Porting nightmare, suggestions please?

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

I initiated a WLNP port of a Verizon cellular number to Sprint PCS on
April 19. Verizon terminated service and released the number on April
30. Yet, to date, Sprint has not activated the new service. It is 23
days after initiating the process, and 11 days after Verizon released
the number!

Sprint always claims resolution is a few days away.

I have called a half-dozen Sprint PCS phone numbers I found on this
newsgroup and elsewhere, including "customer service", "port
resolution", "executive services", and "escalation" and spent hours on
the phone with them. None of the people answering are able to do
anything to solve the problem or even to explain what the problem is.

I would like to get my case referred to someone who can resolve it
immediately. Any suggestions? What other options do I have?

John Pane
--

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

In article <c7qqpm$605$1@sheepberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu>,
John Pane <spam@pane.net> wrote:

> I initiated a WLNP port of a Verizon cellular number to Sprint PCS on
> April 19. Verizon terminated service and released the number on April
> 30. Yet, to date, Sprint has not activated the new service. It is 23
> days after initiating the process, and 11 days after Verizon released
> the number!
>
> Sprint always claims resolution is a few days away.
>
> I have called a half-dozen Sprint PCS phone numbers I found on this
> newsgroup and elsewhere, including "customer service", "port
> resolution", "executive services", and "escalation" and spent hours on
> the phone with them. None of the people answering are able to do
> anything to solve the problem or even to explain what the problem is.
>
> I would like to get my case referred to someone who can resolve it
> immediately. Any suggestions? What other options do I have?
>
> John Pane

From: Wild Princess (thewildprincess@msn.com)
Subject: IT Porting Resolution Director @ Kansas HeadQuarters - PHONE
Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Date: 2003-12-11 12:52:18 PST

Name is Scott Lane and he is the Director of WLNP (this
porting madness) @ Sprint. Every flunky reports back into this group.

913-762-7449

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

"John Pane" <spam@pane.net> wrote in message
news:c7qqpm$605$1@sheepberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu...
> I initiated a WLNP port of a Verizon cellular number to Sprint PCS on
> April 19. Verizon terminated service and released the number on April
> 30. Yet, to date, Sprint has not activated the new service. It is 23
> days after initiating the process, and 11 days after Verizon released
> the number!
>
> Sprint always claims resolution is a few days away.
>
> I have called a half-dozen Sprint PCS phone numbers I found on this
> newsgroup and elsewhere, including "customer service", "port
> resolution", "executive services", and "escalation" and spent hours on
> the phone with them. None of the people answering are able to do
> anything to solve the problem or even to explain what the problem is.
>
> I would like to get my case referred to someone who can resolve it
> immediately. Any suggestions? What other options do I have?
>
> John Pane

John, a few questions ... How did you initiate the port request? Did you
call SPCS first, or Verizon?

Are you porting a number designated for your calling area, to the same area?

Is your name and billing address listed exactly the same from your Verizon
account, as it is for SPCS? When I say exactly, everything ... including the
"." following your middle initial?

What is SPCS telling you?

Bob

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

In article <40a0f805$0$157$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sure Phillip ... send right to the top. That will do it. You don't
>even know if the problem is a porting problem or if it is another
>problem, such as the phone is incorrectly programmed. That was the case
>after my port and it was resolved in 5 minutes after talking with the
>rep [a frontline rep at that].

No, Sprint is admitting the problem is on their end. It is not as simple
as a phone programming problem.

John

--

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

"John Pane" <spam@pane.net> wrote in message
news:c7r3ub$b3a$1@sheepberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu...
> In article <xP6oc.16366$Hs1.3849@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >John, a few questions ... How did you initiate the port request? Did you
> >call SPCS first, or Verizon?
>
> I initiated the port request with Sprint, at the time I purchased a phone.
>
> >Are you porting a number designated for your calling area, to the same
area?
>
> Same LATA.
>
> >Is your name and billing address listed exactly the same from your
Verizon
> >account, as it is for SPCS? When I say exactly, everything ... including
the
> >"." following your middle initial?
>
> Not sure, but given that Verizon has released the number and terminated my
> account, I don't think that is the hold up.
>
>
> >What is SPCS telling you?
>
> They are saying there is a technical difficulty with their
> provisioning system that is preventing them from completing the
> activation. They always claim the activation will be complete in
> a few business days, but they have been saying that for weeks.

It sounds like you do need to speak with higher levels. Here's a link with
numbers to all their departments -
http://www.sprintpcsinfo.com/modul [...] age&pid=10
Either Executive Services or the WLNP depts. can help you.

Bob

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

In article <c7r3mp$au2$1@sheepberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu>,
John Pane <spam@pane.net> wrote:

> In article <40a0f805$0$157$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>, Thomas T.
> Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Sure Phillip ... send right to the top. That will do it. You don't
> >even know if the problem is a porting problem or if it is another
> >problem, such as the phone is incorrectly programmed. That was the case
> >after my port and it was resolved in 5 minutes after talking with the
> >rep [a frontline rep at that].
>
> No, Sprint is admitting the problem is on their end. It is not as simple
> as a phone programming problem.

Ignore Veldhouse. SprintPCS never did anything wrong as far as he's
concerned and soon he will be claiming this is all your fault.

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

In article <c7rdip$gam$1@sheepberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu>,
John Pane <spam@pane.net> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-540218.10441211052004@news4.west.earthlink.net>, Røbert
> M <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Name is Scott Lane and he is the Director of WLNP (this
> >porting madness) @ Sprint. Every flunky reports back into this group.
>
> Within hours of leaving a message for Scott Lane, the phone was activated!
> Thank you all for your suggestions.
>
> John

Glad to help !!

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

R?bert M <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ignore Veldhouse. SprintPCS never did anything wrong as far as he's
> concerned and soon he will be claiming this is all your fault.

Did I say Sprint PCS didn't do anything wrong? Got a quote BM?
Actually, what I stated could easily have been [and could still possibly
be ... see my response to him] the cause. I offered a technical
solution as to what was wrong, and not only that, but it would indicate
that Sprint PCS DID do something wrong. Where you, just post an
inflamatory [towards Sprint PCS] statement to call outside of the normal
channels and intentially disrupt the normal state of affairs. That is
not called for until all normal avenues of escallation have been
exhausted. You just use a nuke on a beatle because that is all you know
how to do [or care to].

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAoU2U1p0e3NXsrtERAtrxAKCD6jNRuioozNq0u4sqOsGmd4rnlgCggczN
MOX0aZGrzUkpnTWdB4o+05o=
=1W4z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

In article <40a14d95$0$176$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Where you, just post an
>inflamatory [towards Sprint PCS] statement to call outside of the normal
>channels and intentially disrupt the normal state of affairs. That is
>not called for until all normal avenues of escallation have been
>exhausted.

In this case, I suggest that all normal avenues of escalation had already been
exhausted.

John



--

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

In article <4335-40A151A2-596@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>,
caperenewal@webtv.net (Eric) wrote:

> (John Pane) wrote:
> <<Within hours of leaving a message for Scott Lane, the phone was
> activated! Thank you all for your suggestions. >>
>
> I didn't help in this thread, but wanted to say that I am happy you got
> your problem resolved. There are many times when regular Customer Care
> cannot help (either because they do not know, don't want to
> help/research the problem, or are undertrained) but speaking to someone
> else higher up in the ladder works like a charm.
> Always give *2 a chance to help, but know that there are other avenues
> if they cannot.
>
> Eric
>


I did help, was the source of the phone number that solved his problem,
and yet others were quick to insult me for offering that helpful
information.

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

In article <c7rkgh$k4g$1@sheepberry.srv.cs.cmu.edu>,
John Pane <spam@pane.net> wrote:

> In article <40a14d95$0$176$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>, Thomas T.
> Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Where you, just post an
> >inflamatory [towards Sprint PCS] statement to call outside of the normal
> >channels and intentially disrupt the normal state of affairs. That is
> >not called for until all normal avenues of escallation have been
> >exhausted.
>
> In this case, I suggest that all normal avenues of escalation had already
> been
> exhausted.
>
> John

no comment, but why would anyone suggest otherwise after 23 days?

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

In article <20040511193135.09260.00000333@mb-m17.aol.com>,
readnewsgroups@aol.com (Readnewsgroups) wrote:

> >Call Dave Cumlin, head of Executive Services

> His name is Tumlin not Cumlin -

Thank you sir, I'll be sure to post it next time Veldhouse
refuses to help someone thats been waiting 23 days for a Port.

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

"Readnewsgroups" <readnewsgroups@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040511193135.09260.00000333@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >Call Dave Cumlin, head of Executive Services at 817 215 3149
>
> His name is Tumlin not Cumlin -

Geez Louise Phillipe. Not only did you create yet one more Robert M id, but
you have to change IDs to correct your prior post?

You really are a piece of bad work there ...

Bob

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

R?bert M <rmarkoff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you sir, I'll be sure to post it next time Veldhouse
> refuses to help someone thats been waiting 23 days for a Port.

Say what? Care to elaborate on that?

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAoZv81p0e3NXsrtERAjgQAJ9RAXM9zgthrpfo/sbtX0nvXpycwwCdHu5v
IJdpzRQACfATmCntDLlkdMk=
=dgS/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

In article <4336-40A2C611-208@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>,
caperenewal@webtv.net (Eric) wrote:

> rmarkoff@yahoo.com (Røbert M) wrote:
> <<I did help, was the source of the phone number that solved his
> problem, and yet others were quick to insult me for offering that
> helpful information. >>
>
> I don't see any problem with letting a fellow customer know that there
> are other avenues to solve a problem... but on the same token, it should
> be clear that you should try regular customer care (*2) first. Some
> problems can indeed be solved by *2 and not everything has to be
> escalated to Executive Services. But, there are times when *2 cannot
> help (either because of miscommunication, poor training,
> misunderstandings, problem too complicated or big, etc), and a customer
> should be informed that there are other avenues to try and get a problem
> solved.

People dont post their grief and pour their heart out if their problems
have been quickly solved by *2. And that rarely happens and I posted
today an example why - the training CSRs are given ! We see why now
things are so rarely escalated. And that is part of the reason SprintPCS
is rated worst for Customer Service.

The OP here had gone 23 days without service, and had detailed his
inability to get a solution. And yet the SporintPCS blind apologists
wanted to make him the issue, or slam me for offering help.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Phillip <Phillip@gte.net> wrote:
>
> The OP here had gone 23 days without service, and had detailed his
> inability to get a solution. And yet the SporintPCS blind apologists
> wanted to make him the issue, or slam me for offering help.

Hey! Keep it straight! Nobody thought anything was his fault. You lie
to make a point, because you are Phillip and it has become expected of
you.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAo1Ls1p0e3NXsrtERAiIxAJ967JPXfLkseYWYNQiJE5qO1l4GGgCgpGO8
a73UxtuFpHbPeq+FRiQCYrA=
=pUel
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

(Steven J Sobol) wrote:
<<However, there are also a lot of people who post here and in other
forums without having gone through the proper channels first. *2 should
always be the first step. >>

Completely agreed. There is nothing wrong with calling Executive
Services, but I believe they should be used only after *2 was tried.
There are a lot of situations people at *2 cannot work out... but there
are sometimes when *2 can surprise me with what they are capable of
handling. *2 should be given a chance first, then if they cannot or
will not help, ES is the next logical step to go to.

And Executive Services probably wouldn't even be an option had not for
Phillipe bringing it up in the group. At times, I believe he tells
people to call it too early in the game, but he does bring the phone
numbers to the table and possible resolutions to the problems.

Eric