wasn't on a national plan, but there was
no reference made to him switching to a national plan. Perhaps he did
at that time I don't know what Sprint's local rate plans are like,
but at $30/mo., it appears they switched him over to a low cost local
plan for the time he was gone. It sounds to me like he doesn't really
know how rate plans work and how they can differ.

I'm not trying to defend Sprint, because I know a lot of people truly
have real issues with them that were not of their making. But I'm
betting on this one, there is a LOT of information that was
conveniently left out.

> But I'm
> betting on this one, there is a LOT of information that was
> conveniently left out.

A news story leaving out facts? NO, say it ain't so!

I agree, there's undoubtedly more to the story and, no doubt, there's plenty
of blame on both sides. It's just fashionable to flog the soldier aspect of
it against the evil corporation. David and Goliath, etc. It's pathetic,
but apparently it's what keeps the drooling masses entertained.

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in
news:6uGdnc1wwcs4AKbVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@comcast.com:

> If I get a normal bill, I write a check for the amount of the bill. If
> the amount is not the normal and expected amount I will want to know why
> before paying it!
>

.....and if ANY company sends me a monthly bill for $70, I write the check
and the check is cashed, that company and I have COMPLETED OUR TRANSACTION
FOR THAT MONTH at FULL PAYMENT. The company has agreed to accept my check
for $70 as full payment for the $70 bill they sent me.

Any jury will tell Sprint to stick their bogus charge up their corporate
asses. This guy needs a LAWYER! Sprint will pay for the lawyer as part of
the judgement against it.

In <Xns9AAB63874FB6Bnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253> Larry <noone@home.com> writes:


>....and if ANY company sends me a monthly bill for $70, I write the check
>and the check is cashed, that company and I have COMPLETED OUR TRANSACTION
>FOR THAT MONTH at FULL PAYMENT. The company has agreed to accept my check
>for $70 as full payment for the $70 bill they sent me.

>Any jury will tell Sprint to stick their bogus charge up their corporate
>asses. This guy needs a LAWYER! Sprint will pay for the lawyer as part of
>the judgement against it.

Those rambling claims of yours above are so out of touch
with reality that you should consider getting a job
writing press releases for your local politicians.

They're not quite good enough for national level.



--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]