NEWS: NY Agency Wants Sprint to Pay Customers

"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in
news:469602b4$0$20595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

>
>
> 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.


http://nextelonline.nextel.com/en/le...cy_popup.shtml


Our Right To Suspend Or Terminate Services

We can, without notice, suspend or terminate any Service at any time for
any reason, including, but not limited to: (a) late payment; (b)
exceeding an Account Spending Limit (“ASL”); (c) harassing/threatening
our employees or agents; (d) providing false information; (e)
interfering with our operations; (f) using/suspicion of using Services
in any manner restricted by or inconsistent with the Agreement; (g)
breaching the Agreement, including our Policies; (h) providing false,
inaccurate, dated or unverifiable identification or credit information,
or becoming insolvent or bankrupt; (i) modifying a Device from its
manufacturer specifications; or (j) if we believe the action protects
our interests, any customer's interests or our network.


I would point to (c), (e) and (j). Any one of the three applies here
and they all appear in T&C that each customer signs off on when they
start service.

"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in news:46960462$0$24759
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

>
>
> 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.

I wonder what New Yourk's position is going to be if they find out that the
total number of state residents involced is fifteen or less?

>
> 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."
>

So telling them over the phone is better than sending them a letter?

>
>

> 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?

They're a "bad" customer because at that level they are obviously trying to
game the system. Let's be real. There's dozens of web sites out there
sharing techniques:

- how to get the "employee referral" pricing when the only employee you know
is the guy at the Sprint store who is trying to sell you a phone
- how to get the "loyalty discount" when you are a brand-new customer
- direct telephone extensions for the retention department and other
internal groups
- actual discount codes CSR reps can put into their system
- scripts to use to get reps to cave in
- ways to cause problems in order to have something to complain about
- how to get "dropped call" credits by the bushel

and so on and so forth. Every one of them tells you, "Don't give up. Keep
calling until you find the one rep who will give you the credit."

It's not about customers trying to resolve legitimate problems. It's about
scam artists and the sport they have with each other to get the best
pricing. By all accounts, Sprint has mailed 1,000 of these letters. Let's
see, they have 20 million subscribers? That's firing the worst 0.005% of
customers. I have *no* trouble believing they deserved it.

And, on the off chance someone did have a legitimate reason to be calling so
much, they provided a telephone number where you could talk to a real human
being about it. Apparently -- read consumerist.com -- one guy did call in.
They didn't stonewall him; they looked up his record and reversed their
decision.

Mindy Bockstein, the NY agency director, is simply practicing demagoguery
here for her own selfish ends, not too different from that prosecutor in the
unfortunate Duke incident.

Bill Marriott 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?
>
> They're a "bad" customer because at that level they are obviously
> trying to game the system. Let's be real. There's dozens of web sites
> out there sharing techniques:
>
> - how to get the "employee referral" pricing when the only employee
> you know is the guy at the Sprint store who is trying to sell you a
> phone - how to get the "loyalty discount" when you are a brand-new
> customer
> - direct telephone extensions for the retention department and other
> internal groups
> - actual discount codes CSR reps can put into their system
> - scripts to use to get reps to cave in
> - ways to cause problems in order to have something to complain about
> - how to get "dropped call" credits by the bushel
>
> and so on and so forth. Every one of them tells you, "Don't give up.
> Keep calling until you find the one rep who will give you the credit."
>
> It's not about customers trying to resolve legitimate problems. It's
> about scam artists and the sport they have with each other to get the
> best pricing. By all accounts, Sprint has mailed 1,000 of these
> letters. Let's see, they have 20 million subscribers? That's firing
> the worst 0.005% of customers. I have *no* trouble believing they
> deserved it.
> And, on the off chance someone did have a legitimate reason to be
> calling so much, they provided a telephone number where you could
> talk to a real human being about it. Apparently -- read
> consumerist.com -- one guy did call in. They didn't stonewall him;
> they looked up his record and reversed their decision.
>
> Mindy Bockstein, the NY agency director, is simply practicing
> demagoguery here for her own selfish ends, not too different from
> that prosecutor in the unfortunate Duke incident.

All well and good but they could just drop them at the expiration of the
contract. A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
Regardless of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an
unbalance in the contract that should be rectified.

If your point is that cell phone contracts in general should be abolished,
I'm all for that. But we have contracts. And people have plenty of options
for pay-as-you-go or prepaid. The contracts exist because the outlay is on
the carrier's side, subsidizing free RAZRs and (in my personal case) $600
Treos for an end-user cost of $75.

Contracts certainly can be voided in the case of fraud, which is what is
happening in this situation. People badgering the customer service center,
making up sob stories, manufacturing problems until they get every service
credit and discount available.

The relevant section of Sprint's Contract:

>>>>
Our Right To Suspend Or Terminate Services

We can, without notice, suspend or terminate any Service at any time for any
reason, including, but not limited to: (a) late payment; (b) exceeding an
Account Spending Limit (“ASL”); (c) harassing/threatening our employees or
agents; (d) providing false information; (e) interfering with our
operations; (f) using/suspicion of using Services in any manner restricted
by or inconsistent with the Agreement; (g) breaching the Agreement,
including our Policies; (h) providing false, inaccurate, dated or
unverifiable identification or credit information, or becoming insolvent or
bankrupt; (i) modifying a Device from its manufacturer specifications; or
(j) if we believe the action protects our interests, any customer's
interests or our network.
<<<<

If New York's Ms. Bockstein wants to make a stand for the downtrodden
consumer, where is she when Verizon is disconnecting people (and charging
them ETF!) for using their so-called "unlimited" data plan to stream YouTube
videos? Gosh, could it be that Verizon's corporate headquarters is at 140
West St. in Manhatten? Nah. That would just be too transparent, wouldn't it?

"BruceR" <razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:4697f5c3$0$4710$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> All well and good but they could just drop them at the expiration of the
> contract. A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties. Why should
> only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination? Regardless
> of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an unbalance in
> the contract that should be rectified.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:59:32 -1000, "BruceR"
<razrbruce@NOgmailSPAM.com> wrote:

>
>
> Bill Marriott 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?
>>
>> They're a "bad" customer because at that level they are obviously
>> trying to game the system. Let's be real. There's dozens of web sites
>> out there sharing techniques:
>>
>> - how to get the "employee referral" pricing when the only employee
>> you know is the guy at the Sprint store who is trying to sell you a
>> phone - how to get the "loyalty discount" when you are a brand-new
>> customer
>> - direct telephone extensions for the retention department and other
>> internal groups
>> - actual discount codes CSR reps can put into their system
>> - scripts to use to get reps to cave in
>> - ways to cause problems in order to have something to complain about
>> - how to get "dropped call" credits by the bushel
>>
>> and so on and so forth. Every one of them tells you, "Don't give up.
>> Keep calling until you find the one rep who will give you the credit."
>>
>> It's not about customers trying to resolve legitimate problems. It's
>> about scam artists and the sport they have with each other to get the
>> best pricing. By all accounts, Sprint has mailed 1,000 of these
>> letters. Let's see, they have 20 million subscribers? That's firing
>> the worst 0.005% of customers. I have *no* trouble believing they
>> deserved it.
>> And, on the off chance someone did have a legitimate reason to be
>> calling so much, they provided a telephone number where you could
>> talk to a real human being about it. Apparently -- read
>> consumerist.com -- one guy did call in. They didn't stonewall him;
>> they looked up his record and reversed their decision.
>>
>> Mindy Bockstein, the NY agency director, is simply practicing
>> demagoguery here for her own selfish ends, not too different from
>> that prosecutor in the unfortunate Duke incident.
>
>All well and good but they could just drop them at the expiration of the
>contract.

That's just putting something off that should be taken care of now.

>A contract for 2 years is binding on both parties.

It is. What's your point?

>Why should
>only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?

Because that's what the customer agreed to.

>Regardless of the benefits to her carreer in this matter, there is an
>unbalance in the contract that should be rectified.

Perhaps, but that's an entirely separate matter. You don't "rectify"
an existing contract after you've already agreed to it.

--
Paul Miner

In article <os0g93l38u53ghkab65bls47bbkrqsecr6@4ax.com>,
Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:

> >Why should
> >only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
>
> Because that's what the customer agreed to.

Not every contract is legal.

Do the cell phone companies REALLY want their unilateral terms
scrutinized so carefully?

Especially when powerful politicians want to buy votes?

Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. When you get outright hoggy with
your contract, you're inviting something--anything--to happen.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:58:17 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <os0g93l38u53ghkab65bls47bbkrqsecr6@4ax.com>,
> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >Why should
>> >only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
>>
>> Because that's what the customer agreed to.
>
>Not every contract is legal.

I guess the flip side to your logic is that not every contract is
illegal. Who cares, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

--
Paul Miner

Sprint is terminating the contracts of scam artists who are trying to
defraud them by gaming the system. These are the bottom 0.005% of
customers.... abusers who apparently think it's fun to compete with each
other for the most discounts. Fraud is a basis for cancelling a contract
(and worse) whether it's unilateral or not. I'm glad to see them go, as
they're the ones who are making it harder for honest customers with
legitimate gripes.

Just look at the guy in this newsgroup a couple months back whose daughter
clearly dropped her phone in the toilet and was trying to jerk them around
with not paying his bill EVEN WHEN THEY SENT HIM A FREE REPLACEMENT PHONE
and he did NOT have insurance! Some of the people are so pathetic they don't
even realize what they're doing is wrong. Not even when not a single person
in the newsgroup came to his defense. But you know what, I bet not even that
guy got a letter, because you had to call more than 90 TIMES in a six-month
period to get one. That's calling to complain EVERY OTHER DAY.

If your girlfriend was that high-maintenance, you'd dump her in a heartbeat,
engagement ring or not!

As for unilateral, I hope you're not suggesting that you should sit down and
negotiate each contract case-by-case with the teenager at your local Sprint
shop. You agree to "unilateral" contracts every time you use a computer,
install software, buy a video game, register for a web site, watch a DVD or
even visit Disneyland. Unless you're at an higher management level, you
really don't even have the ability to negotiate an employment contract. Sign
what they give you, take it or leave it.

As for Sprint's cell service, it's a standard agreement and you're free to
pick a company that doesn't require a contract or go with someone that
offers the terms you want. For example, Verizon with its $45 "unlimited"
data plan (as long is it's only email and web browsing with no MP3s or
streaming media and under 100MB any given day).

When I got my phone, the Sprint rep took me through the contract and I
clearly understood what I was getting into. Bottom line: I was getting a
$600 smartphone for just $75 in exchange for me promising to pay my bills
and stay with Sprint for 24 months. If you think about it, that's more than
$20/month "invisible" credit on my bill. If I didn't like that I could have
gone with an AT&T GoPhone or any one of a number of other no-contract
alternatives. And look at it this way... if I DID cancel my service before
the time was up, and paid $150, Sprint would still be screwed out of $375
for the phone. That's not even accounting for the cost of acquiring me and
paying for people to answer all the calls I made to customer service trying
to scam discounts.

Sprint zero'd out their balance, gave them 30 days notice, didn't charge an
ETF, and didn't take their thieving butts to court for fraud. All consistent
with a terms of service contract that I think is the fairest of all the
cellular carriers. [Show me a TOS that is better] And if you called in and
had a legitimate reason for the calls you made, they reversed the decision.
I don't see what the fuss is about.

The only hogs here are the greedy crooks who weren't happy with the perks
they already scammed for their plans and had to call "one more time" for the
free ringtones. This will turn out like the woman who "found" the thumb in
her Wendy's chili. Dishonest people who are taking advantage of our innate
distrust of large companies for their personal financial gain.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-0B76A8.19581713072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <os0g93l38u53ghkab65bls47bbkrqsecr6@4ax.com>,
> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >Why should
>> >only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
>>
>> Because that's what the customer agreed to.
>
> Not every contract is legal.
>
> Do the cell phone companies REALLY want their unilateral terms
> scrutinized so carefully?
>
> Especially when powerful politicians want to buy votes?
>
> Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. When you get outright hoggy with
> your contract, you're inviting something--anything--to happen.
>

Way to go bill! It is about time someone said the truth! I work in
cellular sales and it is amazing the lies people tell to get what they want.
My boss told me when I started....80% of customers are liar's! I thought he
was crazy. Now I know he is right. Water damage, um how did that happen?
Come on, these safety systems are to protect businesses.


"Bill Marriott" <wjm@wjm.org> wrote in message
news:xJadnRKLF_0tvAXbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Sprint is terminating the contracts of scam artists who are trying to
> defraud them by gaming the system. These are the bottom 0.005% of
> customers.... abusers who apparently think it's fun to compete with each
> other for the most discounts. Fraud is a basis for cancelling a contract
> (and worse) whether it's unilateral or not. I'm glad to see them go, as
> they're the ones who are making it harder for honest customers with
> legitimate gripes.
>
> Just look at the guy in this newsgroup a couple months back whose daughter
> clearly dropped her phone in the toilet and was trying to jerk them around
> with not paying his bill EVEN WHEN THEY SENT HIM A FREE REPLACEMENT PHONE
> and he did NOT have insurance! Some of the people are so pathetic they
> don't even realize what they're doing is wrong. Not even when not a single
> person in the newsgroup came to his defense. But you know what, I bet not
> even that guy got a letter, because you had to call more than 90 TIMES in
> a six-month period to get one. That's calling to complain EVERY OTHER DAY.
>
> If your girlfriend was that high-maintenance, you'd dump her in a
> heartbeat, engagement ring or not!
>
> As for unilateral, I hope you're not suggesting that you should sit down
> and negotiate each contract case-by-case with the teenager at your local
> Sprint shop. You agree to "unilateral" contracts every time you use a
> computer, install software, buy a video game, register for a web site,
> watch a DVD or even visit Disneyland. Unless you're at an higher
> management level, you really don't even have the ability to negotiate an
> employment contract. Sign what they give you, take it or leave it.
>
> As for Sprint's cell service, it's a standard agreement and you're free to
> pick a company that doesn't require a contract or go with someone that
> offers the terms you want. For example, Verizon with its $45 "unlimited"
> data plan (as long is it's only email and web browsing with no MP3s or
> streaming media and under 100MB any given day).
>
> When I got my phone, the Sprint rep took me through the contract and I
> clearly understood what I was getting into. Bottom line: I was getting a
> $600 smartphone for just $75 in exchange for me promising to pay my bills
> and stay with Sprint for 24 months. If you think about it, that's more
> than $20/month "invisible" credit on my bill. If I didn't like that I
> could have gone with an AT&T GoPhone or any one of a number of other
> no-contract alternatives. And look at it this way... if I DID cancel my
> service before the time was up, and paid $150, Sprint would still be
> screwed out of $375 for the phone. That's not even accounting for the cost
> of acquiring me and paying for people to answer all the calls I made to
> customer service trying to scam discounts.
>
> Sprint zero'd out their balance, gave them 30 days notice, didn't charge
> an ETF, and didn't take their thieving butts to court for fraud. All
> consistent with a terms of service contract that I think is the fairest of
> all the cellular carriers. [Show me a TOS that is better] And if you
> called in and had a legitimate reason for the calls you made, they
> reversed the decision. I don't see what the fuss is about.
>
> The only hogs here are the greedy crooks who weren't happy with the perks
> they already scammed for their plans and had to call "one more time" for
> the free ringtones. This will turn out like the woman who "found" the
> thumb in her Wendy's chili. Dishonest people who are taking advantage of
> our innate distrust of large companies for their personal financial gain.
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-0B76A8.19581713072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
>> In article <os0g93l38u53ghkab65bls47bbkrqsecr6@4ax.com>,
>> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> >Why should
>>> >only one party be laible for a penalty for early termination?
>>>
>>> Because that's what the customer agreed to.
>>
>> Not every contract is legal.
>>
>> Do the cell phone companies REALLY want their unilateral terms
>> scrutinized so carefully?
>>
>> Especially when powerful politicians want to buy votes?
>>
>> Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. When you get outright hoggy with
>> your contract, you're inviting something--anything--to happen.
>>
>
>