Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

o/siris confessed

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 2:49:51 PM

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

Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
Agreements improperly forever up until March 23.

Now he denies ever saying it, and calls anyone who points out
this post a LIAR. he remains an embarressment to SprintPCS

From: O/Siris (0srs@sprntpcs.cm)
Subject: Re: Plan Upgrade
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Date: 2004-03-23 02:13:36 PST

In article <Egh6c.27332$%06.23835
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
Smithusirsclt No Spam @earthlink.net says...
> I checked it both ways, as a new customer, or as a current customer for m y
> zip code for the $65/mo. plan. As a new customer, I could select not goin g
> on an AA by paying $10 more a month.
>
> As a current customer, and changing plans through my manage page, there w as
> no comment about needing to extend my AA, unless I was going to take the
> 7:00 N & W option.
>
> Bob
>

This has been a *very* interesting question. And I wonder
just how much this newsgroup spawned this little debate. I
had a woman challenge me on this tonight. So I had the
PERFECT opportunity to find out, once and for all. And,
wouldn't you know? I found out. Much to my chagrin:

I found the following question answered in our procedures
database:
"Can an existing Individual Purchased customer swap service
plans without needing to renew their contract?
Impact of Service Plan swaps to Contract Plans on
Individual Purchased accounts.
LOBs: Business Services"

Now, this is, once again, specifying Business Accounts.
Still, I would imagine, in this case, that Consumer
Accounts are much the same. And the answer?

It turns out that a plan change does not require a new
Advantage Agreement if 3 conditions all prove true:

1. The customer is eligible for the new service plan,
AND
2. The new plan is in the same family of plans as the
existing service plan (for example, switching from one Free
and Clear service plan to another Free and Clear plan), AND
3. The new plan does not require the current service
contract to be renewed. See related solutions for the
specific plan the customer wants to switch to for details.

That "family of plans" condition seems to me to be the most
complicated condition. Remember when F&CA was sold as its
own family? Now moving to a plan where it's just an add-on
means renewing the Advantage Agreement.

Anyway, complications aside, I was wrong. I guess I've
been able to get away with justifying the new agreements
all this time. Like 2 year Advantage Agreements for the
7PM option, or PCS2PCS. Stuff like that. This woman
tonight wanted none of that, and she was right.

More about : siris confessed

April 21, 2004 2:49:52 PM

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

rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
Agreements improperly forever up until March 23. (snip) >>

Sounds like Robert M. has a thing for O/Siris.
April 21, 2004 4:40:27 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:
> Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
> Agreements improperly forever up until March 23.
>
> Now he denies ever saying it, and calls anyone who points out
> this post a LIAR. he remains an embarressment to SprintPCS
>

Alright. So, he was wrong and he admitted to it in the newsgroup. I get
the feeling that this is important from the way you posted it. I'm not
too worked up. What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?


Sitting at the edge of my seat,
-mike
Related resources
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 6:43:20 PM

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

Everybody know Philly has painted a bull's-eye on his back as one of the
Sprint 'apologists'. But, when will Philly ever admit he made a mistake?
Every original post by him is one because he never puts the whole story,
just puts in a tidbit to cause trouble. He never responds to me when I show
him the error of his ways and include the excerpted info.

Chris

"Eric" <caperenewal@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24370-408672FB-19@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net...
rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
Agreements improperly forever up until March 23. (snip) >>

Sounds like Robert M. has a thing for O/Siris.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 6:46:24 PM

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

In article <%Ythc.3358$eZ5.243@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
> > Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
> > Agreements improperly forever up until March 23.
> >
> > Now he denies ever saying it, and calls anyone who points out
> > this post a LIAR. he remains an embarressment to SprintPCS
> >
>
> Alright. So, he was wrong and he admitted to it in the newsgroup. I get
> the feeling that this is important from the way you posted it. I'm not
> too worked up. What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?

Well he denies it now, and calls me a liar for having mentioned it.
It demonstrates his credibility is suspect.

I backup what I say with URLs.
April 21, 2004 6:51:41 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <%Ythc.3358$eZ5.243@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert M. wrote:
>>
>>>Here is where O/siris confessed to giving out 2 year Advantage
>>>Agreements improperly forever up until March 23.
>>>
>>>Now he denies ever saying it, and calls anyone who points out
>>>this post a LIAR. he remains an embarressment to SprintPCS
>>>
>>
>>Alright. So, he was wrong and he admitted to it in the newsgroup. I get
>>the feeling that this is important from the way you posted it. I'm not
>>too worked up. What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?
>
>
> Well he denies it now, and calls me a liar for having mentioned it.
> It demonstrates his credibility is suspect.
>
> I backup what I say with URLs.

What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?
-mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:01:46 PM

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

In article <1Uvhc.5158$e4.4390@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

>
> What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?


Not asking you to do anything. "O" asked me to prove he had said he was
wrong about giving 2 year contracts to everyone, and I posted the proof.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:15:21 PM

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

In article <cMvhc.98$5d5.73@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
"Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:

> Every original post by him is one because he never puts the whole story,

Total nonsense. I post supporting information. URLs, prior Google posts.

It's just the blind Sprint apologists who get bent out of shape my
telling

SprintPCS' worst rated customer Service
SprintPCS "Handle Time" requirements for CSRs
SprintPCS Upsell quotas for CSRs
SprintPCS secret Retention deals
SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
SprintPCS as a money losing organization
SprintPCS and its high churn rate
SprintPCS failing to release WLNP comparitive numbers
SprintPCS now refusing to release $$ cost of new customer acquisition.


Then the apologists want to divert attention from SprintPCS short
comings and attack me.
April 21, 2004 7:41:51 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> Total nonsense. I post supporting information. URLs, prior Google posts.
>
> It's just the blind Sprint apologists who get bent out of shape my
> telling
>
> SprintPCS' worst rated customer Service

My personal experience has been good, and some call centers have started
ending calls with the question "Have I resolved all your issues in a
satisfactoy manner today?" This has the double bonus of saving a call
gone bad and giving the reps an almost constant stream of actual
positive feedback, thereby reducing the number of people that *hate*
their job and have a bad attitude.

> SprintPCS "Handle Time" requirements for CSRs

I'd like to see one of your URLs on this. From what I can tell, if there
is a handle time requirement, it's either greater than six minutes (the
number I've seen you post before) or it's based on average call times,
not per call times.

> SprintPCS Upsell quotas for CSRs

No doubt they have an incentive to sell. Just say either yes or no and
move on. I've not had a pushy sales person, though I have been asked to
get Sprint home long distance a couple of times a day when I've had a
complex issue. I tell them that I don't have a landline, and that my
SprintPCS phone does quite well for me. They're happy, I'm happy, we
move on.

> SprintPCS secret Retention deals

They're not secret. They're also not advertised. That's because they're
retention deals. Just like Wal-Mart has a budget for theft and damaged
product, Sprint has a budget for dropped call credits and retension
deals. They watch the numbers on these deals and tune them constantly so
they can maintain the right balance of profitability and "stop-loss" on
these accounts. They'll often take a reduced profit if they know the
customer has a good payment history and they can get a contract renewal
without having to give away a handset.

> SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)

I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
bringing resolution.

> SprintPCS as a money losing organization

They're wrapping up the main phase of their build out. Many companies
make profits quickly, others don't. For wireless, it's not unusual to
see losses. As a subscriber, it's not my problem anyway, though I could
see how an investor would care.

> SprintPCS and its high churn rate
> SprintPCS failing to release WLNP comparitive numbers
> SprintPCS now refusing to release $$ cost of new customer acquisition.

Not going to comment on these - not an investor, and therefore I
personally don't care. I could see that an investor would care, however.

> Then the apologists want to divert attention from SprintPCS short
> comings and attack me.

I don't care to attack you, but the implications of your points are not
very clear. In sales, I could say you're talking features and not
benefits. One point from above, in demonstration:

*Why should I care that SprintPCS has call handling quotas?* Keep in
mind that this newsgroup is occupied almost exclusively by Sprint
subscribers. Not simple subscribers, mind you, but SprintPCS nerds. I
imagine the average subscriber calls Customer Care once to an a.c.s
poster's ten calls. That means that if you tell them that there are very
strict quotas for CSRs and most of the newsgroup has had a twenty minute
conversation with a rep within the last month, you're credibility is at
issue.

Just take each of your arguements about Sprint PCS and answer the simple
question: So what?

So, why should I take your information at heart when it contradicts my
experience?
-mike
April 21, 2004 7:41:52 PM

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

spamtrap@zbuffer.com (Mike) wrote:
<<Keep in mind that this newsgroup is occupied almost exclusively by
Sprint subscribers. Not simple subscribers, mind you, but SprintPCS
nerds. >>

Hey, who do you think you are calling me a nerd?! I haven't been called
a nerd since... Sunday when I was price matching Best Buy/Circuit City
ads from the morning paper. LOL

Sorry, just LOL anytime I see the word "nerd". It has to be the
funniest one-word insult of the 80s. :) 

Eric
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:26:38 PM

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

In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > Total nonsense. I post supporting information. URLs, prior Google posts.
> >
> > It's just the blind Sprint apologists who get bent out of shape my
> > telling
> >
> > SprintPCS' worst rated customer Service
>
> My personal experience has been good

I'm very happy for you, but one experience does not explain well over 1
million folks leaving SprintPCS in the last quarter.
April 21, 2004 8:26:39 PM

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

rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<I'm very happy for you, but one experience does not explain well over
1 million folks leaving SprintPCS in the last quarter. >>

No, but it does support the theory that not *everyone* has horrible
customer service experiences like you would like to believe. As with
any company, the ones who have had a negative experience are much more
vocal than the ones who have not, and you never acknowledge the
possibility that many folks do not have the same problems with Sprint
that you do.

And, if Sprint PCS were to improve its Customer Service rating as you
have said you'd like to see... why constantly shoot down people who post
positive things?

Eric
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:27:02 PM

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

In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> > SprintPCS secret Retention deals
>
> They're not secret. They're also not advertised

Duhh. Then they are secret.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:27:47 PM

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

In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> > SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
>
> I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
> fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
> what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
> to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
> bringing resolution.

Thats not the issue, but you know that. The issue is phones that should
be recalled aren't.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:28:18 PM

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

In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> > SprintPCS and its high churn rate
> > SprintPCS failing to release WLNP comparitive numbers
> > SprintPCS now refusing to release $$ cost of new customer acquisition.
>
> Not going to comment on these - not an investor, and therefore I
> personally don't care. I could see that an investor would care, however.

Thank you. I rest my case
April 21, 2004 8:49:25 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:
> In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
>>
>>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
>
>
> Duhh. Then they are secret.

"Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."
-mike
April 21, 2004 8:52:45 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
>>
>>I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
>>fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
>>what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
>>to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
>>bringing resolution.
>
>
> Thats not the issue, but you know that. The issue is phones that should
> be recalled aren't.

I'm not certain that your issue is more "the issue" than mine. What is
the standard for determining the need to recall a mobile phone?
-mike
April 21, 2004 8:55:32 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>SprintPCS and its high churn rate
>>>SprintPCS failing to release WLNP comparitive numbers
>>>SprintPCS now refusing to release $$ cost of new customer acquisition.
>>
>>Not going to comment on these - not an investor, and therefore I
>>personally don't care. I could see that an investor would care, however.
>
>
> Thank you. I rest my case

What was your case again?
-mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:02:29 PM

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

In article <xFxhc.5324$e4.1726@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
> >>
> >>I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
> >>fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
> >>what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
> >>to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
> >>bringing resolution.
> >
> >
> > Thats not the issue, but you know that. The issue is phones that should
> > be recalled aren't.
>
> I'm not certain that your issue is more "the issue" than mine. What is
> the standard for determining the need to recall a mobile phone?

If it can't do analog calling, but is sold as being able to, then if one
has an emergency inand needs to use Analog, tragic things could happen.

That is the exact issue with the Samsung 8500
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:03:14 PM

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

In article <pCxhc.5321$e4.473@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
> > In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
> >>
> >>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
> >
> >
> > Duhh. Then they are secret.
>
> "Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."

But unadvertised is the same as secret for most SprintPCS customers.
April 21, 2004 9:12:52 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert M. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Total nonsense. I post supporting information. URLs, prior Google posts.
>>>
>>>It's just the blind Sprint apologists who get bent out of shape my
>>>telling
>>>
>>>SprintPCS' worst rated customer Service
>>
>>My personal experience has been good
>
>
> I'm very happy for you, but one experience does not explain well over 1
> million folks leaving SprintPCS in the last quarter.

Well, you're changing the subject here, but okay. Now that I know that 1
million folks left SprintPCS in the last quarter, I should immediately
<blank>.

Fill in the blank.
-mike
April 21, 2004 9:20:39 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <pCxhc.5321$e4.473@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert M. wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
>>>>
>>>>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
>>>
>>>
>>>Duhh. Then they are secret.
>>
>>"Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."
>
>
> But unadvertised is the same as secret for most SprintPCS customers.

So, what should those that read your posts do, now that they know that
Sprint PCS has non-secret retention deals? Should we leave Sprint
because they're so sinister for having these non-secret deals? Granted,
it's good to know that savings are available, but your posts make these
deals sound like some shady dealings by an underhanded wireless
provider. I sure think you have a cause, because each time you mention
these things, you write them as if they're important, but I just can't
understand what the big deal is.
-mike
April 21, 2004 9:28:06 PM

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

Eric wrote:

> spamtrap@zbuffer.com (Mike) wrote:
> <<Keep in mind that this newsgroup is occupied almost exclusively by
> Sprint subscribers. Not simple subscribers, mind you, but SprintPCS
> nerds. >>
>
> Hey, who do you think you are calling me a nerd?! I haven't been called
> a nerd since... Sunday when I was price matching Best Buy/Circuit City
> ads from the morning paper. LOL
>
> Sorry, just LOL anytime I see the word "nerd". It has to be the
> funniest one-word insult of the 80s. :) 
>
> Eric
>

HaHa! (snort)

(Pushes glasses up)
-mike
April 21, 2004 9:31:24 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <xFxhc.5324$e4.1726@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert M. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
>>>>
>>>>I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
>>>>fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
>>>>what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
>>>>to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
>>>>bringing resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thats not the issue, but you know that. The issue is phones that should
>>>be recalled aren't.
>>
>>I'm not certain that your issue is more "the issue" than mine. What is
>>the standard for determining the need to recall a mobile phone?
>
>
> If it can't do analog calling, but is sold as being able to, then if one
> has an emergency inand needs to use Analog, tragic things could happen.
>
> That is the exact issue with the Samsung 8500

What is the standard for determining the need to recall a mobile phone?
-mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:32:58 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-193340.11265221042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
> > > SprintPCS secret Retention deals
> >
> > They're not secret. They're also not advertised
>
> Duhh. Then they are secret.

They are not secret. The information is not readily made available by the
company, as not everyone can qualify for them, whether it be the length of
time with SPCS, the size of their account, their payment history, or the age
of their phones.

Bob
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:34:24 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-A70A48.11280921042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
> > > SprintPCS and its high churn rate
> > > SprintPCS failing to release WLNP comparitive numbers
> > > SprintPCS now refusing to release $$ cost of new customer acquisition.
> >
> > Not going to comment on these - not an investor, and therefore I
> > personally don't care. I could see that an investor would care, however.
>
> Thank you. I rest my case

You rest your case? WTF is that suppose to mean?

Bob
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:35:30 PM

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

Mike wrote:
>
> Eric wrote:
>
> > spamtrap@zbuffer.com (Mike) wrote:
> > <<Keep in mind that this newsgroup is occupied almost exclusively by
> > Sprint subscribers. Not simple subscribers, mind you, but SprintPCS
> > nerds. >>
> >
> > Hey, who do you think you are calling me a nerd?! I haven't been called
> > a nerd since... Sunday when I was price matching Best Buy/Circuit City
> > ads from the morning paper. LOL
> >
> > Sorry, just LOL anytime I see the word "nerd". It has to be the
> > funniest one-word insult of the 80s. :) 
> >
> > Eric
> >
>
> HaHa! (snort)
>
> (Pushes glasses up)

Not just "glasses," but glasses with white tape holding the bridge together! <g>

Larry
April 21, 2004 9:36:37 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <1Uvhc.5158$e4.4390@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?
>
>
>
> Not asking you to do anything. "O" asked me to prove he had said he was
> wrong about giving 2 year contracts to everyone, and I posted the proof.

Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
record of readily admitting to his mistakes.

"Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little ruffled.

-mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:37:40 PM

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

In article <H3yhc.5356$e4.1155@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Granted,
> it's good to know that savings are available

Well thank you. You just validated my posting the Retention FAQ, which I
shall continue to do.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:38:14 PM

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

In article <Mdyhc.5375$e4.5059@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <xFxhc.5324$e4.1726@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Robert M. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >>> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>SprintPCS secret warranty support (ie. A500, Samsung 8500)
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't see what's so bad about Sprint replacing a handset they can't
> >>>>fix, even if their only obligation is to fix the handset. I don't see
> >>>>what's wrong with them giving a new handset of a different make or model
> >>>>to a consumer because replacing with the same make or model isn't
> >>>>bringing resolution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thats not the issue, but you know that. The issue is phones that should
> >>>be recalled aren't.
> >>
> >>I'm not certain that your issue is more "the issue" than mine. What is
> >>the standard for determining the need to recall a mobile phone?
> >
> >
> > If it can't do analog calling, but is sold as being able to, then if one
> > has an emergency inand needs to use Analog, tragic things could happen.
> >
> > That is the exact issue with the Samsung 8500
>
> What is the standard for determining the need to recall a mobile phone?

Apparently by SprintPCS, never do it.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:40:02 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-9760D5.12030521042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <pCxhc.5321$e4.473@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert M. wrote:
> > > In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
> > >>
> > >>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
> > >
> > >
> > > Duhh. Then they are secret.
> >
> > "Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."
>
> But unadvertised is the same as secret for most SprintPCS customers.

No, it isn't. Say, considering you have an problem with posting your name
and email address, why don't you post that information, instead of hiding
behind 65 different identities?

Bob
April 21, 2004 9:40:42 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <H3yhc.5356$e4.1155@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Granted,
>>it's good to know that savings are available
>
>
> Well thank you. You just validated my posting the Retention FAQ, which I
> shall continue to do.

So, do you agree that there is nothing sinister about Sprint not
publishing the availability of retention plans? I would assume as much,
as you failed to address them in your response.
-mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:44:08 PM

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

"Mike" <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote in message
news:H3yhc.5356$e4.1155@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <pCxhc.5321$e4.473@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Robert M. wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <3Dwhc.5180$e4.3251@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >>> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>SprintPCS secret Retention deals
> >>>>
> >>>>They're not secret. They're also not advertised
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Duhh. Then they are secret.
> >>
> >>"Advertised" is not the opposite of "secret."
> >
> >
> > But unadvertised is the same as secret for most SprintPCS customers.
>
> So, what should those that read your posts do, now that they know that
> Sprint PCS has non-secret retention deals? Should we leave Sprint
> because they're so sinister for having these non-secret deals? Granted,
> it's good to know that savings are available, but your posts make these
> deals sound like some shady dealings by an underhanded wireless
> provider. I sure think you have a cause, because each time you mention
> these things, you write them as if they're important, but I just can't
> understand what the big deal is.
> -mike

Don't ask reasonable questions to Phillipe Mike ... He won't provide
reasonable answers ...

Bob
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 9:47:27 PM

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

"Mike" <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote in message
news:Fiyhc.5382$e4.3866@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <1Uvhc.5158$e4.4390@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What should I and the rest of the newsgroup do about it?
> >
> >
> >
> > Not asking you to do anything. "O" asked me to prove he had said he was
> > wrong about giving 2 year contracts to everyone, and I posted the proof.
>
> Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
> with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
> record of readily admitting to his mistakes.
>
> "Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
> Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
> also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little
ruffled.
>
> -mike

I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
attacking Rob on any and everything ...

Bob
April 21, 2004 9:49:19 PM

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

Bob Smith wrote:

> Don't ask reasonable questions to Phillipe Mike ... He won't provide
> reasonable answers ...
>
> Bob

Because his reply was written in such a way that he only addressed the
savings related to retention plans, ignoring the rest of my post, I
suspect he's only interested in eligible SprintPCS subscribers saving money.

I think he just assigns this secret cloak and dagger thing to make the
retension plans seem more "spicy."

He doesn't seem to think that there's anything underhanded about Sprint
offering these unpublished plans to retain valued customers.
-mike
April 21, 2004 9:53:02 PM

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

Bob Smith wrote:

>
> I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
> attacking Rob on any and everything ...
>
> Bob

I'd be very disappointed in him were that the case. I prefer to think
that Rob and Robert M. enjoy their debates. Otherwise, why would they
get so personal over something as minor as a cell phone?
-mike
April 21, 2004 9:54:53 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> Apparently by SprintPCS, never do it.

I see.
-mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:06:43 PM

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

In article <zuyhc.5394$e4.2206@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> He doesn't seem to think that there's anything underhanded about Sprint
> offering these unpublished plans to retain valued customers.

Only in the secrecy surrounding them.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:07:19 PM

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

In article <umyhc.5386$e4.680@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <H3yhc.5356$e4.1155@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Granted,
> >>it's good to know that savings are available
> >
> >
> > Well thank you. You just validated my posting the Retention FAQ, which I
> > shall continue to do.
>
> So, do you agree that there is nothing sinister about Sprint not
> publishing the availability of retention plans? I would assume as much,
> as you failed to address them in your response.
> -mike

ReRead the FAQ. That point is explictly discussed.
April 21, 2004 10:09:55 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:
> Only in the secrecy surrounding them.
As you'll recall, we've established that there is no secrecy.
-mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:11:34 PM

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

In article <Fiyhc.5382$e4.3866@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
> with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
> record of readily admitting to his mistakes.
>
> "Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
> Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
> also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little ruffled.

I get ruffled when he calls anyone who disagrees with him a LIAR.

I think that fully earns him the title

embarressment of SprintPCS.

He called me al liar for pointing out he had confessed to incorrectly
giving folks a 2 year contract. Thus I posted his post. he and a couple
of others are so quick to apologize for SprintPCS, they get bent out of
shape when I happen to have enough of a memory to know they are
contradicting themselves.

- What me know about the A500?

- What me give folks 2 year Agreements when I shouldn't?

- What me admit we call all cracked screens "Customer abuse"?

and in each case Google quickly calls up the post so saying, and when
caught in a lie, then they start with the obscenities/insults/name
calling, etc.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:12:34 PM

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

In article <2yyhc.5398$e4.3576@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Bob Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
> > attacking Rob on any and everything ...
> >
> > Bob
>
> I'd be very disappointed in him were that the case. I prefer to think
> that Rob and Robert M. enjoy their debates. Otherwise, why would they
> get so personal over something as minor as a cell phone?

I basically see Rob as overly loyal to his employer. He would get called
on incorrect posts for his former employer also.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:12:35 PM

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

Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:

> I basically see Rob as overly loyal to his employer. He would get called
> on incorrect posts for his former employer also.

Oh, really. And who would this former employer be, and can you give Message-IDs
that we can look up on Google?

**SJ "Not holding my breath for an answer" S


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:19:22 PM

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

"Mike" <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote in message
news:2yyhc.5398$e4.3576@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't believe does do in jest. I believe he has a personal hard-on for
> > attacking Rob on any and everything ...
> >
> > Bob
>
> I'd be very disappointed in him were that the case. I prefer to think
> that Rob and Robert M. enjoy their debates. Otherwise, why would they
> get so personal over something as minor as a cell phone?
> -mike


Because Phillipe and his 64 other ID's show he's a troll ...

Bob
April 21, 2004 10:19:50 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> ReRead the FAQ. That point is explictly discussed.

I did. Thank you for your agreement that there is nothing sinister about
these plans. I was under the impression that that was your purpose - to
make it look as if Sprint were somehow dishonest for offering these
plans. I just failed to recognize your flair for the dramatic. At times,
I've been accused of having such a flair offline. :) 
-mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:20:29 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-F1924E.13112421042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <Fiyhc.5382$e4.3866@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay. I won't do anything about a person who provides this newsgroup
> > with tons of information about SprintPCS and their policies and has a
> > record of readily admitting to his mistakes.
> >
> > "Embarassment to SprintPCS" is a little insulting though. I mean, I know
> > Rob has a life beyond Sprint, but he probably takes pride in his work. I
> > also know you mean it in jest, but some people might get a little
ruffled.
>
> I get ruffled when he calls anyone who disagrees with him a LIAR.
>
> I think that fully earns him the title
>
> embarressment of SprintPCS.
>
> He called me al liar for pointing out he had confessed to incorrectly
> giving folks a 2 year contract. Thus I posted his post. he and a couple
> of others are so quick to apologize for SprintPCS, they get bent out of
> shape when I happen to have enough of a memory to know they are
> contradicting themselves.
>
> - What me know about the A500?
>
> - What me give folks 2 year Agreements when I shouldn't?
>
> - What me admit we call all cracked screens "Customer abuse"?
>
> and in each case Google quickly calls up the post so saying, and when
> caught in a lie, then they start with the obscenities/insults/name
> calling, etc.

See what I mean Mike ... He does have a hard-on for Rob ...

Bob
April 21, 2004 10:24:46 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> I get ruffled when he calls anyone who disagrees with him a LIAR.

Aww... You kids...

You beat him up a little on the 8200/7300 flash issue too, so don't act
like it was just him. :) 

I know you two enjoy it. :) 
-mike
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:27:14 PM

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

In article <TNyhc.5416$e4.4357@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> As you'll recall, we've established that there is no secrecy.

Only by your definition.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 10:28:54 PM

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

In article <aXyhc.5434$e4.435@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Mike <spamtrap@zbuffer.com> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > ReRead the FAQ. That point is explictly discussed.
>
> I did. Thank you for your agreement that there is nothing sinister about
> these plans. I was under the impression that that was your purpose - to
> make it look as if Sprint were somehow dishonest for offering these
> plans. I just failed to recognize your flair for the dramatic. At times,
> I've been accused of having such a flair offline. :) 

I just firmly believe advertised plans would serve SprintPCS better as
it attempts to retain customers.

Of course a total revamp of its billing and CSR procedures would also
help.
April 21, 2004 10:30:48 PM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> Only by your definition.

As we've established that the plans are unpublished, and we've
established that unpublished does not mean secret, I would say that we
have. I have a supporting url:

http://m-w.com

-mike
!