NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

In article <slrnf9be5q.7ts.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> > 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?

Yes, I did.

Good ideas are just good ideas, no matter what.

Paul Miner wrote:
> 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.

They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where was
the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?

In article <4695f669$0$3125$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:

> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where was
> the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?

And what if Sprint actually screwed up their bills so much that such a
level of calling was necessary and prudent?

Shouldn't we as consumers be able, unilaterally, to say to Sprint et
al., "You are a bad business to do business with, you've proven it time
and again, so our contract is null and void"?

Unilateral contracts are a nice concept for the corporation, but if they
push on that they'll get pushed back on. "We can do anything we want,
you just have to pay us money until we tell you you don't have
to"--that's not a contract, that's crazy.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:37:49 -1000, "BruceR"
<razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:

> Paul Miner wrote:

>> 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.
>
>They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
>often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where was
>the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?

I'm not defining bad, but Sprint apparently did. I believe it refers
to someone who costs the company more to carry than they generate in
revenue.

--
Paul Miner

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:57:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <4695f669$0$3125$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
>> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where was
>> the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?
>
>And what if Sprint actually screwed up their bills so much that such a
>level of calling was necessary and prudent?
>
>Shouldn't we as consumers be able, unilaterally, to say to Sprint et
>al., "You are a bad business to do business with, you've proven it time
>and again, so our contract is null and void"?

Of course not. If you want a contract that's written that way, start
your own wireless carrier and offer it.

>Unilateral contracts are a nice concept for the corporation, but if they
>push on that they'll get pushed back on. "We can do anything we want,
>you just have to pay us money until we tell you you don't have
>to"--that's not a contract, that's crazy.

Agreed, but no one was forced to agree to it, were they? That goes for
any of the wireless companies.

--
Paul Miner

Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 05:57:41 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <4695f669$0$3125$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> "BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
>>> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where
>>> was the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?
>>
>> And what if Sprint actually screwed up their bills so much that such
>> a level of calling was necessary and prudent?
>>
>> Shouldn't we as consumers be able, unilaterally, to say to Sprint et
>> al., "You are a bad business to do business with, you've proven it
>> time and again, so our contract is null and void"?
>
> Of course not. If you want a contract that's written that way, start
> your own wireless carrier and offer it.
>
>> Unilateral contracts are a nice concept for the corporation, but if
>> they push on that they'll get pushed back on. "We can do anything
>> we want, you just have to pay us money until we tell you you don't
>> have to"--that's not a contract, that's crazy.
>
> Agreed, but no one was forced to agree to it, were they? That goes for
> any of the wireless companies.

I think that's why the NY Consumer Advocate is getting involved. What
Sprint is doing is not in the contract and customers didn't agree to it
so it's just bullying. Believe me, as a business owner myself I'm all
for keeping government out of my affairs but when a business that is a
public utility takes advantage of a group of customers who have no
voice, that's when a Consumer Advocate should step in to protect those
who have no voice. Remember, judges can take any part of a contract
they feel is unfair and toss it out as "against public policy" and, by
law, any ambiguities are always interpreted against the party who wrote
the contract.

Paul Miner wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:37:49 -1000, "BruceR"
> <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Miner wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
>> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where
>> was the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?
>
> I'm not defining bad, but Sprint apparently did. I believe it refers
> to someone who costs the company more to carry than they generate in
> revenue.

And now it will be up to the AG's and Consumer Advocates to decide if
there definition meets muster.

On the other hand, if I found it necessary to constantly call customer
service to resolve issues, I would probably be thrilled to get a free
early termination so I could hook up with a carrier more to my liking.

I like the idea a previous poster had where a constant caller could be
politely told, "Sir/Ma'am, we just don't seem to be able to satisfy your
needs and expectations so we'd like to offer you the opportunity to
switch to another carrier with no early termination fee."

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]

> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where was
> the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?

It's not.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:4695cf80$0$24432$88260bb3@free.teranews.com:


> Sprint was happy to sign
> them up and never gave them a customer service call limit.

True, but they signed them up expecting to act somewhat close to a normal
industry customer. Nobody would expect a customer that calls 40 times more
than average. More than ten times a day (on average), month after month?
My take is that they are these folks a favor- they are obviously too stupid
to own a cell phone if they need that much help.


> 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.

And costs the business about a dollar a minute. So, I see three options for
Sprint:

1. Continue to take the loss month after month and lose millions of
dollars a month.

2. Keep the customers and simply pass the costs of serving them to every
other subscriber through price increases.

3. Get rid of the dead weight.

Only one of the three options has any benefit to the customer base.


> 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.
>
>

And they still lose money taking the time to explain that.

>
>

"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:4695f669$0$3125
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


>
> They're a "bad" customer just because they call customer service too
> often? I can understand it if they didn't pay their bills but where was
> the limit on calls to CS outlined in the contract up front?
>
>
>

Read the media articles again- they are bad customers because of their
inability to take "no" for an answer. Asking for information off somebody
else's account, continuing to call after being told multiple times that
their issue was resolved, being told that there was nothing more that
Sprint could do for them and their problem... number of calls was simply a
flag and not the sole criteria for cancellation.

It wouldn't surpise me to find that a good number of the customers
cancelled were the type that continually hounded CS for two months of free
service to compensate them for the inconvenience of having to dispute a
$1.29 directory assistance charge or some other ridiculous request.