How to get out of your SPRINT contract, no charge.

You need to
> research this crap before you post it,
No, you need to research this crap before you post.
The woman that started all the fuss, and whose story created enough buzz to
embarrass sprint into making public announcements about the issue, was
terminated due to calling about erroneous charges on her billing. Another
person, if we are to believe internet reports, was terminated after being
with sprint for only a month or so, and who had made numerous calls trying
to get the service set up properly.
The problem with Sprint is that the actions and words of the CS people are
not adhered to or overridden by computers/billing/management, which creates
an ongoing problem that results in customers making "too many" calls trying
to get their accounts straightened out.
My experience is that the billing/plan "errors" are always in Sprints'
favor, so these are not just random errors, they are by design, and now that
customers are afraid to call and get them fixed they may opt to let the
smaller issues slide, resulting in unwarranted taking on a large scale.

"FloydinTampa" <Flooydomit@Prodigy.net> wrote in
news:GGLli.443$Dx2.122@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

> You need to
>> research this crap before you post it,
> No, you need to research this crap before you post.
> The woman that started all the fuss, and whose story created enough
> buzz to embarrass sprint into making public announcements about the
> issue, was terminated due to calling about erroneous charges on her
> billing.

A hundred calls a month? I think there's another side to this story that
would make more sense,

> Another person, if we are to believe internet reports, was
> terminated after being with sprint for only a month or so, and who had
> made numerous calls trying to get the service set up properly.

According to the press, Sprint had been looking at and working these
account for six months to a year before sending them the letter. A
customer on the network for only a month at the time of the letters would
not haver been on the radar.


> The problem with Sprint is that the actions and words of the CS people
> are not adhered to or overridden by computers/billing/management,
> which creates an ongoing problem that results in customers making "too
> many" calls trying to get their accounts straightened out.
> My experience is that the billing/plan "errors" are always in Sprints'
> favor,

How many people do you know that call a company and say, "I think you
didn't charge me enough this month"?

> so these are not just random errors,
> they are by design,

A pretty bold and inaccurate statement. In fact, a statement that has no
facts to support it.

> and
> now that customers are afraid to call and get them fixed they may opt
> to let the smaller issues slide, resulting in unwarranted taking on a
> large scale.

I'll spell this out again- you are wrong in portraying the call volume as
the sole reason tha these customers were let go. What is so hard to
comprehend in that statement?

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:59:48 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net <karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:




>SPRINT would prefer its customers to be docile and never complain, but
>if you do too much they'll now just cancel you.

>So if you want to get out of your contract, NO PENALTY, FOR FREE;
>like suppose you want to get an iPhone and go with AT&T,
>just call in everyday and complain about your bill, and soon they'll
>cancel you without penalty.

If you only call to complain then sprint will set their menu system to prevent
you ever reaching a human.

I experienced their lovely setup when dealing with sprint error that had my
phone shut off in error three billing cycles in a row. Any time you call
irate about three times in a 48 hour period then you get shut out.

>
> A hundred calls a month? I think there's another side to this story that
> would make more sense,
In defense of it's widely publicised outrageous behavior with regard to the
termination of at least three of the customers whose direct statements I
have been following over the past week, sprint had no choice but to announce
these claims of "100 calls a month". If you believe them, you probably
haven't ever had to deal with broken promises from their customer service
department.

>
>> Another person, if we are to believe internet reports, was
>> terminated after being with sprint for only a month or so, and who had
>> made numerous calls trying to get the service set up properly.
>
> According to the press, Sprint had been looking at and working these
> account for six months to a year before sending them the letter. A
> customer on the network for only a month at the time of the letters would
> not haver been on the radar.
None the less, a short time customer was indeed terminated for excess calls.
Read up on it.
If you say that you think that a new customer on their network shouldn't
have been on the radar, then
I agree with you.

>> My experience is that the billing/plan "errors" are always in Sprints'
>> favor,
>
> How many people do you know that call a company and say, "I think you
> didn't charge me enough this month"?
Probably not many, however I was talking about my personal experience. You
can also read about hundreds of other people who have problems with
overbilling and unfilled promises of service.
>
>> so these are not just random errors,
>> they are by design,
>
> A pretty bold and inaccurate statement. In fact, a statement that has no
> facts to support it.
I have my last 9 years of billing to support the overcharges, again, always
in sprints favor. I'm sure I'm not alone.
>
>
> I'll spell this out again- you are wrong in portraying the call volume as
> the sole reason tha these customers were let go. What is so hard to
> comprehend in that statement?
I agree with you there again. I believe that they wanted to get rid of
low-profit customers. But if they wanted to release customers that had
low-profit plans, either through retention deals or by taking advantage of
offered specials, then they should have waited until those customers were
out of contract and then informed them that their previous plans were not
going to be continued at the same price, giving them a chance to secure a
new plan or move on if that is what they decided to do. IMHO, bad planning
and poor customer service were the reason for the low profit and also the
numerous calls from many of those customers that were released. Of course,
I don't have access to the internal workings of sprint, only deducing from
their public behavior and what I read on the internet.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:37:18 -0400, "FloydinTampa"
<Flooydomit@Prodigy.net> wrote:

>I agree with you there again. I believe that they wanted to get rid of
>low-profit customers.

Low-profit customers, for negative values of low.

>But if they wanted to release customers that had
>low-profit plans, either through retention deals or by taking advantage of
>offered specials, then they should have waited until those customers were
>out of contract and then informed them that their previous plans were not
>going to be continued at the same price, giving them a chance to secure a
>new plan or move on if that is what they decided to do. IMHO, bad planning
>and poor customer service were the reason for the low profit and also the
>numerous calls from many of those customers that were released. Of course,
>I don't have access to the internal workings of sprint, only deducing from
>their public behavior and what I read on the internet.

If you read it on the Internet, it must be true.

--
Paul Miner

"FloydinTampa" <Flooydomit@Prodigy.net> wrote in
news:O6dmi.11426$bz7.8517@newssvr22.news.prodigy.n et:

>>
>> A hundred calls a month? I think there's another side to this story
>> that would make more sense,
> In defense of it's widely publicised outrageous behavior with regard
> to the termination of at least three of the customers whose direct
> statements I have been following over the past week, sprint had no
> choice but to announce these claims of "100 calls a month". If you
> believe them, you probably haven't ever had to deal with broken
> promises from their customer service department.

You mean other than a bad activation and two seperate port issues that
took more than a few days to correct?

>
>>
>>> Another person, if we are to believe internet reports, was
>>> terminated after being with sprint for only a month or so, and who
>>> had made numerous calls trying to get the service set up properly.
>>
>> According to the press, Sprint had been looking at and working these
>> account for six months to a year before sending them the letter. A
>> customer on the network for only a month at the time of the letters
>> would not haver been on the radar.
> None the less, a short time customer was indeed terminated for excess
> calls. Read up on it.

I've read a bunch on it and have seen many stories that make no logical
sense to the point of being obvious bullshit. As a matter of fact, I
wouldn't be surprised to find thousands of "customers" claiming on the
internet to have received one of the roughly one thousand letters that
went out.

> If you say that you think that a new customer on their network
> shouldn't have been on the radar, then
> I agree with you.
>
>>> My experience is that the billing/plan "errors" are always in
>>> Sprints' favor,
>>
>> How many people do you know that call a company and say, "I think you
>> didn't charge me enough this month"?
> Probably not many, however I was talking about my personal experience.
> You can also read about hundreds of other people who have problems
> with overbilling and unfilled promises of service.

Then let's do the math- let's say a thousand customers, just to be
generous- one thousand out of more than 150 million US cellular users
with a billing problem. Care to figure out the percentage without an
issue?

>>
>>> so these are not just random errors,
>>> they are by design,
>>
>> A pretty bold and inaccurate statement. In fact, a statement that
>> has no facts to support it.
> I have my last 9 years of billing to support the overcharges, again,
> always in sprints favor. I'm sure I'm not alone.

And I know fo bills that have gone out int hte customer's favor- we're
even.


>>
>>
>> I'll spell this out again- you are wrong in portraying the call
>> volume as the sole reason tha these customers were let go. What is
>> so hard to comprehend in that statement?
> I agree with you there again. I believe that they wanted to get rid
> of low-profit customers. But if they wanted to release customers that
> had low-profit plans, either through retention deals or by taking
> advantage of offered specials, then they should have waited until
> those customers were out of contract and then informed them that their
> previous plans were not going to be continued at the same price,
> giving them a chance to secure a new plan or move on if that is what
> they decided to do.

Whoa, whoa, whoa Skippy- nobody anywhere has tied these customers to
unprofitable rate plans. Where did that come from?


> IMHO, bad planning and poor customer service were
> the reason for the low profit and also the numerous calls from many of
> those customers that were released. Of course, I don't have access to
> the internal workings of sprint, only deducing from their public
> behavior and what I read on the internet.
>
>
>

>>> I'll spell this out again- you are wrong in portraying the call
>>> volume as the sole reason tha these customers were let go. What is
>>> so hard to comprehend in that statement?
>> I agree with you there again. I believe that they wanted to get rid
>> of low-profit customers. But if they wanted to release customers that
>> had low-profit plans, either through retention deals or by taking
>> advantage of offered specials, then they should have waited until
>> those customers were out of contract and then informed them that their
>> previous plans were not going to be continued at the same price,
>> giving them a chance to secure a new plan or move on if that is what
>> they decided to do.
>
> Whoa, whoa, whoa Skippy- nobody anywhere has tied these customers to
> unprofitable rate plans. Where did that come from?
>
OK, low profit plans or whatever. The woman who started the whole
rebellion(I forgot her name)
has a $30/mo plan.

"FloydinTampa" <Flooydomit@Prodigy.net> wrote in news:fOgmi.1361$Dx2.350
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

>>>> I'll spell this out again- you are wrong in portraying the call
>>>> volume as the sole reason tha these customers were let go. What is
>>>> so hard to comprehend in that statement?
>>> I agree with you there again. I believe that they wanted to get rid
>>> of low-profit customers. But if they wanted to release customers that
>>> had low-profit plans, either through retention deals or by taking
>>> advantage of offered specials, then they should have waited until
>>> those customers were out of contract and then informed them that their
>>> previous plans were not going to be continued at the same price,
>>> giving them a chance to secure a new plan or move on if that is what
>>> they decided to do.
>>
>> Whoa, whoa, whoa Skippy- nobody anywhere has tied these customers to
>> unprofitable rate plans. Where did that come from?
>>
> OK, low profit plans or whatever. The woman who started the whole
> rebellion(I forgot her name)
> has a $30/mo plan.
>
>
>

Understood, but even according to her, her termination had nothing to do
with the rate plan she was on.

Paul Miner wrote:
> If you read it on the Internet, it must be true.

I'm going to reply in the same spirit in which you offered that, and say
that some things I've read on the Internet actually have turned out to be
true. I bet the same holds true for you.

--
Postulate a group whose intent is to destroy the United States from within
via anarchy and bankruptcy. The actions of the United States Congress are
completely consistent with the actions one would predict from such a group.