NEWS: Sprint boots 200 American patriots for using their phones

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

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.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:55:30 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
<rlf1a3l3ep1v8eqheist2201dlkqb1mtp0@4ax.com>:

>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 ?

No kidding! Can you say "scramble"? ;)

>> John Navas wrote:
>>> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/19/sprint_accuses_soldiers_of_excessive_roaming/>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> [MORE]

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

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:1vq7c35u7kl606vui6hujleg80lrv0p4pu@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:55:30 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
> <rlf1a3l3ep1v8eqheist2201dlkqb1mtp0@4ax.com>:
>
>>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 ?
>
> No kidding! Can you say "scramble"? ;)
>

I'm sorry, Zippy- please point me to the commercially available database of
active US Soldiers that companies like this can bump their subscriber rolls
up against to idrntify the soldiers using their phones. Somebody needs to
inform them- maybe the President should add it to his list of daily
activities.

Or maybe they should take the Navas approach- simply guess enough to get
lucky and get the right answer.