|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Sprint PCS > November 2005 > Sprint committing outright FRAUD
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Sprint committing outright FRAUD
|
|
| Lyle Walsh 2005-10-18, 11:48 pm |
| Lucky me, I spent so much $$ at SPRINT that they sent me a free phone! So I
called up and ask "what's this?" They say its free, I say no thanks I have
3 phones, 3 lines and 3 family members on plan, don't need another. "Keep
it its free, save it in case one of your phones break". So guess what, they
activated it to a new number and billed me for the number!! So after 15
min going through person after person who can't figure out what to do I get
transferred to "Special Service" which means ignore. I waited 20 min
listening to musac, no answer. So beware free gifts! Sprint is committing
fraud on gullible customers, this is no different than the magazine co that
sends you free magazines and later sends you a bill. Anyone else being
ripped of in this way?
nospamLyleNOSPAM
| |
| Notan 2005-10-18, 11:48 pm |
| Lyle Walsh wrote:
>
> Lucky me, I spent so much $$ at SPRINT that they sent me a free phone! So I
> called up and ask "what's this?" They say its free, I say no thanks I have
> 3 phones, 3 lines and 3 family members on plan, don't need another. "Keep
> it its free, save it in case one of your phones break". So guess what, they
> activated it to a new number and billed me for the number!! So after 15
> min going through person after person who can't figure out what to do I get
> transferred to "Special Service" which means ignore. I waited 20 min
> listening to musac, no answer. So beware free gifts! Sprint is committing
> fraud on gullible customers, this is no different than the magazine co that
> sends you free magazines and later sends you a bill. Anyone else being
> ripped of in this way?
> nospamLyleNOSPAM
And, just like magazines and other products sent through the mail,
without you having asked for them, it's yours to keep, without charge.
Notan
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-18, 11:48 pm |
| Lyle,
Sorry to hear about the "free phone" fraudulent scam they pulled on you.
I also was a victim of fraud but it was different than yours, but
maybe I can help you get your problem resolved. My problem involved the
warranty on the phone for which I paid a monthly charge of $5.00. I
lost my phone in July and called up for my "free" replacement and I was
told there was a $50 deductible even though there was nothing mentioned
in the contract I signed or any documentation that they gave me. They
refused to send me a new phone unless I let them (Lockline) charge my
credit card for $50. If I didn't agree to the charge, I wouldn't get a
new phone and I would still be getting a monthly bill for no phone. I
had no choice but to pay it and fight later which is what I did. It was
a "Catch 22" situation.
I talked to several employees and managers at Sprint and Lockline and
told them that the deductible wasn't mentioned in my contract or any
other documentation that I had received and it isn't legal to charge an
arbitrary fee for a deductible. They said I had agreed to the charge or
they wouldn't have sent it to me, so they weren't giving it back. I
took my contract, bills and documentation to the store where I bought
the phone and asked them to show me where the deductible was mentioned.
They couldn't show me and said that the salesperson probably told me,
and I just have a bad memory! I asked them to show me what the
documentation they hand out looks like and they couldn't show it to me,
because THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT! They did however find a down level copy of
a pamphlet that I never received which was from the previous year. It
mentioned that there was a $35 deductible at that time.
Well to make a long story longer, I finally got some satisfaction and
maybe you can do the same thing I did. I turned them in to the Attorney
General (Eliot Spitzer) of my state (New York) on their web site which
lets you report fraud that has occurred. Within 2 weeks of reporting
it, I received a phone call from a Sprint representative who NOW valued
my service and wanted me to be a satisfied customer. He credited my
account for $50 and I was happy! However they couldn't leave it at
that. They then sent me and Mr. Spitzer a note saying that they gave
me my money back and they were sorry that I was confused by their terms
and conditions. I wasn't confused, they were SCAMMING me! I wonder how
many other people have they taken a deductible from where it isn't
mentioned in their contracts?
So try the Attorney General in your state and see if they have some kind
of fraud reporting system. I wish you luck with these people. They
sure aren't easy to deal with and you and I are only two of the many
horror customer relations stories that surround this company!
Steve Henderson
Lyle Walsh wrote:
> Lucky me, I spent so much $$ at SPRINT that they sent me a free phone! So I
> called up and ask "what's this?" They say its free, I say no thanks I have
> 3 phones, 3 lines and 3 family members on plan, don't need another. "Keep
> it its free, save it in case one of your phones break". So guess what, they
> activated it to a new number and billed me for the number!! So after 15
> min going through person after person who can't figure out what to do I get
> transferred to "Special Service" which means ignore. I waited 20 min
> listening to musac, no answer. So beware free gifts! Sprint is committing
> fraud on gullible customers, this is no different than the magazine co that
> sends you free magazines and later sends you a bill. Anyone else being
> ripped of in this way?
> nospamLyleNOSPAM
>
>
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-18, 11:48 pm |
| In article <0mh5f.3570$h25.3085@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,=20
SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
> I=20
> lost my phone in July and called up for my "free" replacement and I was=
=20
> told there was a $50 deductible even though there was nothing mentioned=
=20
> in the contract I signed or any documentation that they gave me.=20
>=20
I'm glad your situation was solved, but you're wrong nonetheless. ERP=20
(Equipment Replacement Plan) has *always* had a deductible payment on=20
it. It's mentioned in the pamphlet, it's mentioned on the website, and=20
it always has been.
The only "nothing" involved is that nothing promises a free phone under=20
ERP.
It was a business decision, not a factual one, that got your money back.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| The Eggman 2005-10-19, 2:48 am |
| that's why i never get the ERP....all the money you put into it and they
still want more money from you....and the funny thing is, it only costs them
like 10 bucks to actually make the phone...it's not like they can't give you
a phone....and it wouldn't kill them to actually treat a customer like gold.
For me, if I lose my phone....I'll just go to ebay and buy another one for a
lot cheaper. I'm very careful about my phones...never lost one ever....but
i'll be damned if i ever pay for ERP that really doesn't work.
"O/Siris" <rØbjvargas@comcâst.nêt> wrote in message
news:MPG. 1dbf69198a314e9d9897
74@newsgroups.comcast.net...
In article <0mh5f.3570$h25.3085@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
> I
> lost my phone in July and called up for my "free" replacement and I was
> told there was a $50 deductible even though there was nothing mentioned
> in the contract I signed or any documentation that they gave me.
>
I'm glad your situation was solved, but you're wrong nonetheless. ERP
(Equipment Replacement Plan) has *always* had a deductible payment on
it. It's mentioned in the pamphlet, it's mentioned on the website, and
it always has been.
The only "nothing" involved is that nothing promises a free phone under
ERP.
It was a business decision, not a factual one, that got your money back.
--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| Central 2005-10-19, 2:48 am |
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:31:40 +0000, Steve Henderson wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Lyle,
>
> Sorry to hear about the "free phone" fraudulent scam they pulled on you.
> I also was a victim of fraud but it was different than yours, but
> maybe I can help you get your problem resolved. My problem involved the
> warranty on the phone for which I paid a monthly charge of $5.00. I
> lost my phone in July and called up for my "free" replacement and I was
> told there was a $50 deductible even though there was nothing mentioned
> in the contract I signed or any documentation that they gave me. They
> refused to send me a new phone unless I let them (Lockline) charge my
> credit card for $50. If I didn't agree to the charge, I wouldn't get a
> new phone and I would still be getting a monthly bill for no phone. I
> had no choice but to pay it and fight later which is what I did. It was
> a "Catch 22" situation.
>
> I talked to several employees and managers at Sprint and Lockline and
> told them that the deductible wasn't mentioned in my contract or any
> other documentation that I had received and it isn't legal to charge an
> arbitrary fee for a deductible. They said I had agreed to the charge or
> they wouldn't have sent it to me, so they weren't giving it back. I
> took my contract, bills and documentation to the store where I bought
> the phone and asked them to show me where the deductible was mentioned.
> They couldn't show me and said that the salesperson probably told me,
> and I just have a bad memory! I asked them to show me what the
> documentation they hand out looks like and they couldn't show it to me,
> because THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT! They did however find a down level copy of
> a pamphlet that I never received which was from the previous year. It
> mentioned that there was a $35 deductible at that time.
>
> Well to make a long story longer, I finally got some satisfaction and
> maybe you can do the same thing I did. I turned them in to the Attorney
> General (Eliot Spitzer) of my state (New York) on their web site which
> lets you report fraud that has occurred. Within 2 weeks of reporting
> it, I received a phone call from a Sprint representative who NOW valued
> my service and wanted me to be a satisfied customer. He credited my
> account for $50 and I was happy! However they couldn't leave it at
> that. They then sent me and Mr. Spitzer a note saying that they gave
> me my money back and they were sorry that I was confused by their terms
> and conditions. I wasn't confused, they were SCAMMING me! I wonder how
> many other people have they taken a deductible from where it isn't
> mentioned in their contracts?
>
> So try the Attorney General in your state and see if they have some kind
> of fraud reporting system. I wish you luck with these people. They
> sure aren't easy to deal with and you and I are only two of the many
> horror customer relations stories that surround this company!
>
> Steve Henderson
>
> Lyle Walsh wrote:
I used to have the additional insurance, signed up for it around 3yrs ago.
Not only did they make it clear that there was a deductible but also last
year sprintpcs sent me not only one BUT two letters including the
explanation of both the monthly rate increase and the deductible increase.
Within one of the letters there was the new contract which explained the
new terms along with a cheat-sheet version that pointed out the major
points of the changes. In both letters there was an opt-out procedure that
explained if you didn't agree with the new terms you have until x date (I
think it was jan 2005) to cancel, otherwise they will raise the rate and
assume you agree with the new contract. Either way the documentation was
not only available to me through my mailings but also both lockline and
sprintpcs could refer me to the contract agreements if I asked. I have no
idea why your specific case turned up such hollow/empty documentation
trail but from my experience sprintpcs made it clear that the insurance
was not a "get a free phone" handout.
In any case as O/Siris already pointed out it was not fraud that got your
money back but the fact that it is a better business decision to eat
50dollars then to deal with a state review board.
| |
| DecTxCowboy 2005-10-19, 2:48 am |
| Lyle Walsh wrote:
"...in case one of your phones break..."
That seems to be a new angle in a sales pitch. Called CS about another
matter and guy said I qualified for a free phone. Told him I would up
grade later. He said, no its a free phone for a third add on line "in
case one of your phones break".
What does an additional line cost? $10 or so? $15? Kind of high
"insurance plan".
| |
| Central 2005-10-19, 2:48 am |
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:00:00 +0000, The Eggman wrote:
> that's why i never get the ERP....all the money you put into it and they
> still want more money from you....and the funny thing is, it only costs them
> like 10 bucks to actually make the phone...it's not like they can't give you
> a phone....and it wouldn't kill them to actually treat a customer like gold.
> For me, if I lose my phone....I'll just go to ebay and buy another one for a
> lot cheaper. I'm very careful about my phones...never lost one ever....but
> i'll be damned if i ever pay for ERP that really doesn't work.
I do agree with you that the insurance plan is for suckers, unless of
course it is a 600dollar pda phone then that 5dollars a month addon is not
so bad. It has been awhile since I had to deal with the ERP but if I
recall you had to add it on to pda phones at time of purchase and it was
limited time wise/had heavy conditions on it. With this in mind it makes
my last statement mute.
We should try and be realistic giving every subscriber a new phone WOULD
kill them. When you count in all the fraud that happens now it would not
amaze me for it to sky rocket if all phones were free. After all
subscribers would go as far as microwaving their phones because they had
to get a new one before the warranty ran out. It would be nice but I guess
we all just have to accept they are in business to make money off of us :(
| |
| Kyler Laird 2005-10-19, 2:48 am |
| Steve Henderson < SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com> writes:
>I wonder how
>many other people have they taken a deductible from where it isn't
>mentioned in their contracts?
Count me...twice. Heck, they wouldn't even take my deductible the
last time my phone crapped out on me because I didn't (yet) physically
damage it.
--kyler
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-10-19, 2:48 am |
| Central wrote:
> I do agree with you that the insurance plan is for suckers, unless of
> course it is a 600dollar pda phone then that 5dollars a month addon is not
> so bad. It has been awhile since I had to deal with the ERP but if I
> recall you had to add it on to pda phones at time of purchase and it was
> limited time wise/had heavy conditions on it. With this in mind it makes
> my last statement mute.
My personal policy, regardless of carrier, has been to use the
carrier-provided insurance when I buy a phone, for the first twelve months.
It's not worth it for a phone any older than a year, IMHO.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Paul Miner 2005-10-19, 2:48 am |
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:00:00 GMT, "The Eggman" <zeux6@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>that's why i never get the ERP....all the money you put into it and they
>still want more money from you....and the funny thing is, it only costs them
>like 10 bucks to actually make the phone...it's not like they can't give you
>a phone....and it wouldn't kill them to actually treat a customer like gold.
Ahh, yes, the old "it only costs them like 10 bucks to actually make
the phone" argument, but as always, no facts to back up this
one-size-fits-all claim.
BTW, Sprint doesn't make phones, they buy them.
--
Paul Miner
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2005-10-19, 2:48 am |
| Sprint would never committ Fraud. That would be illegal!
| |
| Central 2005-10-19, 5:48 am |
| On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:27:42 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
> Central wrote:
>
> My personal policy, regardless of carrier, has been to use the
> carrier-provided insurance when I buy a phone, for the first twelve months.
> It's not worth it for a phone any older than a year, IMHO.
Yeah for the first 12 months it is not worth it since just about all
phones come with a 1yr limited warranty. This is why they have limited
time periods that you can utilize the ERP with. Tho the way I have been
going with my phone, cracked, ant missing, etc... a 50 dollar deductible
doesn't seem too bad when compared to the 1yr-2yr forced agreements for
the new for you setups. Still glad I canceled the policy it was a waste of
money and could have bought me a new phone by now.
Have to love sprintpcs marketing ploy when it comes to those free phone
deals, "Here we will give you 150dollars off this phone and you only have
to guarantee to pay us either 600+ over the next two years or 150 etf
before that.", guess it is not so bad if you were going to pay it anyway.
| |
| Central 2005-10-19, 5:48 am |
| On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:59:28 -0700, Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Sprint would never committ Fraud. That would be illegal!
Yeah all they do is let accidents happen through lack of action on their
part which ends up screwing the consumer. Neither of which is directly
their fault because they took no action to prevent or to participate in
actions that would cause fraud on the consumer. So the lesson learned here
today is that if you wish to screw someone balance it out so they get
screwed by themselves based on inaction from yourself.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-10-19, 5:48 pm |
| Central wrote:
> Yeah for the first 12 months it is not worth it since just about all
> phones come with a 1yr limited warranty.
And if you're a klutz like me, you're likely to do something to the phone
like drop and break it. That's not covered by the warranty. :D
It's worth it FOR ME to insure the phone within the first 12 months of
active use. (Although I have to admit my current phone was bought new, is
only a few months old and ISN'T insured, and it's forcing me to be extra
careful.) :)
> Have to love sprintpcs marketing ploy when it comes to those free phone
> deals, "Here we will give you 150dollars off this phone and you only have
> to guarantee to pay us either 600+ over the next two years or 150 etf
> before that.",
Where have you been? Everyone does that. T-Mobile's the least bad in that
regard; they only ever do 1-year contracts (never 2). Plus I just found out
that if I trade in my current phone they'll give me a new phone at the
subsidized price without a contract extension. But they're the only carrier
that does that at all...
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Tinman 2005-10-19, 5:48 pm |
| Central wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:00:00 +0000, The Eggman wrote:
>
Note to Walrus... err, Eggman: the phones cost Sprint, which doesn't
make any of them, quite a bit more than $10.00.
[color=darkred]
>
> I do agree with you that the insurance plan is for suckers, unless of
> course it is a 600dollar pda phone then that 5dollars a month addon
> is not so bad. It has been awhile since I had to deal with the ERP
> but if I
> recall you had to add it on to pda phones at time of purchase and it
> was limited time wise/had heavy conditions on it. With this in mind
> it makes
> my last statement mute.
>
I just bought a Treo 650 (love it so far) and was told I had 30 days to
add the protection plan. I normally don't even consider it. But I've
noticed a big difference between my old phones and the Treo PDA/phone: I
used to drop my old phones at least once a day without issue (phone gets
knocked from holster, etc.). I've never allowed that to happen with my
PDAs, ergo my new Treo. I might just call and add that insurance to be
on the safe side.
> We should try and be realistic giving every subscriber a new phone
> WOULD kill them. When you count in all the fraud that happens now it
> would not amaze me for it to sky rocket if all phones were free.
I was told that having to sign-up within 30 days was indeed due to too
much (et least perceived) fraud. Someone kills their phone, signs up the
next day for the ERP, and presto for $50 and change they have a
replacement.
It has ALWAYS been my understanding that the ERPs came with a
deductible. So does the extended warranties on my motorcycle and cars. I
agree that SPCS just gave this guy the money as it was the path of least
resistance. He certainly didn't deserve it, and probably spent more time
on getting his deductible "back" -- in time -- than the $50 was worth.
(Now comes the, "it was the principle that mattered!" reply from the
OP.)
--
Mike | As the light changed from red to green to yellow
| and back to red again, I sat there thinking about
| life. Was it nothing more than a bunch of honking
| and yelling? Sometimes it seemed that way.
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-19, 11:48 pm |
|
O/Siris wrote:
> In article <0mh5f.3570$h25.3085@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
> SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
>
>
>
> I'm glad your situation was solved, but you're wrong nonetheless. ERP
> (Equipment Replacement Plan) has *always* had a deductible payment on
> it. It's mentioned in the pamphlet, it's mentioned on the website, and
> it always has been.
I am NOT wrong. It was never mentioned in my contract, which is the
legally binding document that the Sprint representative and I signed.
There was no mention to check their website for further details or check
a pamphlet which they never gave me and which they didn't even stock in
the store. As a consumer, I am not responsible for searching their
website for information. I might not even have had Internet access as
far as they knew.
I have homeowners insurance, car insurance and health insurance and the
deductibles for each are specifically mentioned in the contracts.
If Sprint/Lockline was right, they wouldn't have given in to the
Attorney General's office.
The bottom line is; if something isn't mentioned in the signed contract,
then it isn't enforceable or legal! That's why they have contracts; to
take out the guesswork.
> It was a business decision, not a factual one, that got your money back.
>
If it had been a business decision to give it back, they would have done
that back in July when I made my many calls to them. It was a decision
by Sprint not to be charged with fraud which the Attorney General of New
York was doing. Do you think the Attorney General's office would have
wasted their time if I didn't have a legal case? I sent them a copy of
the contract and the facts. They must have thought that I had a case
because they pursued it for me and I prevailed.
Steve Henderson
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-19, 11:48 pm |
| In article <QEi5f.3361$%L.992@trndny09>, zeux6@hotmail.com says...
> and the funny thing is, it only costs them=20
> like 10 bucks to actually make the phone...it's not like they can't give =
you=20
> a phone....and it wouldn't kill them to actually treat a customer like go=
ld.=20
>=20
You're wrong. First, because it does *not* cost "10 bucks to actually=20
make the phone." Sprint isn't a manufacturer of phones, either, so even=20
if you find any real proof of this claim (and you won't), Sprint isn't=20
the one selling a $10 piece of equipment for $300. If Sprint is selling=20
it for $300, Sprint paid $250 to get it. Actually more. The margins on=20
the phones *before the rebate* are paper thin.
Secondly, because of that, yes it *would* kill them to treat a customer=20
"like gold" in the manner you expect.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-19, 11:48 pm |
| In article <q6z5f.4448$h25.3023@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,=20
SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
> I am NOT wrong. It was never mentioned in my contract, which is the=20
> legally binding document that the Sprint representative and I signed.=20
>=20
That document covers the service for which you signed up for two years. =20
Not add-ons that had nothing to do with the 2-year agreement.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-19, 11:48 pm |
| In article <q6z5f.4448$h25.3023@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,=20
SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
> If it had been a business decision to give it back, they would have done=
=20
> that back in July when I made my many calls to them.=20
>=20
No. A floor rep doesn't have the authority to credit back that=20
deductible.
No one has a crystal ball into what happened that day in the store. But=20
I know how many different places that deductible is cited, and I know=20
that, truly, there is NOTHING that promises a customer a free phone via=20
ERP.
It wasn't worth the $50 to have a fight through the attorney-general. =20
But, to be quite blunt about it, I don't believe that things happened in=20
the manner you claim.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org 2005-10-20, 2:48 am |
| Steve Henderson wrote:
> Lyle,
>
> Sorry to hear about the "free phone" fraudulent scam they pulled on you.
> I also was a victim of fraud but it was different than yours, but maybe
> I can help you get your problem resolved. My problem involved the
> warranty on the phone for which I paid a monthly charge of $5.00. I
> lost my phone in July and called up for my "free" replacement and I was
> told there was a $50 deductible even though there was nothing mentioned
> in the contract I signed or any documentation that they gave me.
You must have received some seriously weird documentation. The $10
(warranty replacement) and $50 (non-warranty replacement) deductibles
were clearly disclosed when I purchased my phone with the equipment
replacement option.
| |
| Central 2005-10-20, 5:48 am |
| On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:52:57 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
<snip>
>
> Where have you been? Everyone does that. T-Mobile's the least bad in that
> regard; they only ever do 1-year contracts (never 2). Plus I just found out
> that if I trade in my current phone they'll give me a new phone at the
> subsidized price without a contract extension. But they're the only carrier
> that does that at all...
I did not say they were the only ones. This is after all a topic about
Sprintpcs and their practices not T-Mobile or Verizon. Breaking down each
company's marketing ploys followed by a compare/contrast discussion would
be best done in a completely different topic.
| |
| Bob Smith 2005-10-20, 5:48 pm |
|
"Lyle Walsh" < walshlgNOSPAM@knolog
yNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:4c369$435574c0$
18d6b322$29457@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Lucky me, I spent so much $$ at SPRINT that they sent me a free phone! So
> I called up and ask "what's this?" They say its free, I say no thanks I
> have 3 phones, 3 lines and 3 family members on plan, don't need another.
> "Keep it its free, save it in case one of your phones break". So guess
> what, they activated it to a new number and billed me for the number!!
> So after 15 min going through person after person who can't figure out
> what to do I get transferred to "Special Service" which means ignore. I
> waited 20 min listening to musac, no answer. So beware free gifts! Sprint
> is committing fraud on gullible customers, this is no different than the
> magazine co that sends you free magazines and later sends you a bill.
> Anyone else being ripped of in this way?
> nospamLyleNOSPAM
I find this thread very curious, as I've never heard of SPCS sending out a
new phone out to a customer, when one was not ordered and that's going back
to 1998. Has anyone else here received a new phone from SPCS, just out of
the blue, with no prior correspondence or conversations with SPCS personnel?
Bob
| |
|
| >My problem involved the warranty on the phone for which I paid a monthly charge of >$5.00.
Cellular "Insurance" is always a scam.
It costs $60 per year + a $50 deductible to receive an often times ...
used phone as a replacement. They can even give you a different phone
as a replacement (read the fine print).
All of the accessories that you purchased for your phone which would be
useless would then be a complete loss possibly in excess of the
replacement phone value.
Or $170 over two years to get a new "used" phone.
After two years you are probably ready for a new phone anyway.
Lockline makes money hand over fist on these plans.
It's better to just set aside $10 per month in a cookie jar for an "new
phone" fund, protect your phone as much as possible, and take the money
out of the cookie jar should something bad happen and garantee yourself
a brand new phone of your choosing.
Yes, if something happened within 3 months it would be real nasty, but
so would getting a flat tire on the 110 freeway during rush hour. S**t
happens.
If you are betting that you are going to lose it in the first 6 months,
but all means get "the insurance".
If you think you have a 90%+ chance of making it past that, I would do
the cookie jar thing.
"Extended warranty, how can I lose?" - Homer Simpson upon completing a
"stupidification" procedure
| |
|
| >It wasn't worth the $50 to have a fight through the attorney-general.
>But, to be quite blunt about it, I don't believe that things happened in
>the manner you claim.
Don't feel bad. To be quite blunt about it, he doesn't believe that
anything happens the way a customer says it does if the experience was
negative with Sprint.
He told me that I had a "share" of the blame for being transferred to a
busy signal or dropped 13 times last week.
Apparently I demanded to be hung up on. That's his official position,
and he is sticking to it.
O/Siris is the Sprint spin guy.
If you want to see what the majority really thinks, look at the JD
Power survey's and other surveys that consistently rank Sprint PCS last
in Customer Service.
What the survey's fail to mention, however, is that all of the
problem's are the customers fault.
Those danged pollsters. Someone should sue them for libel and slander.
| |
| John Richards 2005-10-20, 5:48 pm |
| "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message news:dj5lh2$e2j$2@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
> T-Mobile's the least bad in that
> regard; they only ever do 1-year contracts (never 2). Plus I just found out
> that if I trade in my current phone they'll give me a new phone at the
> subsidized price without a contract extension. But they're the only carrier
> that does that at all...
Not sure if the deal you were offered is a new thing, but my daughter
who has been a T-Mobile customer for four years was only offered a $50
rebate towards a recent handset upgrade (Motorola Razr). That doesn't
compare favorably with the $150 handset upgrade rebate I get from Sprint.
--
John Richards
| |
| John Richards 2005-10-20, 5:48 pm |
| "Tinman" < mlynch@REMOVEMEcitli
nk.net> wrote in message news:3rn643Fk9rvpU1@
individual.net...
> I just bought a Treo 650 (love it so far) and was told I had 30 days to
> add the protection plan. I normally don't even consider it. But I've
> noticed a big difference between my old phones and the Treo PDA/phone: I
> used to drop my old phones at least once a day without issue (phone gets
> knocked from holster, etc.).
I tried a holster for a while, but either the phone gets knocked out
while entering/exiting a car, or else it stabs me in the ribs during
that maneuver. My current phone is small enough to fit in a pants
pocket, but that wouldn't work for a Treo 650. Sometimes I envy
my wife's purse (no snide remarks, please).
--
John Richards
| |
| John Richards 2005-10-20, 5:48 pm |
| "Bob Smith" < usirsclt_No_Spamola_
@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:TYL5f.16800$vw6.15525@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I find this thread very curious, as I've never heard of SPCS sending out a
> new phone out to a customer, when one was not ordered and that's going back
> to 1998. Has anyone else here received a new phone from SPCS, just out of
> the blue, with no prior correspondence or conversations with SPCS personnel?
No, I've never heard of Sprint pulling a stunt like that, and I've been
following this newsgroup for quite a few years.
--
John Richards
| |
| Tinman 2005-10-20, 5:48 pm |
| John Richards wrote:
> "Tinman" < mlynch@REMOVEMEcitli
nk.net> wrote in message
> news:3rn643Fk9rvpU1@
individual.net...
>
> I tried a holster for a while, but either the phone gets knocked out
> while entering/exiting a car, or else it stabs me in the ribs during
> that maneuver. My current phone is small enough to fit in a pants
> pocket,
Yep, I'm not a big fan of holsters myself. So last year when I bought my
Sanyo 8200 I went with a perfect-fitting pouch-style belt-case. When its
swivel-clip broke I could no longer find that case in stock. So I ended
up with a holster for the last month or two. Before the holster, not a
single scratch. Two-weeks into the holster, scratches galore.
I thought about keeping it a pants pocket. But between keys, Leatherman,
coins, etc., etc., there was just no room.
> but that wouldn't work for a Treo 650. Sometimes I envy
> my wife's purse (no snide remarks, please).
From me? Never! I mean, if you want to carry a man-bag I'm OK with it.
Heck, go all out and get a murse.
Seriously though, the full-to-the-brim front pockets, belt-clipped Treo,
and wallet in the back pocket is really a PITA (pun intended). Still, I
just won't do the "man-bag" thing and the ever-popular backpack is a bit
of an overkill (even though I do travel by motorcycle 90% of the time).
--
Mike | Last words of Thomas Grasso, executed in 1995:
| "I did not get my Spaghetti-O's, I got spaghetti.
| I want the press to know this."
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-20, 11:48 pm |
|
O/Siris wrote:
> In article <q6z5f.4448$h25.3023@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
> SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
>
>
>
> That document covers the service for which you signed up for two years.
> Not add-ons that had nothing to do with the 2-year agreement.
You are wrong again! The contract I signed, specifically mentioned the
add-ons such as text messaging charges, insurance/extended warranty
charges, etc. Once again, that is what contracts are for. Maybe my
contract is different from the one you signed.
Steve Henderson
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-20, 11:48 pm |
|
O/Siris wrote:
> In article <q6z5f.4448$h25.3023@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
> SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
>
>
>
> No. A floor rep doesn't have the authority to credit back that
> deductible.
That may be true, however I also talked to managers at Sprint and
Lockline and they DO have (or should have) the capability to return my
money when they are wrong or when just want to keep a customer satisfied
or avoid a fight.
>
> No one has a crystal ball into what happened that day in the store. But
> I know how many different places that deductible is cited, and I know
> that, truly, there is NOTHING that promises a customer a free phone via
> ERP.
That deductible may be mentioned in many places, however if it isn't in
the contract, or referenced in another document in the contract, then it
is NOT legally binding, as the Attorney General of New York's office
agreed with me. Do you know more than they do? Are you an attorney, a
Sprint representative or just somebody shooting off their mouth without
knowing the laws? If you are an attorney and you are making these
ignorant statements, you need to go back and study your contractual law.
If you are a Sprint representative, you need to spend more time
keeping your customers happy rather than arguing with them and forcing
them to leave in droves to your competitors. If you are just shooting
off your mouth, please save your weak arguments because they hold no
merit. Check your contract. Mine mentions only the monthly fee, NOT a
deductible. Does yours mention a deductible?
>
> It wasn't worth the $50 to have a fight through the attorney-general.
> But, to be quite blunt about it, I don't believe that things happened in
> the manner you claim.
>
So if "it isn't worth the $50 to have a fight through the attorney
general", then all of the people here that have fraud complaints should
do exactly as I did, since that seems to be the only way they settle
with their unsatisfied customers. I made it very clear to the Sprint
reps and managers what my plans were in advance. I told them the
following: 1) I was going to make my appeal to Sprint and Lockline Reps
and managers, seeking a peaceful resolution of the problem. 2) I was
going to contest the charge on my credit card. (I lost that contest
because Lockline told them that I agreed to the $50 charge before they
would send me the phone. This was the Catch 22 situation I mentioned in
my first post.) 3) I was going to charge them with fraud with the New
York Attorney General. 4) I was going to take them to small claims
court and sue them. They knew from the beginning that there was going
to be a fight, so if they wanted to avoid one, they would have returned
my money in the first place. It wasn't the $50 they were concerned
with, it was the fraud charge.
I won, they lost, end of story!
Steve Henderson
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-20, 11:48 pm |
| In article <1129822895.311061.68970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,=20
please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com says...
> Don't feel bad. To be quite blunt about it, he doesn't believe that
> anything happens the way a customer says it does if the experience was
> negative with Sprint.
>=20
For such a prolific liar, you sure aren't very good at it.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-20, 11:48 pm |
| In article <CjV5f.7519$h25.3608@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,=20
SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
> That deductible may be mentioned in many places, however if it isn't in=
=20
> the contract, or referenced in another document in the contract, then it=
=20
> is NOT legally binding, as the Attorney General of New York's office=20
> agreed with me. Do you know more than they do? Are you an attorney, a=
=20
> Sprint representative or just somebody shooting off their mouth without=
=20
> knowing the laws? If you are an attorney and you are making these=20
> ignorant statements, you need to go back and study your contractual law.=
=20
> If you are a Sprint representative, you need to spend more time=20
> keeping your customers happy rather than arguing with them and forcing=20
> them to leave in droves to your competitors. If you are just shooting=20
> off your mouth, please save your weak arguments because they hold no=20
> merit. Check your contract. Mine mentions only the monthly fee, NOT a=
=20
> deductible. Does yours mention a deductible?
>=20
What it mentions is to ask the Sprint salesman and to investigate=20
attached documentation, which *included* the ERP brochure, and which I=20
didn't have handed to me because I refused ERP.
And my status as a Sprint rep is irrelevant. Even if I am, I'm on my=20
time here, not company time. I've made no claim to you that I am=20
speaking for Sprint, and I know that reps have no authority to do so on=20
forums such as this newsgroup.
You have utterly no idea what affect my presence has on customers, and=20
your sad attempt at sarcasm says more about you than about me.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-20, 11:48 pm |
| In article <1129822243.025210.43430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,=20
please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com says...
> Cellular "Insurance" is always a scam.
>=20
I disagree that it's a scam, but agree that it really isn't always=20
ideal.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-20, 11:48 pm |
| In article <TYL5f.16800$vw6.15525@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,=20
usirsclt_No_Spamola_
@earthlink.net says...
> I find this thread very curious, as I've never heard of SPCS sending out =
a=20
> new phone out to a customer, when one was not ordered and that's going ba=
ck=20
> to 1998. Has anyone else here received a new phone from SPCS, just out of=
=20
> the blue, with no prior correspondence or conversations with SPCS personn=
el?
>=20
Unfortunately, I have. A rep on our floor did it, and was fired before=20
the week was up. If a rep sells enough of these, it adds to their=20
bonus. A rep doing this under false pretenses is committing fraud=20
against Sprint, and there *have* been prosecutions, even before my call=20
center closed up (though not *at* that call center, so far as I was=20
aware).
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-20, 11:48 pm |
|
O/Siris wrote:
> In article <CjV5f.7519$h25.3608@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
> SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
>
>
>
> What it mentions is to ask the Sprint salesman and to investigate
> attached documentation, which *included* the ERP brochure, and which I
> didn't have handed to me because I refused ERP.
My contract never mentioned anything like that. I signed up in late
January of this year. Maybe they have amended the contract since this
time, but mine doesn't mention it. Ask the New York Attorney General of
New York! I sent him a copy of the contract.
>
> And my status as a Sprint rep is irrelevant. Even if I am, I'm on my
> time here, not company time. I've made no claim to you that I am
> speaking for Sprint, and I know that reps have no authority to do so on
> forums such as this newsgroup.
I think the above statement answers my question. You ARE a Sprint rep!
What a surprise, since you are the only person I've seen here
defending Sprint's lackluster customer service. Instead of arguing with
all of us CUSTOMERS (key word here), you should be attempting to satisfy
our legitimate complaints.
>
> You have utterly no idea what affect my presence has on customers, and
> your sad attempt at sarcasm says more about you than about me.
>
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I was just stating facts, just like the
other dissatisfied customers in this group. If I was the CEO or top
level management of Sprint, I would be appalled at what I read here and
would take immediate actions to have my employees rectify the many
complaints BEFORE they reach this level of public exposure. It is an
embarrassment to Sprint and I'm sure it is not only driving away current
customers, such as myself, but it is also a deterrent to any person
looking for a cell phone company in the future.
Steve Henderson
| |
| Central 2005-10-21, 5:48 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:50:07 +0000, Steve Henderson wrote:
<snip>
>
> My contract never mentioned anything like that. I signed up in late
> January of this year. Maybe they have amended the contract since this
> time, but mine doesn't mention it. Ask the New York Attorney General of
> New York! I sent him a copy of the contract.
>
> I think the above statement answers my question. You ARE a Sprint rep!
> What a surprise, since you are the only person I've seen here
> defending Sprint's lackluster customer service. Instead of arguing with
> all of us CUSTOMERS (key word here), you should be attempting to satisfy
> our legitimate complaints.
>
>
> I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I was just stating facts, just like the
> other dissatisfied customers in this group. If I was the CEO or top
> level management of Sprint, I would be appalled at what I read here and
> would take immediate actions to have my employees rectify the many
> complaints BEFORE they reach this level of public exposure. It is an
> embarrassment to Sprint and I'm sure it is not only driving away current
> customers, such as myself, but it is also a deterrent to any person
> looking for a cell phone company in the future.
>
> Steve Henderson
I'm curious did this contract say they have to give you a new phone? Since
this sounds like your advantage agreement, which is between you and
sprintpcs, and not your ERP contract, which is between you and lockline,
then it should have made no mention of add-ons or services beyond that of
your initial plan. In that case according to it sprintpcs owes you nothing
which I'm sure the nice people in NY could confirm.
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-21, 5:48 pm |
|
rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHL
EEZschnapp.org wrote:
> Steve Henderson wrote:
>
> You must have received some seriously weird documentation. The $10
> (warranty replacement) and $50 (non-warranty replacement) deductibles
> were clearly disclosed when I purchased my phone with the equipment
> replacement option.
Weird documentation, or weird promises verbally. But he's apparently
not interested in any discussion that questions what happened.
| |
|
| >I disagree that it's a scam, but agree that it really isn't always
>ideal.
Well, when the fine print says that they can give you a completely
different refurbished phones, it seems like one needs to buy
"insurance" for the "insurance" in the event they have to buy
completely new accessories.
And they pushed that "insurance" on me when I ordered a phone via
telesales recently. I asked about the details, they said "If you lose
your phone, we will replace it without cost".
That's all they said. No deductibe, no "refurb", no "different phone".
Just "If you lose you phone, we will replace it without cost."
I guess they don't consider $50 "a cost".
Maybe the phone would have arrived with a contract that contained all
the fine print, but I obviously declined (even though they HIGHLY
recommended the "Equipment Replacement Program" ... after all, it's
only $5 a month). With the enthusiasm I'm guessing they get some kind
of incentive for selling it, but I can't be sure.
They were hardly what I would call upfront regarding the dedictible, or
anything else besides the fact that they replaced the phone without
cost.
Some people would call that a scam. I guess it depends on how you
define the word. Some people would call it simple incompetence.
$110 for the first year for a possible refurb of a different model
doesn't sound too terribly appealing.
But to each his/her own.
| |
|
| >For such a prolific liar, you sure aren't very good at it.
Criticizing Sprint (or Rob) = prolific lying
Sure, Rob.
We believe you.
| |
|
| >You have utterly no idea what affect my presence has on customers, and
>your sad attempt at sarcasm says more about you than about me.
Hey, is "says more about you" related to "very telling".
Because you didn't inform him that his attitude was "very telling" and
frankly I am getting a little bit worried that you are not using the
correct cliche's.
Yes, your presense has a great effect on customers.
It confirms everything we suspected about Sprint as a whole. Blaming
the customer, assuming the customer is wrong, personal insuts,
spinning, obfuscating, hostility toward the customer (especially a
customer who dares to disagree).
You confirm what every Customer Satisfaction Survey has found.
Sprint is at or near the bottom when it comes to Customer Service.
| |
| Bob Smith 2005-10-21, 5:48 pm |
|
"FWIW" < please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129899874.668932.230190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Criticizing Sprint (or Rob) = prolific lying
>
> Sure, Rob.
>
> We believe you.
What's with all this "we" you are posting FWIW? There is no "we".
I've known Rob on this newsgroup for a good 2 years now, and I trust what he
says. You, on the other hand, have no credibility.
Bob
| |
| Bob Smith 2005-10-21, 5:48 pm |
|
"FWIW" < please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129900307.550836.149920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hey, is "says more about you" related to "very telling".
>
> Because you didn't inform him that his attitude was "very telling" and
> frankly I am getting a little bit worried that you are not using the
> correct cliche's.
>
> Yes, your presense has a great effect on customers.
>
> It confirms everything we suspected about Sprint as a whole. Blaming
> the customer, assuming the customer is wrong, personal insuts,
> spinning, obfuscating, hostility toward the customer (especially a
> customer who dares to disagree).
There you go again with that "we" crap. It sounds like you aren't just a
bigot, but schitzo as well.
Bob
| |
|
| >What's with all this "we" you are posting FWIW? There is no "we".
Sure there is. "We" = more than one person.
As a matter of fact if you go to www.doctionary.com and look up "we",
you can see the official defintion.
>I've known Rob on this newsgroup for a good 2 years now, and I trust what he
>says
Okay, fair enough.
>You, on the other hand, have no credibility.
Well, your opinion is certainly duly noted. I don't work for Sprint.
I'm not asking for your business. I also have JD Powers and other
customer satisfaction survey's to back up my claims.
Sure, J.D. Powers is no "Bob", but hey, it's a start.
| |
|
| >There you go again with that "we" crap. It sounds like you aren't just a
>bigot, but schitzo as well.
Ahhhh, now THAT post that fosters credibility "Bigot", "Schitzo" ....
beautiful.
This is how you are defending the Sprint Rep? No great surprise I
suppose. Hostility toward the customer. "We" (more than one of us
according to some survey's) are well familiar with it.
Perhaps my lack of ad-hominem attacks is what has you bamboozled, Bob.
Apparently you equate the two with "credibility".
But, i'm not sure if they are one and the same.
I suppose that is a matter of personal opinion.
I like the addition of "schitzo", however. It was a nice departure
from all of the other unimaginative insults that were flying around the
group earlier.
Might I suggest that in the next post you somehow denegrate the
reputation of my mother, or perhaps insult the size of my penis?
Those are oldies, but goodies. I hear retro is chic these days.
| |
|
|
"FWIW" < please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129903225.858004.226130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Ahhhh, now THAT post that fosters credibility "Bigot", "Schitzo" ....
> beautiful.
Nice to see that you use all of the facts presented to form an opinion. Oh,
wait.....thats right.....you don't.
>
> This is how you are defending the Sprint Rep? No great surprise I
> suppose. Hostility toward the customer. "We" (more than one of us
> according to some survey's) are well familiar with it.
The surveys say no such thing.
>
> Perhaps my lack of ad-hominem attacks is what has you bamboozled, Bob.
A temporary stop means nothing.
>
> Apparently you equate the two with "credibility".
In order to have credibility, you must present something of worth.
Generally more than personal opinion. Having not done that yourself, you
therefore have no credibility.
Rob, OTOH, has years of documented experience in the field. You have
already admitted none. You are the last one here that needs to be bringing
up credibility as an issue.
>
> But, i'm not sure if they are one and the same.
>
> I suppose that is a matter of personal opinion.
>
> I like the addition of "schitzo", however. It was a nice departure
> from all of the other unimaginative insults that were flying around the
> group earlier.
They were unimaginative due to the boring subject matter at hand.
>
> Might I suggest that in the next post you somehow denegrate the
> reputation of my mother, or perhaps insult the size of my penis?
And this is why you will never have credibility here- complaining about the
insults and then begging for more will only create even more credibility
issues for you.
>
> Those are oldies, but goodies. I hear retro is chic these days.
>
| |
|
| >Nice to see that you use all of the facts presented to form an opinion. Oh,
>wait.....thats right.....you don't.
No I idea what you are talking about.
>The surveys say no such thing.
Look for a post last week entitled "Sprint PCS in Customers Last"
survey, or something to that effect. Also check out JD Powers ratings.
They do say such thing.
>A temporary stop means nothing.
No idea what that mean either.
>In order to have credibility, you must present something of worth.
>Generally more than personal opinion. Having not done that yourself, you
>therefore have no credibility.
Opinion duly noted.
> Rob, OTOH, has years of documented experience in the field.
What field? Is Rob a farmer?
>You have already admitted none.
I don't experience fields much, this is trye.
> You are the last one here that needs to be bringing up credibility as an issue.
Who should be the first one? Let's form a line.
>They were unimaginative due to the boring subject matter at hand.
The one that bored you so much that you felt compelled to read and
reply to?
>And this is why you will never have credibility here-
One correction if I may. "Here" and "with me" are not the same thing.
While we all like to think that we speak for the entire group, the fact
is that none of us do. I am sure that some people agree with you ...
but I am not sure if "here" agree's with you.
>complaining about the insults and then begging for more will only create even >more credibility issues for you.
Okay, I have no "credibility" with you. Check. You made the point a
few times, therefore, it is duly noted.
I will contemplate whether to hang myself later for not being
"credible" with you (maintaining one's credibility with you pays so
well, and you have now taken that source of revenue from me) - but I
will go out on a limb and predict that I will get over it before taking
such drastic measures.
| |
|
|
"FWIW" < please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129909221.305831.319430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> No I idea what you are talking about.
This doesn't surprise me in the least.
>
>
> Look for a post last week entitled "Sprint PCS in Customers Last"
> survey, or something to that effect. Also check out JD Powers ratings.
>
> They do say such thing.
I'm well acquainted with the surveys- its a part of my career. None of them
address hostility towards customers, as you claimed.
>
>
>
> No idea what that mean either.
Of course not- there was more to my statement than that. This is the
problem with taking things out of context.
>
>
> Opinion duly noted.
>
And how do you determine credibility, if not by a presentation of facts? By
the sound of someone's name?
| |
|
| >This doesn't surprise me in the least.
Good.
>I'm well acquainted with the surveys- its a part of my career. None of them
>address hostility towards customers, as you claimed.
Why, in your opinion, do they rank "poor" in customer service?
>Of course not- there was more to my statement than that. This is the
>problem with taking things out of context.
As a matter of fact, yes, I do like fried bananas. Thanks for asking.
>And how do you determine credibility, if not by a presentation of facts? By
>the sound of someone's name?
By the number of time someone posts "credibility" in one day.
So far, you're winning!!!!
| |
| Bob Smith 2005-10-21, 5:48 pm |
|
"FWIW" < please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129903225.858004.226130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Ahhhh, now THAT post that fosters credibility "Bigot", "Schitzo" ....
> beautiful.
>
> This is how you are defending the Sprint Rep? No great surprise I
> suppose. Hostility toward the customer. "We" (more than one of us
> according to some survey's) are well familiar with it.
>
> Perhaps my lack of ad-hominem attacks is what has you bamboozled, Bob.
>
> Apparently you equate the two with "credibility".
>
> But, i'm not sure if they are one and the same.
>
> I suppose that is a matter of personal opinion.
>
> I like the addition of "schitzo", however. It was a nice departure
> from all of the other unimaginative insults that were flying around the
> group earlier.
>
> Might I suggest that in the next post you somehow denegrate the
> reputation of my mother, or perhaps insult the size of my penis?
No need to. You are doing a fine job denegrating yourself ... all on your
own. As it stands now, I believe there is one more description that applies
to you, and that is a troll and as such, not worthy of any further replies
by yours truly.
Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::
| |
|
| > I believe there is one more description that applies to you, and that is a troll
Surely "Godwin's Law" mentions the word "troll" as it is neck and neck
with "nazi" when used as a thread stopper.
>not worthy of any further replies by yours truly.
But, I was worthy of quite a few before now. Cool!
>Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::
That will give you hairy palms, Bob.
| |
|
| >Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::
You surfing that Olsen twins site again, Bob.
(oh, Gosh ... so many responses, so little time)
| |
|
| >Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::
You should. Rob says it's starting to get sore back there.
| |
|
| >Bob ::Thinking it's time to pull out the plonkerizer::
Did that pump you ordered just arrive?
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-21, 5:48 pm |
|
O/Siris wrote:
> rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHL
EEZschnapp.org wrote:
>
>
>
> Weird documentation, or weird promises verbally. But he's apparently
> not interested in any discussion that questions what happened.
>
I've answered every question that was asked. There was NO documentation
that mentioned a deductible! What more can I say? What more can I tell
you that happened, that I haven't already told you? I got my money, I'm
happy about that, but I'm not happy about how they continue to rip
people off and then try and defend their actions.
Steve Henderson
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2005-10-21, 5:48 pm |
| Lyle Walsh wrote:
> Lucky me, I spent so much $$ at SPRINT that they sent me a free phone! So I
> called up and ask "what's this?" They say its free, I say no thanks I have
> 3 phones, 3 lines and 3 family members on plan, don't need another. "Keep
> it its free, save it in case one of your phones break".
Heh! There's gotta be more to this story. I have NEVER seen that
happen before.
> So guess what, they
> activated it to a new number and billed me for the number!!
It's very likely someone ordered that phone "on your behalf." Are you
sure no one in your household hasn't been messing around with your
credit cards or that someone hasn't gained access to your online account?
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2005-10-21, 5:48 pm |
| The Eggman wrote:
> that's why i never get the ERP....all the money you put into it and they
> still want more money from you
That's what insurance *is*.
> ....and the funny thing is, it only costs them
> like 10 bucks to actually make the phone...
HAH! you're SERIOUSLY deluded if you think that. In fact most phones
cost a LOT more than you pay for.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| Central wrote:
> Yeah for the first 12 months it is not worth it since just about all
> phones come with a 1yr limited warranty.
The 1yr limited warranty doesn't cover physical damage due to abuse and
doesn't cover theft or loss. That's where the insurance plan comes in
handy.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| Steve Henderson wrote:
>
>
> I am NOT wrong.
Why, because "the customer is always right" even when they're wrong?
> It was never mentioned in my contract, which is the
> legally binding document that the Sprint representative and I signed.
The Equipment Replacement Plan isn't part of your service contract. ERP
is an add-on agreement administered by a different company, of which
Sprint is merely an agent. And the ERP contract is readily available
for you to access, right here:
http://tinyurl.com/99p3j
> There was no mention to check their website for further details or check
> a pamphlet which they never gave me and which they didn't even stock in
> the store.
So, you just signed up for something that you knew nothing at all about,
and did NO research on it at all before agreeing to pay a premium? Are
you normally in the habit of doing that? If so, I have quite a bit of
"insurance" to sell you.
> As a consumer, I am not responsible for searching their
> website for information.
This is the most brazenly negligent thing I have EVER heard ANYONE say.
> I have homeowners insurance, car insurance and health insurance and the
> deductibles for each are specifically mentioned in the contracts.
And before you signed ANYTHING or sent them a check, I'm sure you read
the policy in writing top to bottom, didn't you? So why didn't you do
the same when you signed up for equipment insurance?
Oh wait, of COURSE you didn't read your homeowners or car insurance
policy because being informed is NOT your responsibility. My bad.
> If Sprint/Lockline was right, they wouldn't have given in to the
> Attorney General's office.
No, typically companies will settle frivolous complaints and write it
off as the cost of doing business because it's cheaper and less effort
than fighting for what's right. ANd the end result is that honest
customers pay higher costs to defray such settlements (though
admittedly, the costs would have been higher if the company fought the
case).
That is the sad tale of inequity in the US Civil Justice System.
> Do you think the Attorney General's office would have
> wasted their time if I didn't have a legal case?
Elliot Spitzer has brought MANY frivolous cases to trial at taxpayer's
expense, because he wants to look good to people like you when he runs
for governor, in the hopes that you'll vote for him. Many of those
cases were settled out of court, but quite a few of the ones that were
actually brought to trial, Spitzer has lost. But hey, it's no sweat off
his back because he can spend taxpayer money to be a letigious nag for a
living. Many of the people and companies on the receiving end of that,
however, don't have the same luxury.
> I sent them a copy of
> the contract and the facts. They must have thought that I had a case
> because they pursued it for me and I prevailed.
No, Elliot just wants your gullible butt in the polls next election to
vote for him, I'm afraid.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Isaiah Beard 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| Steve Henderson wrote:
> You are wrong again! The contract I signed, specifically mentioned the
> add-ons such as text messaging charges, insurance/extended warranty
> charges, etc. Once again, that is what contracts are for. Maybe my
> contract is different from the one you signed.
Yes, the rest of us didn't get the illiterate-schizophrenic version of
the contract. We got the real version. ;)
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
|
Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Steve Henderson wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, the rest of us didn't get the illiterate-schizophrenic version of
> the contract. We got the real version. ;)
>
Isaiah,
By the nasty response to my post, I can only surmise that you are
another Sprint employee, lurking here, trying (and succeeding) to chase
more customers away.
Why can't you see that if the Attorney General of New York thought I had
a case of fraud against Sprint, then there must be something to it?
What I had wasn't a contract. It was an amateurish attempt at mimicking
a contract.
The "illiterate-schizophrenic" version of my contract wasn't produced by
me, it was produced by your company, Sprint! I agree with you that
everybody should get the "real" version and then there wouldn't be this
case of fraud filed against Sprint, whcih they LOST!
Steve Henderson
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
|
Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Steve Henderson wrote:
>
>
>
> Why, because "the customer is always right" even when they're wrong?
To repeat myself. I am not wrong, because the deductible was never
mentioned in the contract. (Please read my previous posts before opening
your mouth and inserting your foot.)
>
>
>
> The Equipment Replacement Plan isn't part of your service contract. ERP
> is an add-on agreement administered by a different company, of which
> Sprint is merely an agent. And the ERP contract is readily available
> for you to access, right here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/99p3j
My contract stated that I would pay an additional $5 per month for a
replacement phone in the event of loss or damage. It never mentioned
Lockline or a deductible. That IS the problem! If it doesn't mention a
deductible or to check somewhere else for details, they can't legally
charge a deductible.
>
>
>
> So, you just signed up for something that you knew nothing at all about,
> and did NO research on it at all before agreeing to pay a premium? Are
> you normally in the habit of doing that? If so, I have quite a bit of
> "insurance" to sell you.
I did read online reviews of the phone and it's features, the costs, the
length of the contract, etc. At the store, I read the contract from
start to finish, which consisted of only two pages. I read everything I
put my name to, unlike you not reading my previous posts. What gave you
the assumption that I didn't read the contract?
>
>
>
> This is the most brazenly negligent thing I have EVER heard ANYONE say.
This is the most brazenly stupid thing I have EVER read ANYONE write
(except other Sprint representatives). No, I am NOT responsible to read
their website for further information unless stated in the contract. I
do wish I had found this newsgroup prior to signing up with Sprint. It
may have changed my mind about joining their service, seeing how many
unhappy customers you have and the lengths you go to in order to rip
people off.
>
>
>
> And before you signed ANYTHING or sent them a check, I'm sure you read
> the policy in writing top to bottom, didn't you? So why didn't you do
> the same when you signed up for equipment insurance?
I read the contract from top to bottom. There was no separate form for
equipment insurance. Should there have been? That may be where the
problem lies.
>
> Oh wait, of COURSE you didn't read your homeowners or car insurance
> policy because being informed is NOT your responsibility. My bad.
>
Another ignorant, childish response by a Sprint rep. "My bad?" Of
course I read my policies (again see my previous posts instead of
talking out your XXX), and the deductibles are clearly mentioned in them
so there are no surprises. That is what makes them LEGAL and I have
never had a dispute with an insurance company over a deductible!
>
>
> No, typically companies will settle frivolous complaints and write it
> off as the cost of doing business because it's cheaper and less effort
> than fighting for what's right. ANd the end result is that honest
> customers pay higher costs to defray such settlements (though
> admittedly, the costs would have been higher if the company fought the
> case).
Once again, please read my previous posts! (Are all Sprint reps as
dense as you?) They had many chances to handle my "frivolous" complaint
but refused to do so, until the Attorney General said "this is an act of
FRAUD".
>
> That is the sad tale of inequity in the US Civil Justice System.
No, this is a sad tale of piss poor customer relations at Sprint.
>
>
>
> Elliot Spitzer has brought MANY frivolous cases to trial at taxpayer's
> expense, because he wants to look good to people like you when he runs
> for governor, in the hopes that you'll vote for him. Many of those
> cases were settled out of court, but quite a few of the ones that were
> actually brought to trial, Spitzer has lost. But hey, it's no sweat off
> his back because he can spend taxpayer money to be a letigious nag for a
> living. Many of the people and companies on the receiving end of that,
> however, don't have the same luxury.
How many frivolous cases has "Eliot" Spitzer brought to trial? How many
has he lost? Can you give me a number, or are you making another
uneducated, illiterate statement? Where are you getting your
statistics? You can't even spell his name correctly, yet you know all
of these statistics about him. Please back them up with some facts.
He is not a "litigious" nag, rather a public servant who is watching out
for people's rights. He's not ripping people off like Sprint has been.
>
>
>
> No, Elliot just wants your gullible butt in the polls next election to
> vote for him, I'm afraid.
>
"Eliot" may want my "gullible butt" in the polls next election, that is
true and he's going about it the right way! But from Sprint's response,
they obviously don't want me as a customer again, when it comes time to
renew my contract. Sprint should keep their ignorant employees off of
this newsgroup before more customers like me get infuriated and do
business with another company who knows how to treat their customers
with dignity and respect.
Steve Henderson
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| In article <1129899874.668932.230190@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,=20
please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com says...
> Criticizing Sprint (or Rob) =3D prolific lying
>=20
No, deliberately distorting what other people have posted, *that* is=20
lying, and you're doing it prolifically. Hence, prolific lying.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| In article <1129902742.382488.46180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,=20
please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com says...
> I also have JD Powers and other
> customer satisfaction survey's to back up my claims.
>=20
>=20
You're lying... again. And, again, you're doing it badly.
JD Powers says *nothing* about the accents of the reps Sprint is using.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| In article <3XW5f.12074$H3.11043@twister.nyc.rr.com>,=20
SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
> I think the above statement answers my question. You ARE a Sprint rep!=
=20
>=20
You may think whatever you want. You're already walking that path. =20
Might as well let it lead you all the way into the ocean.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| Joseph Huber 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:00:07 GMT, Steve Henderson wrote:
>What I had wasn't a contract. It was an amateurish attempt at mimicking
>a contract.
>
>The "illiterate-schizophrenic" version of my contract wasn't produced by
>me, it was produced by your company, Sprint! I agree with you that
>everybody should get the "real" version and then there wouldn't be this
>case of fraud filed against Sprint, whcih they LOST!
Written documents mean little to Sprint. I have an email document
stating the terms of my retention agreement, including the costs for
the plan and services that I chose. When I confronted Sprint with the
document, because they overcharged me (and still are), Sprint replied
that the person who wrote that email was misinformed, and that Sprint
didn't have to abide by what they promised me in writing. Sprint's
word means nothing. I did finally get them to process my rebate
(which was also promised in writing), but it took six months.
Steve, don't feel bad. I've seen what's happening to you in this
newsgroup happen over and over again. It's happened to me. Folks
come in here and post a legitimate gripe, and the Sprint apologists
jump all over them, with absolutely no factual basis to do so. Nobody
here has seen your contract, but somehow you've been judged as being
misinformed and at fault. Go figure...
Joe Huber
huber.joseph@comcast.net
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| In article <3XW5f.12074$H3.11043@twister.nyc.rr.com>,=20
SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
> What a surprise, since you are the only person I've seen here=20
> defending Sprint's lackluster customer service.
>=20
Show ONE EXAMPLE of me ever defending lackluster customer service. You=20
won't. Just your faulty attempt to describe my current employment, you=20
have used no facts to draw an equally fact-starved "conclusion."
There are, at a bare minimum, five regular posters to this newsgroup who=20
my status. I have over two years of posts to this group, and I have=20
NEVER claimed that Sprint's Customer Service is anything but broken.
But a bad system does *not* mean the customer is never wrong. It does=20
not automatically render you incapable of misunderstanding information=20
that may or may not have been presented to you.
For that reason, I do not take any one example and take it at face=20
value. If an example is presented individually, I treat it so. Sprint=20
can have terrible customer service (I'd disagree taking it *quite* that=20
far, though I'd also admit someone making this claim would have a case),=20
and still be right in any particular individual case.
For example, I have repeatedly said that there is NOTHING ANYWHERE=20
promising customers a "free phone" under ERP. You not only haven't=20
denied that, you've failed to address it whatsoever.
I don't believe that you've done that deliberately. Nor, in fact, have=20
I even accused you of being dishonest in your claims about what=20
happened. I simply and *only* stated that I don't believe it happened=20
quite the way you claimed.
Your claims are not impossible. But they are inconsistent with Sprint=20
policies, and with the requirements that Sprint has including an=20
additional form to be filled out that cites the basic form of service(s)=20
to which a new customer is subscribing (among a host of other policies). =
=20
This proves nothing, and I'm not claiming it does otherwise. But what I=20
know about those policies, the documentation that I can gather up here=20
and now with a trip to a store (OK, stores are closed here and *now*,=20
but you know what I mean), my own sign-up as a regular customer, they=20
all disagree with what you experienced. And several of those factors=20
involve Sprint-wide knowledge, rather than the experience of one person. =
=20
I cannot ignore that knowledge. I'd be derelict to do so.
I have made NO CLAIM that Sprint never is wrong. In fact, I've pointed=20
(more than once) to a post I made on the Web detailing what I think are=20
fundamental flaws in the way Sprint (indeed, the entire wireless=20
industry, even the so-called cream of the crop) views Customer Service.
So my doubts are *not* a personal affront. Can we at least see that=20
much?
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| In article <BJb6f.12780$h25.7097@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,=20
SteveHenderson@nowhe
re.com says...
> I've answered every question that was asked. There was NO documentation=
=20
> that mentioned a deductible!=20
>=20
No, actually, you haven't. You haven't provided, even indirectly, any=20
evidence to say you were promised a "free phone." When I mentioned that =
=20
you apparently ignored it.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| O/Siris 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| In article <1129899566.888554.81640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,=20
please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com says...
> Well, when the fine print says that they can give you a completely
> different refurbished phones, it seems like one needs to buy
> "insurance" for the "insurance" in the event they have to buy
> completely new accessories.
>=20
Hence why I agree it's not ideal. Then again, it's not reasonable to=20
expect support for discontinued hardware when such hardware has such a=20
short lifespan in this industry.
It's not for everyone. In fact, it's not even really cost-effective. =20
But some people desire the peace of mind this service brings them. If=20
they want it, and are happy with the conditions of it, so be it.
--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
-+-
A thing moderately good
is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
+Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+
| |
| Jerome Zelinske 2005-10-21, 11:48 pm |
| And when my discontinued phone was stolen, they replaced my
accessories. It was a few years ago, but it did happen.
O/Siris wrote:
> In article <1129899566.888554.81640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> please_reply_to_grou
p_only@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> Hence why I agree it's not ideal. Then again, it's not reasonable to
> expect support for discontinued hardware when such hardware has such a
> short lifespan in this industry.
>
> It's not for everyone. In fact, it's not even really cost-effective.
> But some people desire the peace of mind this service brings them. If
> they want it, and are happy with the conditions of it, so be it.
>
| |
|
| I was promised a "free phone" when trying to be sold the insurance.
It is hard to prove this as I did not record the conversation (but it's
probably not a bad idea since they give permission for the calls to be
recorded).
I suspect that is why the written contract says "This contract replaces
anything that may have been told to you verbally or in writing" .. or
something to that effect.
It's kind of like saying "You were lied to, but here is there real
information, we hope you don't get to the end of this document and
actually read this pargraph."
Forget about the customers, Sprint doesn't even trust their own
employees to give accurate info. They officially disavow, in writing,
EVERYTHING they say.
Yikes.
| |
| Joseph Huber 2005-10-22, 2:48 am |
| On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:35:47 -0500, O/Siris <rØbjvargas@comcâst.nêt>
wrote:
>But what I
>know about those policies, the documentation that I can gather up here
>and now with a trip to a store (OK, stores are closed here and *now*,
>but you know what I mean), my own sign-up as a regular customer, they
>all disagree with what you experienced. And several of those factors
>involve Sprint-wide knowledge, rather than the experience of one person.
>I cannot ignore that knowledge. I'd be derelict to do so.
Useful knowledge, but all irrelevant to deciding the issue at hand.
The issue is the particular contract that Steve signed, not the
contract that you signed, not the contract that I signed, and not what
you happen to know about the documents that should have been signed.
The signed contract says what it does. All these other things are
irrelevant.
Other than Steve scanning his contract and putting it up on a website
somewhere for us to scrutinize, the only thing we have to go on is his
word and what he has told us about the contract.
Rob, the bottom line is that you simply don't believe what Steve has
told us about the contract. That's fine. I believe him because I
have first hand experienced Sprint's incompetence and unethical
behavior.
Joe Huber
huber.joseph@comcast.net
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-22, 5:48 pm |
| Joe,
Add us to a long line of dissatisfied Sprint customers. I was wondering
if anybody was going to speak up for me, rather than against me. You
are absolutely correct, that nobody here has seen my contract here. The
Attorney General's office is the only one that saw it besides me and
they told Sprint to give me my money back, which they did.
My main purpose of writing in here was to give support to Lyle Walsh
(who was also a victim of Sprint fraud) by getting an extra "free" phone
sent to him, and also to share my story of how I was a victim of fraud
and successfully got my money back.
I was trying to help someone, not harass them, as there appear to be two
people in the group that are already doing a good job of that: (O/Siris
aka RØß) and (Isaiah Beard aka Idiot Sprint Employee).
Steve Henderson
Joseph Huber wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:00:07 GMT, Steve Henderson wrote:
>
>
>
> Written documents mean little to Sprint. I have an email document
> stating the terms of my retention agreement, including the costs for
> the plan and services that I chose. When I confronted Sprint with the
> document, because they overcharged me (and still are), Sprint replied
> that the person who wrote that email was misinformed, and that Sprint
> didn't have to abide by what they promised me in writing. Sprint's
> word means nothing. I did finally get them to process my rebate
> (which was also promised in writing), but it took six months.
>
> Steve, don't feel bad. I've seen what's happening to you in this
> newsgroup happen over and over again. It's happened to me. Folks
> come in here and post a legitimate gripe, and the Sprint apologists
> jump all over them, with absolutely no factual basis to do so. Nobody
> here has seen your contract, but somehow you've been judged as being
> misinformed and at fault. Go figure...
>
> Joe Huber
> huber.joseph@comcast.net
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-22, 5:48 pm |
|
Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Lyle Walsh wrote:
>
>
>
> Heh! There's gotta be more to this story. I have NEVER seen that
> happen before.
>
>
>
> It's very likely someone ordered that phone "on your behalf." Are you
> sure no one in your household hasn't been messing around with your
> credit cards or that someone hasn't gained access to your online account?
>
>
Why does it ALWAYS have to be somebody else's fault other than Sprint?
Just because you've never seen it before, does not make it a fact! Do
you think we all are a bunch of liars that are banding together to ruin
Sprint's reputation? No, we are DISSATISFIED customers, voicing
complaints out of frustration, because of the lack of satisfaction from
customer service and we want to warn others of these fraudulent acts
before they get scammed like we did.
Steve Henderson
| |
| Steve Henderson 2005-10-22, 5:48 pm |
|
O/Siris wrote:
> In artic | | |