I've been slammed by Sprint

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.

I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
family which I won't go into and is not germane to the
issue.

18 yr. old Daughter's line gets cut off (ESN swap does
that pretty effectively). Sprint calls (some lady that later
says she is a supervisor at a local Sprint store) and asks
for my social security number. I'm in the middle of something
pretty intense and there are kids running around yelling
and what not and I end up giving her my SS (what an
idiot. I am smarter than that.). She did say something
about needing it to port my daughter's number to Sprint.
I'm thinking "great! she is going to pay for her own service".

As soon as I hang up I start thinking "how is this going to
work?". So I call VZW and sure enough, in order to port
that number I would have to pay a $175 ETF. If I just got
a new number for that line then the previous number
would be "lost" and not portable. I'm figuring "no way
am I going to pay $175 so she can port her number. If
she wants to port it then she can pay the ETF".

I call the Sprint lady back. I tell her that I don't want to
do it since it will cost me $175. She is immediately gets
aggressive/belligerent and says that is not her problem
and that I gave her my SS and that is between my
daughter and me. I told her that I agree but that I wasn't
informed of any of the implications and made a mistake
in giving her my SS in the first place. Now that I was
aware of the implications I did NOT want my VZW number
ported. She got even more aggressive/belligerent. So I
tried telling her that the original conversation wasn't taped
(because I wasn't informed that it was -- CA law), she
didn't have my signature, and I was informing her that
I did NOT want my number ported. That sort of got her
attention and she said she would call their porting dept.
and call me back in 1/2 hr. She did and said they had
cancelled the port request but that I should call VZW
just in case anything had been initiated. I did. Nothing
at that time. That was Sunday evening.

This morning: Get phone call from Sprint lady saying
that she needed to get in touch with my daughter because
she was "running around with a Sprint phone that did
not have a number". Sounded like it was a problem for
them. I told her I'd pass it on and called VZW "just in
case".

VZW CS checks on it and says that there was a port
request that didn't go through Sunday (with my SS) and
it could have been because it was cancelled. Interestingly
there had been 2 more port attempts *without* my SS
in the last 1/2 hour. She had involved a supervisor or two
and they contacted Sprint's porting dept. who said they
didn't need my SS since they had it for the original request
that hadn't gone through or had been canceled (so why
didn't they include it with the subsequent requests?). The
CS had me wait a minute or two to check back with the
porting dept. one last time and said Sprint had initiated
2 more port attempts! She said VZW had locked down
all 3 of my numbers for "manual review" meaning that
any further changes would require speaking to me
personally. Good job VZW!

So the Sunday part is rather complicated. But after
I explicitly told Sprint "Do NOT port my number" I figure
the subsequent attempts are akin to slamming.

-Quick
93 answers Last reply
More about slammed sprint
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Quick wrote:
    > Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >
    > I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
    > secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
    > family which I won't go into and is not germane to the
    > issue.
    >
    > 18 yr. old Daughter's line gets cut off (ESN swap does
    > that pretty effectively).
    <long sad story snipped>
    > -Quick

    Welcome to the wonderful world of fatherhood :)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Quick wrote:

    > So the Sunday part is rather complicated. But after
    > I explicitly told Sprint "Do NOT port my number" I figure
    > the subsequent attempts are akin to slamming.

    That is weird. They couldn't port the number I requested to have ported because
    I hadn't given them the password for my Verizon account -- didn't realize I had
    to -- and they did NOT try again.


    --
    JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

    "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
    --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
  3. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    >
    > I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
    > secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
    > family

    Defined as any family with more than one member-

    You have my sympathy,

    The Father of a 15yearold drama queen
  4. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Karl Farbmann wrote:
    >>I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
    >>secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
    >>family
    >
    >
    > Defined as any family with more than one member-
    >
    > You have my sympathy,
    >
    > The Father of a 15yearold drama queen
    >
    >
    Unfortunately, most of us have some problems with our kids while they
    are growing up. Fortunately, most kids turn out fine if we love them
    enough. Give them time to grow up.
    Tom
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    My family isn't dysfunctional... we're all just nuts. (That's the excuse my
    kids give their friends to explain our weirdness. <g>)


    "Karl Farbmann" <rcandsc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:%KNUd.14462$r55.13660@attbi_s52...
    >
    >>
    >> I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
    >> secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
    >> family
    >
    > Defined as any family with more than one member-
    >
    > You have my sympathy,
    >
    > The Father of a 15yearold drama queen
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1109623242.146066@sj-nntpcache-3...
    > Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.

    <snipped>

    Sounds more like you got slammed by your daughter ... three times ...

    It's not SPCS's fault that your daughter called them.

    Bob
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In news:H7PUd.10706$Ba3.5976@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net,
    Bob Smith <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> typed:
    > "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1109623242.146066@sj-nntpcache-3...
    >> Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >
    > <snipped>
    >
    > Sounds more like you got slammed by your daughter ... three times ...
    >
    > It's not SPCS's fault that your daughter called them.
    >
    > Bob

    His daughter not ony called Sprint - she got a phone from Sprint!
  8. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Bob Smith wrote:
    > "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1109623242.146066@sj-nntpcache-3...
    >> Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >
    > <snipped>
    >
    > Sounds more like you got slammed by your daughter ...
    > three times ...
    >
    > It's not SPCS's fault that your daughter called them.

    No. She only initiated the first one.

    I called the Sprint representative back and said "Don't do it."
    The Sprint rep cancelled the initial port request with their
    port department. Apparently it was successfully cancelled
    since VZW shows that an initial request was made Sunday
    and was not followed through on or was cancelled.

    The same Sprint rep called me this morning saying "I
    really need to get in touch with your daughter because
    she is running around with a Sprint phone without a
    number on it." Daughter is about 80 miles away in the
    sticks visiting Grandma.

    Within an hour after that call Sprint made 4! attempts
    to port the number *without* my SS#.

    -Quick
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:31:27 -0600, IMHO IIRC wrote:

    > In news:H7PUd.10706$Ba3.5976@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net,
    > Bob Smith <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> typed:
    >> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    >> news:1109623242.146066@sj-nntpcache-3...
    >>> Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >>
    >> <snipped>
    >>
    >> Sounds more like you got slammed by your daughter ... three times ...
    >>
    >> It's not SPCS's fault that your daughter called them.
    >>
    >> Bob
    >
    > His daughter not ony called Sprint - she got a phone from Sprint!

    Actually he said a manager from the local store called him. I would bet
    she walked into the store signed up and started the porting setup in
    person. Most likely was in the store when she called for his SSN.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:38:17 -0800, Quick wrote:

    >
    > No. She only initiated the first one.
    >
    > I called the Sprint representative back and said "Don't do it."
    > The Sprint rep cancelled the initial port request with their
    > port department. Apparently it was successfully cancelled
    > since VZW shows that an initial request was made Sunday
    > and was not followed through on or was cancelled.
    >
    > The same Sprint rep called me this morning saying "I
    > really need to get in touch with your daughter because
    > she is running around with a Sprint phone without a
    > number on it." Daughter is about 80 miles away in the
    > sticks visiting Grandma.
    >
    > Within an hour after that call Sprint made 4! attempts
    > to port the number *without* my SS#.
    >
    > -Quick

    So how do you know your daughter, who now has a non-working phone, didn't
    just call *2 asking why it stopped working and attempting to restart the
    porting process?
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Quick wrote:

    > The same Sprint rep called me this morning saying "I
    > really need to get in touch with your daughter because
    > she is running around with a Sprint phone without a
    > number on it."

    Oh, and by the way, that is complete and utter BS. If they activated the phone,
    it HAS a number. Mine did for a month or so while I waited for my VZW contract
    to expire so I wouldn't have to pay $175 for the privilege of porting early.

    My MSID is still the same number as the original Sprint phone number I had
    before I ported my VZW number, AAMOF.

    They do NOT need to port the number to have a working phone.

    --
    JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

    "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
    --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Giving your SS# out for the hell of it. And people bust my chops for being
    an idiot. What were the hell you thinking? Dude.

    "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1109623242.146066@sj-nntpcache-3...
    > Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >
    > I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
    > secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
    > family which I won't go into and is not germane to the
    > issue.
    >
    > 18 yr. old Daughter's line gets cut off (ESN swap does
    > that pretty effectively). Sprint calls (some lady that later
    > says she is a supervisor at a local Sprint store) and asks
    > for my social security number. I'm in the middle of something
    > pretty intense and there are kids running around yelling
    > and what not and I end up giving her my SS (what an
    > idiot. I am smarter than that.). She did say something
    > about needing it to port my daughter's number to Sprint.
    > I'm thinking "great! she is going to pay for her own service".
    >
    > As soon as I hang up I start thinking "how is this going to
    > work?". So I call VZW and sure enough, in order to port
    > that number I would have to pay a $175 ETF. If I just got
    > a new number for that line then the previous number
    > would be "lost" and not portable. I'm figuring "no way
    > am I going to pay $175 so she can port her number. If
    > she wants to port it then she can pay the ETF".
    >
    > I call the Sprint lady back. I tell her that I don't want to
    > do it since it will cost me $175. She is immediately gets
    > aggressive/belligerent and says that is not her problem
    > and that I gave her my SS and that is between my
    > daughter and me. I told her that I agree but that I wasn't
    > informed of any of the implications and made a mistake
    > in giving her my SS in the first place. Now that I was
    > aware of the implications I did NOT want my VZW number
    > ported. She got even more aggressive/belligerent. So I
    > tried telling her that the original conversation wasn't taped
    > (because I wasn't informed that it was -- CA law), she
    > didn't have my signature, and I was informing her that
    > I did NOT want my number ported. That sort of got her
    > attention and she said she would call their porting dept.
    > and call me back in 1/2 hr. She did and said they had
    > cancelled the port request but that I should call VZW
    > just in case anything had been initiated. I did. Nothing
    > at that time. That was Sunday evening.
    >
    > This morning: Get phone call from Sprint lady saying
    > that she needed to get in touch with my daughter because
    > she was "running around with a Sprint phone that did
    > not have a number". Sounded like it was a problem for
    > them. I told her I'd pass it on and called VZW "just in
    > case".
    >
    > VZW CS checks on it and says that there was a port
    > request that didn't go through Sunday (with my SS) and
    > it could have been because it was cancelled. Interestingly
    > there had been 2 more port attempts *without* my SS
    > in the last 1/2 hour. She had involved a supervisor or two
    > and they contacted Sprint's porting dept. who said they
    > didn't need my SS since they had it for the original request
    > that hadn't gone through or had been canceled (so why
    > didn't they include it with the subsequent requests?). The
    > CS had me wait a minute or two to check back with the
    > porting dept. one last time and said Sprint had initiated
    > 2 more port attempts! She said VZW had locked down
    > all 3 of my numbers for "manual review" meaning that
    > any further changes would require speaking to me
    > personally. Good job VZW!
    >
    > So the Sunday part is rather complicated. But after
    > I explicitly told Sprint "Do NOT port my number" I figure
    > the subsequent attempts are akin to slamming.
    >
    > -Quick
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:35:29 -0800, "Quick"
    <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

    >Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >
    <snip>

    Don't believe it. Sprint slammed my land line in Aug '04 and I'm
    still trying to straighten things out.

    The irony of Sprint's slamming me is that I have since dropped Sprint
    PCS and gave all of my business, local/long distance/cellular/DSL, to
    Verizon.

    Talk about shooting one's self in the foot. I'll never do business
    with Sprint again.

    - Sandy
  14. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    But once told not to touch it, sprint continued to try to port it over.


    "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:H7PUd.10706$Ba3.5976@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >

    > It's not SPCS's fault that your daughter called them.
    >
    > Bob
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Quick wrote:

    >The same Sprint rep called me this morning saying "I
    >really need to get in touch with your daughter because
    >she is running around with a Sprint phone without a
    >number on it."

    Tough luck. Sprint was stupid enough to give her a phone
    and now they're whining about it.

    --
    Jafo
  16. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:35:29 -0800, "Quick"
    <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

    >Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >
    >I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
    >secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
    >family which I won't go into and is not germane to the
    >issue.

    Find me a normal, "functional" family and I'll pay your next year's
    worth of VZW service for you.;-)

    >18 yr. old Daughter's line gets cut off (ESN swap does
    >that pretty effectively). Sprint calls (some lady that later
    >says she is a supervisor at a local Sprint store) and asks
    >for my social security number. I'm in the middle of something
    >pretty intense and there are kids running around yelling
    >and what not and I end up giving her my SS (what an
    >idiot. I am smarter than that.). She did say something
    >about needing it to port my daughter's number to Sprint.
    >I'm thinking "great! she is going to pay for her own service".

    Aww, Quick, say it isn't so!!! I'm not going to bust your chops over
    the SSN issue, you've already done that. But as for your daughter,
    did she need your SSN just to do the porting, or was she trying to set
    up an account under your name or with you as co-signer? This seems
    odd, but I've not gone down the porting path (and don't intend to).
    If she wanted a Sprint phone, she could have just signed up on her
    own. At age 18, I wouldn't expect her to have an adequate credit
    history established, hence the question.

    I feel your pain. My son turned 18 this past Sunday and my daughter
    turns 15 in April. Another kid and I think I'll stick Mr. Beretta in
    my mouth.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:11:09 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
    <ghost@general.lee> wrote:

    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:35:29 -0800, "Quick"
    ><quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >>
    >>I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
    >>secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
    >>family which I won't go into and is not germane to the
    >>issue.
    >
    >Find me a normal, "functional" family and I'll pay your next year's
    >worth of VZW service for you.;-)

    How about the Cleavers Beaver, Wally, June, and Ward?
  18. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Steve Sobol wrote:
    > Quick wrote:
    >
    >> So the Sunday part is rather complicated. But after
    >> I explicitly told Sprint "Do NOT port my number" I figure
    >> the subsequent attempts are akin to slamming.
    >
    > That is weird. They couldn't port the number I requested
    > to have ported because I hadn't given them the password
    > for my Verizon account -- didn't realize I had to -- and
    > they did NOT try again.

    The VZW rep said they used to require *everything* to match
    when processing a port request... Then they got too many
    complaints from people whose port didn't go through because
    they had changed address, etc. So apparently they've relaxed
    the verification. It seems that now the carrier who will end up
    with the number need only submit a port request with the SS#
    on the VZW account that the number is being ported from.

    -Quick
  19. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    > But as for your daughter, did she need your SSN just to
    > do the porting, or was she trying to set up an account
    > under your name or with you as co-signer? This seems
    > odd, but I've not gone down the porting path (and don't
    > intend to). If she wanted a Sprint phone, she could have
    > just signed up on her own. At age 18, I wouldn't expect
    > her to have an adequate credit history established, hence
    > the question.

    It was just to port the number. Subsequent conversation
    upon her return from Grandma's:

    "Did you block the request to move my number from VZW?"
    "Yes, it would cost me $175. If you want to pay that I'll do it".
    "Why? they're just moving the number."
    "Because VZW will charge a $175 ETF."
    "But I paid Sprint $125 to move the number. $50 for the phone
    and $125 to move the number."

    Ok... she is absolutely clueless so episodes like this could be
    a learning experience (but probably not).

    I don't know how Sprint does it but my guess is that she paid
    $50 for the phone and $125 deposit (maybe includes first
    month?). She doesn't have any credit other than a savings
    account and her own credit card for maybe a year and a
    part time job at the sandwich place.

    -Quick
    credit card for maybe a year.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    It is alleged that Quick claimed:

    ; Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.

    It doesn't sound like it's Sprint that's slamming you, it's your
    daughter.

    --
    Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
    The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

    "Evil! Pure and simple from the eighth dimension!" (Buckaroo Banzai,
    "Buckaroo Banzai")
  21. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
    > It is alleged that Quick claimed:
    >
    > ; Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >
    > It doesn't sound like it's Sprint that's slamming you,
    > it's your daughter.

    Inadvertently possible. There is almost no chance the
    thought process went past:

    "I *must* have a cell phone for when I'm away from
    my 14 chat windows on my PC . I have a couple of
    hundred from my last paycheck or two and I'll get
    Grandma to pay for anything else. My friend has
    Sprint and can talk unlimited. Oh, and I *have* to
    have the same cell number."

    -Quick
  22. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "Jafo" <a@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:krv821pfgra007ccl0u7dq3b5upuioor4g@4ax.com...
    > As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Quick wrote:
    >
    > >The same Sprint rep called me this morning saying "I
    > >really need to get in touch with your daughter because
    > >she is running around with a Sprint phone without a
    > >number on it."
    >
    > Tough luck. Sprint was stupid enough to give her a phone
    > and now they're whining about it.
    >
    > --
    > Jafo

    The OP said she was 18, and they had a SSN to run a credit check. A port
    request was initiated ... As far as SPCS knew, they thought they had a new
    customer ...

    Bob
  23. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Bob Smith wrote:

    >"Jafo" wrote...
    >>Quick wrote:
    >>>The same Sprint rep called me this morning saying "I
    >>>really need to get in touch with your daughter because
    >>>she is running around with a Sprint phone without a
    >>>number on it."

    >> Tough luck. Sprint was stupid enough to give her a phone
    >> and now they're whining about it.

    >The OP said she was 18, and they had a SSN to run a credit
    >check. A port request was initiated ... As far as SPCS knew,
    >they thought they had a new customer ...

    Yeah. A new customer with somebody else's SS.

    --
    Jafo
  24. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:34:38 -0800, Jafo wrote:

    > As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Bob Smith wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> Tough luck. Sprint was stupid enough to give her a phone
    >>> and now they're whining about it.
    >
    >>The OP said she was 18, and they had a SSN to run a credit
    >>check. A port request was initiated ... As far as SPCS knew,
    >>they thought they had a new customer ...
    >
    > Yeah. A new customer with somebody else's SS.

    Actually no they just used his SSN for the porting request. I don't care
    how busy or stressful things are at the moment someone calls for your SSN
    just the fact they called for it should set off alarm bells in your head
    that something is wrong/you should pay attention. Esp if you have not
    initiated business with them at all. He did admit it was his mistake tho
    but it is a very bad one to make.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Central wrote:
    > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:34:38 -0800, Jafo wrote:
    >
    >> As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Bob Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Tough luck. Sprint was stupid enough to give her a
    >>>> phone and now they're whining about it.
    >>
    >>> The OP said she was 18, and they had a SSN to run a
    >>> credit check. A port request was initiated ... As far
    >>> as SPCS knew, they thought they had a new customer ...
    >>
    >> Yeah. A new customer with somebody else's SS.
    >
    > Actually no they just used his SSN for the porting
    > request. I don't care how busy or stressful things are at
    > the moment someone calls for your SSN just the fact they
    > called for it should set off alarm bells in your head
    > that something is wrong/you should pay attention. Esp if
    > you have not initiated business with them at all. He did
    > admit it was his mistake tho but it is a very bad one to
    > make.

    Well... *maybe* not that bad. Daughter was at the store.
    At least I knew I was giving my SSN to a Sprint store person.
    I also identified the phone number from the callerID. I think
    the big mistake was not immediately thinking about the
    consequences like the ETF. (yea, yea, it was still stupid).

    -Quick
  26. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:16:30 -0800, Quick wrote:
    >
    > Well... *maybe* not that bad. Daughter was at the store.
    > At least I knew I was giving my SSN to a Sprint store person.
    > I also identified the phone number from the callerID. I think
    > the big mistake was not immediately thinking about the
    > consequences like the ETF. (yea, yea, it was still stupid).
    >
    > -Quick

    CID data is very easy to change even more so with voip providers. At least
    it worked out to be a legitimate reason. Usually the only caller
    information you can trust would be the ANI billing data which you won't
    get with regular land lines. In such case I would have asked if your
    daughter was there and to speak to her or if not would have got their
    number and confirmed with information/internet lookups. All of which take
    time but I guess it is much shorter then having to clean up identity theft
    a month or more later.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Central wrote:
    > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:16:30 -0800, Quick wrote:
    >>
    >> Well... *maybe* not that bad. Daughter was at the store.
    >> At least I knew I was giving my SSN to a Sprint store
    >> person. I also identified the phone number from the
    >> callerID. I think the big mistake was not immediately
    >> thinking about the consequences like the ETF. (yea, yea,
    >> it was still stupid).
    >>
    >> -Quick
    >
    > CID data is very easy to change even more so with voip
    > providers. At least it worked out to be a legitimate
    > reason. Usually the only caller information you can trust
    > would be the ANI billing data which you won't get with
    > regular land lines. In such case I would have asked if
    > your daughter was there and to speak to her or if not
    > would have got their number and confirmed with
    > information/internet lookups. All of which take time but
    > I guess it is much shorter then having to clean up
    > identity theft a month or more later.

    All true. I did hear her in the background... no guarantee
    that it wasn't some scheme her and her friends cooked
    up though. -:)

    -Quick
  28. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    > The OP said she was 18, and they had a SSN to run a credit check. A port
    > request was initiated ... As far as SPCS knew, they thought they had a new
    > customer ...

    They do have a new customer - they just don't have one with the number they
    thought they assigned. If they wanted the sale so bad that they called her
    father for his SS# to avoid charging the daughter a deposit (which she may
    not have had the money to pay), then it's their loss. (Wonder if they have
    him as a co-owner or responsible party? That can get real hairy for her and
    sprint if she doesn't pay the bill.) If they just needed it to port the
    number, then they'll just need to assign a sprint number to it - she'll
    eventually come in to the store when it doesn't start working.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:45:20 +0000, cricket wrote:

    >> The OP said she was 18, and they had a SSN to run a credit check. A port
    >> request was initiated ... As far as SPCS knew, they thought they had a new
    >> customer ...
    >
    > They do have a new customer - they just don't have one with the number they
    > thought they assigned. If they wanted the sale so bad that they called her
    > father for his SS# to avoid charging the daughter a deposit (which she may
    > not have had the money to pay), then it's their loss. (Wonder if they have
    > him as a co-owner or responsible party? That can get real hairy for her and
    > sprint if she doesn't pay the bill.) If they just needed it to port the
    > number, then they'll just need to assign a sprint number to it - she'll
    > eventually come in to the store when it doesn't start working.

    Maybe I missed a post but they just called the for the SSN to use in
    porting. He didn't say they did it for credit because the only way they
    could have stopped her from paying the credit was if he was signing up.
    Given the fact that he said the call came from a sprintpcs store,
    specifically the manager, I would bet she was in the store at the time
    signing up and his SSN was all she didn't know for the porting request.

    I wouldn't doubt that the reason sprintpcs kept putting the port request
    through was because her phone did stop working and she called *2 to find
    out why. If one thing sprintpcs is bad at it is keeping their reps
    informed of each other's actions.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Central wrote:
    >
    > I wouldn't doubt that the reason sprintpcs kept putting the port
    > request through was because her phone did stop working and she called
    > *2 to find out why.

    Does that mean her phone was working or activated at the time she bought
    it? How can/does that work, if the number hadn't been ported from the
    old carrier yet?

    I've never have had to port a number yet, but have always assumed I'd
    have to use the old phone until the port was complete.


    --
    Mike
  31. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Central wrote:
    > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:45:20 +0000, cricket wrote:
    >
    >>> The OP said she was 18, and they had a SSN to run a
    >>> credit check. A port request was initiated ... As far
    >>> as SPCS knew, they thought they had a new customer ...
    >>
    >> They do have a new customer - they just don't have one
    >> with the number they thought they assigned. If they
    >> wanted the sale so bad that they called her father for
    >> his SS# to avoid charging the daughter a deposit (which
    >> she may not have had the money to pay), then it's their
    >> loss. (Wonder if they have him as a co-owner or
    >> responsible party? That can get real hairy for her and
    >> sprint if she doesn't pay the bill.) If they just needed
    >> it to port the number, then they'll just need to assign
    >> a sprint number to it - she'll eventually come in to the
    >> store when it doesn't start working.
    >
    > Maybe I missed a post but they just called the for the
    > SSN to use in porting. He didn't say they did it for
    > credit because the only way they could have stopped her
    > from paying the credit was if he was signing up. Given
    > the fact that he said the call came from a sprintpcs
    > store, specifically the manager, I would bet she was in
    > the store at the time signing up and his SSN was all she
    > didn't know for the porting request.

    Exactly. My SSN is on the VZW account. They needed
    that to port the number from that account. I've since
    gathered that she paid $50 for the phone and $125
    "to move the number". I'm guessing the $125 was
    actually a security deposit for lack of credit.

    > I wouldn't doubt that the reason sprintpcs kept putting
    > the port request through was because her phone did stop
    > working and she called *2 to find out why. If one thing
    > sprintpcs is bad at it is keeping their reps informed of
    > each other's actions.

    Not sure about that. First, the Sprint lady claimed she
    was a supervisor (no mention of being a manager).
    "I would like to speak with a supervisor."
    "I am the supervisor".
    This was after she identified herself by name and as
    being from the Sprint store on the corner of x and y
    street. After my callback she did seem to manage
    to cancel the initial port request with Sprint's porting
    department. I guess it's possible/probable that my
    daughter called Sprint's CS from out of town at
    Grandma's house to say that she couldn't get incoming
    calls on that number. CS may have re-iniated the port
    request.

    My guess:
    Store puts in port request with my SSN.
    Store cancels port request with my SSN.
    [next day]
    CS puts in port request without my SSN.
    Porting department goes "heh, we had the SSN
    yesterday so we'll just resubmit the request without
    the SSN?".
    Retry
    Retry
    Retry

    -Quick
  32. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:29:59 -0700, Tinman wrote:

    > Central wrote:
    >>
    >> I wouldn't doubt that the reason sprintpcs kept putting the port
    >> request through was because her phone did stop working and she called
    >> *2 to find out why.
    >
    > Does that mean her phone was working or activated at the time she bought
    > it? How can/does that work, if the number hadn't been ported from the
    > old carrier yet?
    >
    > I've never have had to port a number yet, but have always assumed I'd
    > have to use the old phone until the port was complete.

    The phone works for calling out and ideally porting only takes a few
    hours. Since most phones ask you to do a full charge for first use then by
    the time it is fully charged, again in best conditions, the port should
    have completed. During this time the phone should still work for calling
    out tho.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:12:08 -0800, Quick wrote:

    Well in most cases a supervisor = manager they are both management
    positions that may or may not be equal dependant on the business. I was
    just recalling from memory the specific job title.

    I noticed you have spoken with your daughter recently about this did you
    find out if she was actively calling sprintpcs to work out the porting
    issue after you blocked it? That would explain the multiple porting
    attempts. As far as sprintpcs retrying the port process when it failed
    you have to understand that the feed back they get is not always clear
    from the other company. All they knew was that their new customer signed
    up without problems, proper information and such, so things should work
    out. Only bad thing I can see here was that the store supervisor did not
    make it clear to sprintpcs' porting dept that all attempts should be
    stopped. Tho who knows what sprintpcs' porting computers' retry settings
    were set to.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    The trick that kids use is to be cute for the 1st 5-6 years or so and
    you get attached.....by the time they turn into little shits they're
    too big to eat.

    JohnF


    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:24:44 GMT, "Karl Farbmann"
    <rcandsc@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
    >> secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
    >> family
    >
    >Defined as any family with more than one member-
    >
    >You have my sympathy,
    >
    >The Father of a 15yearold drama queen
    >
  35. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:03:09 +0000, JohnF wrote:

    > The trick that kids use is to be cute for the 1st 5-6 years or so and
    > you get attached.....by the time they turn into little shits they're
    > too big to eat.
    >
    > JohnF
    >
    >

    That sounds like a challenge.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Quick wrote:

    > I don't know how Sprint does it but my guess is that she paid
    > $50 for the phone and $125 deposit (maybe includes first
    > month?). She doesn't have any credit other than a savings
    > account and her own credit card for maybe a year and a
    > part time job at the sandwich place.

    I have to figure you're right about the $125. There would have been a $36
    activation fee figured in somewhere in there.

    --
    JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

    "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
    --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
  37. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Central wrote:


    > The phone works for calling out

    Yes, because they assign it a number upon activation, it's just not the number
    that will ultimately be used. They have to assign a number upon activation.
    It's the way Sprint and every other cell carrier that I know of works.

    --
    JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

    "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
    --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
  38. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Quick wrote:
    >>store, specifically the manager, I would bet she was in
    >>the store at the time signing up and his SSN was all she
    >>didn't know for the porting request.
    >
    > Exactly. My SSN is on the VZW account. They needed
    > that to port the number from that account. I've since
    > gathered that she paid $50 for the phone and $125
    > "to move the number". I'm guessing the $125 was
    > actually a security deposit for lack of credit.

    Duh. That makes sense. And if you had a password set on the account instead,
    Verizon would have needed *that* as authorization to move the number. (Been
    there, done that. :)

    --
    JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

    "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
    --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
  39. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Jafo wrote:
    > Yeah. A new customer with somebody else's SS.

    No, it sounds like Verizon needed some sort of authorization. VZW required the
    account password from me when I ported my number out.

    --
    JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

    "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
    --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
  40. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Quick wrote:

    > The VZW rep said they used to require *everything* to match
    > when processing a port request... Then they got too many
    > complaints from people whose port didn't go through because
    > they had changed address, etc. So apparently they've relaxed
    > the verification. It seems that now the carrier who will end up
    > with the number need only submit a port request with the SS#
    > on the VZW account that the number is being ported from.

    Interesting. Yes, that's the problem I ran into; for some reason, Sprint, with
    whom I'd had an account for my wife's phone for years, retained our Victorville
    mailing address even after we moved to Apple Valley. Verizon had the Apple
    Valley address. So did Sprint, but for some reason the VV address was still in
    their system as the primary address and that's what they initially sent to
    Verizon. Everything got cleared up quickly, but it was still rather weird.

    --
    JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

    "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
    --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
  41. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1109700817.173603@sj-nntpcache-5...
    > Central wrote:
    > > On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:34:38 -0800, Jafo wrote:
    > >
    > >> As viewed from alt.cellular.verizon, Bob Smith wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>> Tough luck. Sprint was stupid enough to give her a
    > >>>> phone and now they're whining about it.
    > >>
    > >>> The OP said she was 18, and they had a SSN to run a
    > >>> credit check. A port request was initiated ... As far
    > >>> as SPCS knew, they thought they had a new customer ...
    > >>
    > >> Yeah. A new customer with somebody else's SS.
    > >
    > > Actually no they just used his SSN for the porting
    > > request. I don't care how busy or stressful things are at
    > > the moment someone calls for your SSN just the fact they
    > > called for it should set off alarm bells in your head
    > > that something is wrong/you should pay attention. Esp if
    > > you have not initiated business with them at all. He did
    > > admit it was his mistake tho but it is a very bad one to
    > > make.
    >
    > Well... *maybe* not that bad. Daughter was at the store.
    > At least I knew I was giving my SSN to a Sprint store person.
    > I also identified the phone number from the callerID. I think
    > the big mistake was not immediately thinking about the
    > consequences like the ETF. (yea, yea, it was still stupid).

    Not really stupid. More of a situation where there was an 18 year old girl
    involved. ;-)

    -F
  42. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:59:38 -0800, Quick wrote:

    > The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    >> But as for your daughter, did she need your SSN just to
    >> do the porting, or was she trying to set up an account
    >> under your name or with you as co-signer? This seems
    >> odd, but I've not gone down the porting path (and don't
    >> intend to). If she wanted a Sprint phone, she could have
    >> just signed up on her own. At age 18, I wouldn't expect
    >> her to have an adequate credit history established, hence
    >> the question.
    >
    > It was just to port the number. Subsequent conversation
    > upon her return from Grandma's:
    >
    > "Did you block the request to move my number from VZW?"
    > "Yes, it would cost me $175. If you want to pay that I'll do it".
    > "Why? they're just moving the number."
    > "Because VZW will charge a $175 ETF."
    > "But I paid Sprint $125 to move the number. $50 for the phone
    > and $125 to move the number."
    >
    > Ok... she is absolutely clueless so episodes like this could be
    > a learning experience (but probably not).
    >
    > I don't know how Sprint does it but my guess is that she paid
    > $50 for the phone and $125 deposit (maybe includes first
    > month?). She doesn't have any credit other than a savings
    > account and her own credit card for maybe a year and a
    > part time job at the sandwich place.
    >
    > -Quick
    > credit card for maybe a year.

    She is going to get a big awakening when she gets her first bill. Since
    that will be $36, activation, + plan + taxes. Sprintpcs gives instant
    discounts on the phones which is why it only cost $50. The $125
    she will get back at the end of her contract if she never misses a
    payment. They take it off her bill at the end of her contract so in 2yrs
    she will not have to pay for a month or two. Also sprintpcs bills one
    month in advance so that will also raise her first bill. Hopefully she was
    paying attention when they explained all this.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Central wrote:
    >
    > She is going to get a big awakening when she gets her
    > first bill. Since that will be $36, activation, + plan +
    > taxes. Sprintpcs gives instant discounts on the phones
    > which is why it only cost $50. The $125
    > she will get back at the end of her contract if she never
    > misses a payment. They take it off her bill at the end of
    > her contract so in 2yrs she will not have to pay for a
    > month or two. Also sprintpcs bills one month in advance
    > so that will also raise her first bill. Hopefully she was
    > paying attention when they explained all this.

    Listening (attentive look): 80% probability
    Paying attention (actually listening): 50% probability
    Processing the details: 5% probability
    Projecting actual cost, initial, monthly, etc.: 1% probability

    thanks for the info.

    -Quick
  44. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 03:52:11 +0000, ZJ Driver wrote:

    >>
    >> Well... *maybe* not that bad. Daughter was at the store.
    >> At least I knew I was giving my SSN to a Sprint store person.
    >> I also identified the phone number from the callerID. I think
    >> the big mistake was not immediately thinking about the
    >> consequences like the ETF. (yea, yea, it was still stupid).
    >
    > Not really stupid. More of a situation where there was an 18 year old girl
    > involved. ;-)
    >
    > -F

    Well I guess that would make sense since I have always heard about stupid
    situations involving 17 year old girls :P
  45. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:35:25 -0500, TeddeLI <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

    >>Find me a normal, "functional" family and I'll pay your next year's
    >>worth of VZW service for you.;-)
    >
    >How about the Cleavers Beaver, Wally, June, and Ward?

    Nope, fictional families don't count. And I'll bet chain smoking
    cigarette Harriet made Ozzie sleep on the couch at least once.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:59:38 -0800, "Quick"
    <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

    >Ok... she is absolutely clueless so episodes like this could be
    >a learning experience (but probably not).

    That's what I thought when my son failed 9th grade. I had fought with
    him to keep his English grades up all through middle school, and just
    got tired of fighting it. But the reality of spending an extra year
    in high school did serve of a wake-up call of sorts.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    Quick wrote:
    > Well, not exactly... and I think I've thwarted them.
    >
    > I have a VZW familyshare under my name with 2
    > secondary lines. I have what is basically a dysfunctional
    > family which I won't go into and is not germane to the
    > issue.

    Then don't mention it.

    > She did say something
    > about needing it to port my daughter's number to Sprint.
    > I'm thinking "great! she is going to pay for her own service".

    If your daughter inititiated the swap and represented to Sprint that she
    was authorized to do so, then it's not slamming on Sprint's part.

    > I call the Sprint lady back. I tell her that I don't want to
    > do it since it will cost me $175. She is immediately gets
    > aggressive/belligerent and says that is not her problem
    > and that I gave her my SS and that is between my
    > daughter and me.

    Well, she's right. It is. You were also informed about what it was
    for, and you handed down your consent. What do you expect?

    > I told her that I agree but that I wasn't
    > informed of any of the implications

    So you didn't read your contract? Wow, what are you doing witha cell
    phone to begin with?


    > and made a mistake

    Got that right.

    > in giving her my SS in the first place. Now that I was
    > aware of the implications I did NOT want my VZW number
    > ported.

    Once the request goes through, it can't exactly be undone. A port
    generally assumes that the person authorizing the port is reasonably
    proficient to know what the "implications" of that port are, and I would
    have to say those implications were made pretty clear when you said yes.


    > That sort of got her
    > attention and she said she would call their porting dept.
    > and call me back in 1/2 hr. She did and said they had
    > cancelled the port request but that I should call VZW
    > just in case anything had been initiated. I did. Nothing
    > at that time. That was Sunday evening.

    Oh good, they managed to save you from your own stupidity. So, how is
    this slamming exactly?

    > So the Sunday part is rather complicated. But after
    > I explicitly told Sprint "Do NOT port my number" I figure
    > the subsequent attempts are akin to slamming.


    If your daughter is still trying to ge the number proted over, it's not
    slamming. She's trying to initiate something and you're not letting
    her. Looks like that whole dysfunctional family thing WAS germane to
    the topic after all. You should probably ground everyone up and see a
    family therapist instead of blaming your problmes on a cell phone
    carrier. And while you're at it, if your relationship si taht estranged
    with your daughter, why are you paying for her cell phone bill?

    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message news:112cbjhsnlnd73c@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > If your daughter inititiated the swap and represented to Sprint that she
    > was authorized to do so, then it's not slamming on Sprint's part.

    What mechanism exists to prevent anyone from doing this by claiming
    to be authorized by the head of household? If Sprint has no safeguards
    in place, then it *is* slamming.

    --
    John Richards
  49. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    John Richards wrote:
    > "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in
    > message news:112cbjhsnlnd73c@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >> If your daughter inititiated the swap and represented to
    >> Sprint that she was authorized to do so, then it's not
    >> slamming on Sprint's part.
    >
    > What mechanism exists to prevent anyone from doing this
    > by claiming to be authorized by the head of household?
    > If Sprint has no safeguards in place, then it *is* slamming.

    I kind of think so too. My understanding is that VZW requires
    the port request to be submitted to them accompanied by the
    SSN associated with the VZW account. T

    he first port request from Sprint was submitted with my SSN.
    Sprint canceled it before it was completed. (I'm assuming
    in response to my request).

    The next day Sprint submitted 4 subsequent port requests
    *without* my SSN. VZW rejected them. VZW told me that
    they had asked Sprint's port department about it. Sprint said
    something to the effect and were they didn't need the SSN
    because the original request (that they had cancelled) had
    included it.

    So why didn't they just include it on the subsequent requests?
    I suspect because I had specifically withdrawn my consent
    and made it clear that I didn't want the number ported. I would
    guess they would be risking treading on marginal legal grounds
    if they had used my SSN after I explicitly said I didn't want
    the number ported.

    Why did they resubmit (multiple) port requests the next day
    *without* including my SSN? Sounds "aggressive" at best,
    to me.

    I could understand the Monday shift coming in and seeing
    an unresolved/canceled port request and processing it along
    with the morning's batch or something like that. But why did
    they omit the SSN on the re-tries? and then say they didn't
    need it since they were aware that it had been included on
    the canceled request the day before?

    There were a lot of extenuating circumstances and maybe
    a few people cut a few process corners but it appeared to
    me to be a bit more than just a normal screwup.

    -Quick
Ask a new question

Read More

Verizon Internet Service Providers