NEWS: Sprint boots 200 American patriots for using their phones

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:07:11 -1000, "BruceR"
> <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> That's old news John and Sprint has since said that any soldier who
>> gets the letter can simply call in and tell them that they're a
>> soldier and the roaming limits will be waived.
>>
>
> But why should they have to call in and jump through hoops ?
>
They shouldn't. I'm just reporting "the rest of the story" not judging
it. Well, yes I am, Sprint has always sucked and and always will. ATT &
Verizon, from my experience, aren't much better. That's why I stick with
TMo. They may not be cutting edge but they're a pleasure to deal with
and even give me top notch support for phones I buy that they don't
offer.

Impmon wrote:
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Shortly after they returned home from the war in Iraq, Sprint accused
>> 200 American soldiers of excessive roaming and summarily canceled
>> their wireless service. At least, that's the word from one of these
>> embattled national heroes.
>
> I took a look at that news and I see problem with it. Sprint sent
> notices for cancelation the phone service in July. As I understand,
> they were redeployed just a month prior to the notice.
>
> So how can Sprint be upset about excessive roaming in one month?? For
> that matter, is it possible for Sprint to see "excessive" pattern from
> other carriers in just one month?

You dismiss that as if it's impossible, so here comes the devil's advocate.

Joe Grunt signs up for Sprint in Butte, Montana and enlists, goes to boot
camp in Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, makes "excessive roaming" calls
because more than 50% of his calls are made from an area other than where
he signed up; goes to advanced training in Fort Knox, Kentucky, and makes
more "excessive roaming" calls because more than 50% of his calls are made
from an area other than where he signed up; gets redeployed, then Sprint
sends him a notice.

--
"Justice Thomas pointed out that the Constitution does not waive the rights
of the individual because an elite has decided its motives are pure."
-- Paul Greenberg

I do not know if the original post were true or not, however, I do
know that there were these excessive roaming letters sent out, and
that Sprint's intent was that anyone that is serving in the military
be excluded from getting the letters. However there were many that
did wind up going to military personnel by mistake. They are making
an effort to call those affected and let them know that it was a
mistake, and they should not have received the letters. Any military
personnel that received the letter and have not been contacted should
call into the number listed on the letter, and get their name removed
from the list.

A friend on the inside

On Jul 20, 10:27 pm, Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
> clifto <cli...@gmail.com> wrote innews:eb38n4-8v.ln1@remote.clifto.com:
>
>
>
> > Impmon wrote:
> >> <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Shortly after they returned home from the war in Iraq, Sprint
> >>> accused 200 American soldiers of excessive roaming and summarily
> >>> canceled their wireless service. At least, that's the word from
> >>> one of these embattled national heroes.
>
> >> I took a look at that news and I see problem with it. Sprint sent
> >> notices for cancelation the phone service in July. As I understand,
> >> they were redeployed just a month prior to the notice.
>
> >> So how can Sprint be upset about excessive roaming in one month??
> >> For that matter, is it possible for Sprint to see "excessive" pattern
> >> from other carriers in just one month?
>
> > You dismiss that as if it's impossible, so here comes the devil's
> > advocate.
>
> > Joe Grunt signs up for Sprint in Butte, Montana and enlists, goes to
> > boot camp in Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, makes "excessive roaming"
> > calls because more than 50% of his calls are made from an area other
> > than where he signed up; goes to advanced training in Fort Knox,
> > Kentucky, and makes more "excessive roaming" calls because more than
> > 50% of his calls are made from an area other than where he signed up;
> > gets redeployed, then Sprint sends him a notice.
>
> A very possible scenario, but the "facts" in this case are far different:
>
> 1. The soldiers were sent to West Point for a two-month temp assignment,
> which is when their excessive roaming began.
>
> 2. Because the poster said that the cancellation date of July 31st
> mentioned in the letter from Sprint would occur fifteen days before their
> assignment ended, that would put their assignment date somewhere around
> June 15th.
>
> 3. The letters sent out by Sprint were sent in the last couple of days in
> June, or roughly two weeks after all of this "excessive" roaming began.
>
> So Sprint would have two weeks worth of data available at best. And that
> assumes that the roaming provider was providing Sprint with up-to-the-
> minute usage data, which is unlikely. Another fact to consider is that
> Sprint would only have two weeks of data to analyze if they chose the
> customers up for cancellation at the very last second before sending
> letters, which again is unlikely. That means that there was maybe a
> weeks' worth of data available, if any at all.
>
> The scenario is way too illogical. The story is crap.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:27:45 -0500, Scott wrote:

> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in news:eb38n4-8v.ln1@remote.clifto.com:
>
>> Impmon wrote:
>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shortly after they returned home from the war in Iraq, Sprint
>>>> accused 200 American soldiers of excessive roaming and summarily
>>>> canceled their wireless service. At least, that's the word from
>>>> one of these embattled national heroes.
>>>
>>> I took a look at that news and I see problem with it. Sprint sent
>>> notices for cancelation the phone service in July. As I understand,
>>> they were redeployed just a month prior to the notice.
>>>
>>> So how can Sprint be upset about excessive roaming in one month??
>>> For that matter, is it possible for Sprint to see "excessive" pattern
>>> from other carriers in just one month?
>>
>> You dismiss that as if it's impossible, so here comes the devil's
>> advocate.
>>
>> Joe Grunt signs up for Sprint in Butte, Montana and enlists, goes to
>> boot camp in Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, makes "excessive roaming"
>> calls because more than 50% of his calls are made from an area other
>> than where he signed up; goes to advanced training in Fort Knox,
>> Kentucky, and makes more "excessive roaming" calls because more than
>> 50% of his calls are made from an area other than where he signed up;
>> gets redeployed, then Sprint sends him a notice.
>>
>
> A very possible scenario, but the "facts" in this case are far different:
>
> 1. The soldiers were sent to West Point for a two-month temp assignment,
> which is when their excessive roaming began.
>
> 2. Because the poster said that the cancellation date of July 31st
> mentioned in the letter from Sprint would occur fifteen days before their
> assignment ended, that would put their assignment date somewhere around
> June 15th.
>
> 3. The letters sent out by Sprint were sent in the last couple of days in
> June, or roughly two weeks after all of this "excessive" roaming began.
>
> So Sprint would have two weeks worth of data available at best. And that
> assumes that the roaming provider was providing Sprint with up-to-the-
> minute usage data, which is unlikely. Another fact to consider is that
> Sprint would only have two weeks of data to analyze if they chose the
> customers up for cancellation at the very last second before sending
> letters, which again is unlikely. That means that there was maybe a
> weeks' worth of data available, if any at all.
>
> The scenario is way too illogical. The story is crap.

good post yada
--
skype:mranep
cell:813-610-2978; work:813-386-4500; work2:813-915-1663
Motto: Why face the world myself when my wife's skirt, it is so dark and
comfy under it?
Proclamation: "A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels and so on.
However, he
should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the
meat to the people in Nepal; Ok I did so beat me with a Yeti dick.

dafydd <dafydd.ieuans@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1185014340.672613.299540@n2g2000hse.googlegro ups.com:

> I do not know if the original post were true or not, however, I do
> know that there were these excessive roaming letters sent out, and
> that Sprint's intent was that anyone that is serving in the military
> be excluded from getting the letters. However there were many that
> did wind up going to military personnel by mistake. They are making
> an effort to call those affected and let them know that it was a
> mistake, and they should not have received the letters. Any military
> personnel that received the letter and have not been contacted should
> call into the number listed on the letter, and get their name removed
> from the list.
>


Absolutely correct on all counts.


Hey, karl- if you're still lurking, I'm waiting to hear how SPrint is
supposed to determine the military status of subscribers if the customer
doesn't call them to let them know. I noticed that you seem to disappear
when this was thrown out at you.

>
>

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:11:50 -0500, Scott wrote:

> Hey, karl- if you're still lurking, I'm waiting to hear how SPrint is
> supposed to determine the military status of subscribers if the customer
> doesn't call them to let them know. I noticed that you seem to disappear
> when this was thrown out at you.

Hi, blow me,

Karl
--
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/nuckin_futs

WTF!? I was under the impression that roaming is included and that there is
no 50 percent rule. What is the truth?


"clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb38n4-8v.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> Impmon wrote:
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shortly after they returned home from the war in Iraq, Sprint accused
>>> 200 American soldiers of excessive roaming and summarily canceled
>>> their wireless service. At least, that's the word from one of these
>>> embattled national heroes.
>>
>> I took a look at that news and I see problem with it. Sprint sent
>> notices for cancelation the phone service in July. As I understand,
>> they were redeployed just a month prior to the notice.
>>
>> So how can Sprint be upset about excessive roaming in one month?? For
>> that matter, is it possible for Sprint to see "excessive" pattern from
>> other carriers in just one month?
>
> You dismiss that as if it's impossible, so here comes the devil's
> advocate.
>
> Joe Grunt signs up for Sprint in Butte, Montana and enlists, goes to boot
> camp in Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, makes "excessive roaming" calls
> because more than 50% of his calls are made from an area other than where
> he signed up; goes to advanced training in Fort Knox, Kentucky, and makes
> more "excessive roaming" calls because more than 50% of his calls are made
> from an area other than where he signed up; gets redeployed, then Sprint
> sends him a notice.
>
> --
> "Justice Thomas pointed out that the Constitution does not waive the
> rights
> of the individual because an elite has decided its motives are pure."
> -- Paul Greenberg

Qubit <qubit@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:14gpgtq60cren.56sfin1nrgf6$.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:11:50 -0500, Scott wrote:
>
>> Hey, karl- if you're still lurking, I'm waiting to hear how SPrint is
>> supposed to determine the military status of subscribers if the
>> customer doesn't call them to let them know. I noticed that you seem
>> to disappear when this was thrown out at you.
>
> Hi, blow me,
>
> Karl

No thanks- wouldn't want to horn in on your Mom's fun.

Scott wrote:
> So Sprint would have two weeks worth of data available at best. And that
> assumes that the roaming provider was providing Sprint with up-to-the-
> minute usage data, which is unlikely. Another fact to consider is that
> Sprint would only have two weeks of data to analyze if they chose the
> customers up for cancellation at the very last second before sending
> letters, which again is unlikely. That means that there was maybe a
> weeks' worth of data available, if any at all.
>
> The scenario is way too illogical. The story is crap.

Or....a FEW users may have indeed had excessive roaming PRIOR to any
military reassignments and the story panned out as we currently are led to
believe it was related to their transfers.

DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote in
news:9xBoi.27646$2v1.21612@newssvr14.news.prodigy. net:

> Scott wrote:
>> So Sprint would have two weeks worth of data available at best. And
>> that assumes that the roaming provider was providing Sprint with
>> up-to-the- minute usage data, which is unlikely. Another fact to
>> consider is that Sprint would only have two weeks of data to analyze
>> if they chose the customers up for cancellation at the very last
>> second before sending letters, which again is unlikely. That means
>> that there was maybe a weeks' worth of data available, if any at all.
>>
>> The scenario is way too illogical. The story is crap.
>
> Or....a FEW users may have indeed had excessive roaming PRIOR to any
> military reassignments and the story panned out as we currently are
> led to believe it was related to their transfers.
>

The original story was that they used Sprint on it's native network when on
their home base and used cheaper overseas phones (and not Sprint phones)
while on assignment overseas. The original story also mentions that a
great number of them were new users, based on the experience of others.
Old users- you might haver a point. New users- not a chance.