NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

<http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>

New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
called customer service too often.

Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they will
lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State Consumer
Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those customers $200 each
- the amount the customers would have had to pay if they had
prematurely ended their two-year contracts with the company.

The Reston, Va.-based company, with operational headquarters in
Overland Park, Kan., said it will zero out the customers' accounts
and not charge any termination fees. But Mindy Bockstein, the board's
chairwoman and executive director, said that's not enough.

"These former Sprint customers will have to purchase new phones and
incur other expenses and inconveniences if they want to continue
receiving wireless service," Bockstein said. "Sprint Nextel should do
more to improve the quality of its customer service and this is a
good place to start."

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:18:14 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

><http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>
> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
> pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
> called customer service too often.
>
> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they will
> lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State Consumer
> Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those customers $200 each
> - the amount the customers would have had to pay if they had
> prematurely ended their two-year contracts with the company.
>
> The Reston, Va.-based company, with operational headquarters in
> Overland Park, Kan., said it will zero out the customers' accounts
> and not charge any termination fees. But Mindy Bockstein, the board's
> chairwoman and executive director, said that's not enough.
>
> "These former Sprint customers will have to purchase new phones and
> incur other expenses and inconveniences if they want to continue
> receiving wireless service," Bockstein said. "Sprint Nextel should do
> more to improve the quality of its customer service and this is a
> good place to start."

This reaction seems like little more than grandstanding. Which major
carrier isn't providing heavily subsidized phones these days?

--
Paul Miner

Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:18:14 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>>
>> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
>> pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
>> called customer service too often.
>>
>> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they
>> will lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State
>> Consumer Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those
>> customers $200 each - the amount the customers would have had to
>> pay if they had prematurely ended their two-year contracts with
>> the company.
>>
>> The Reston, Va.-based company, with operational headquarters in
>> Overland Park, Kan., said it will zero out the customers' accounts
>> and not charge any termination fees. But Mindy Bockstein, the
>> board's chairwoman and executive director, said that's not enough.
>>
>> "These former Sprint customers will have to purchase new phones and
>> incur other expenses and inconveniences if they want to continue
>> receiving wireless service," Bockstein said. "Sprint Nextel should
>> do more to improve the quality of its customer service and this is
>> a good place to start."
>
> This reaction seems like little more than grandstanding. Which major
> carrier isn't providing heavily subsidized phones these days?

Seems only fair that if Sprint elects to terminate early they should pay
the customer the same penalty that th customer would pay if they elected
to quit. "But that's not in the contract," you correctly point out. One
of the jobs of the Consumer Advocate is to level the playing field where
a single customer has no negotiating juice. Let's see how they prevail.
I showed up for a dental appointment one Saturday and his office was
closed. When I called them on Monday they were very apologetic. I
pointed out that had I been the no show they would have charged me so
since they were the no show they should clean my teeth for free. They
did.

"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4695966b$0$9007
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:




> "But that's not in the contract," you correctly point out. One
> of the jobs of the Consumer Advocate is to level the playing field where
> a single customer has no negotiating juice. Let's see how they prevail.

They won't prevail- all Sprint has to do is point to a number of similar
instances where other carriers have unilaterally ended the contract terms
with a subscriber (think network conversions) and then cry prejudice for
being singled out.

On 2007-07-12, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
><http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>
> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
> pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
> called customer service too often.
>
> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they will
> lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State Consumer
> Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those customers $200 each
> - the amount the customers would have had to pay if they had
> prematurely ended their two-year contracts with the company.

Didn't someone just suggest exactly this here in the Sprint newsgroup?

I think it's a good idea. :)

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:00:01 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>On 2007-07-12, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>><http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/10/ap3901076.html>
>>
>> New York's lead consumer advocate is asking Sprint Nextel Corp. to
>> pay a penalty to wireless customers it is terminating because they
>> called customer service too often.
>>
>> Reacting to news that Sprint has told about 1,000 customers they will
>> lose their wireless service on July 30, the New York State Consumer
>> Protection Board suggested the carrier pay those customers $200 each
>> - the amount the customers would have had to pay if they had
>> prematurely ended their two-year contracts with the company.
>
>Didn't someone just suggest exactly this here in the Sprint newsgroup?
>
>I think it's a good idea. :)

It doesn't make any sense to me. As of a few years ago, I believe it
cost carriers over $400 to acquire a new customer and get them set up.
If you turn that around and charge customers $400+ to start a new line
of service, then yes, refund part of it if the customer is cut loose
within a certain period, but with the current business model I see no
justification at all for paying a (bad) customer to leave. They should
be glad they aren't charged the ETF.

--
Paul Miner

Paul Miner wrote:
> They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.

I can assure you that if some company not only terminated my service for
such reasons but also tried to charge me the fee the contract specifies
for *my* breaking off the relationship, it would take me about thirty
seconds to tear some lawyer away from suing his own mother for watery
soup and to sic him on that company.

--
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.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:44:58 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul Miner wrote:
>> They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.
>
>I can assure you that if some company not only terminated my service for
>such reasons but also tried to charge me the fee the contract specifies
>for *my* breaking off the relationship, it would take me about thirty
>seconds to tear some lawyer away from suing his own mother for watery
>soup and to sic him on that company.

I'd be right there to say good luck with that. ;-)
I don't think you'd get very far.

--
Paul Miner

On 2007-07-12, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Miner wrote:
>> They should be glad they aren't charged the ETF.
>
> I can assure you that if some company not only terminated my service for
> such reasons but also tried to charge me the fee the contract specifies
> for *my* breaking off the relationship, it would take me about thirty
> seconds to tear some lawyer away from suing his own mother for watery
> soup and to sic him on that company.

If you have signed a Verizon agreement (I haven't looked at the others)
what you signed says:

AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE WILL APPLY IF YOU CHOOSE TO END YOUR SERVICE
BEFORE BECOMING A MONTH-TO-MONTH CUSTOMER, OR IF WE TERMINATE IT EARLY
FOR GOOD CAUSE.

That is, the ETF may apply if they terminate you, not just if you
terminate them. Verizon's "good cause" includes, but is not limited to,
the following:

You agree not to resell our service to someone else without our
prior written permission. You also agree your wireless phone won't
be used for any other purpose that isn't allowed by this agreement
or that's illegal. You agree that you won't install, deploy, or use
any regeneration equipment or similar mechanism (for example, a
repeater) to originate, amplify, enhance, retransmit or regenerate
a transmitted RF signal. WE CAN, WITHOUT NOTICE, LIMIT, SUSPEND, OR
END YOUR SERVICE OR ANY AGREEMENT WITH YOU FOR THIS OR ANY OTHER
GOOD CAUSE, including, but not limited to: (a) paying late more than
once in any 12 months; (b) incurring charges larger than a required
deposit or billing limit (even if we haven't yet billed the charges);
(c) harassing our employees or agents; (d) lying to us; (e) interfering
with our operations; (f) breaching this agreement; (g) "spamming," or
other abusive messaging or calling; (h) modifying your wireless phone
from its manufacturer's specifications; (i) providing credit information
we can't verify; (j) using your service in a way that adversely affects
our network or other customers; or (k) allowing anyone to tamper with
your wireless phone number.

That covers just about everything. The thing the Sprint customers are
being terminated for is probably covered by (c) or (e) (not that the
"good cause" they terminate you for needs to be listed). (h) probably
covers the things people do to their Verizon phones to restore features
that Verizon removed.

Oh, and then there's

WE EACH AGREE TO SETTLE DISPUTES (EXCEPT CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS) ONLY
BY ARBITRATION.

which kind of limits what your lawyer can threaten them with. They've
covered themselves pretty well.

Dennis Ferguson

At 12 Jul 2007 02:39:06 +0000 Paul Miner wrote:

> This reaction seems like little more than grandstanding. Which major
> carrier isn't providing heavily subsidized phones these days?

Perhaps, but to be fair, what about a Sprint Blackberry or Treo owner?
He might have paid $200-400 for his subsidized phone, and would have to
pay a similar amount to get essentially the same phone with a new carrier-
the Sprint CDMA model is incompatible with T-Mo's or Cingular's GSM, and
Verizon (like Sprint) refuses to activate phones sold by another carrier,
even if 100% compatible.

Now if Sprint is also willing to refund what a customer paid for their
high-end phone, fine, but I have a bit of a problem with this "firing
customers" idea when they're under contract. Sprint was happy to sign
them up and never gave them a customer service call limit. If they want
to terminate them after the contract is up, and/or stop them from renewing,

fine, but they didn't break any rules- CS is 24/7 and free according to
all the brochures.
I better way to handle the "problem" would've been to flag the accounts
so when they called CS about an often lodged complaint, the reps could
just explain "we've already tried to satisfy your needs on this
particular issue and were unable to. In the interests of customer
service we'd like to offer you the ability to end your contractual
commitment without any penalty should you choose to..."

If CS "stonewalled" these 2000 customers with the above script, they'd
get the message and cancel on their own.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com