Sprint lamely plays "Its costly" card.

[Guest]

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

Anytime Industry is asked to play nice they may play the "It's so
costly" card.

I'm old enough to remember 1993 when disaster was promised if the
"Family Leave Act" was passed by Congress, Bush senior had vetoed it 3
times, it was the first official act President Clinton did, sign it into
law! "It's so costly" they complained. The disaster never happened, the
layoffs never happened. The biggest peacetime boom happened, helped by
the Clinton Tax Reform of 1993, which also was attacked "It's so costly".

Well now California has passed a very reasonable "Consumer Bill of
Rights" for the Telecommunication Industry, following FOUR years of
negotiating with the Industry.

And Lauer of SprintPCS instead of taking the High Road and issuing a
statement like "We already do much of this, and certainly being fair to
the consumer is something we always want to do, so we'll quickly come
into compliance ahead of required dates where necessary"

NOPE - He lamely plays the "It's so costly" card, demonstrating that
SprintPCS isn't interested in playing fair.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040527/cgth046_1.html

Lauer took the low road:

"We're disappointed that a majority of the California PUC has chosen to
move ahead with a costly and unnecessary regulatory scheme at this time."


The Industry's continued customer unfriendly tactics HAVE made this
necessary !!! Lauer, look in the mirror, if you really don't like the
new rules, you have only yourself to blame, you didn't even follow the
Wireless Industry's own weak, toothless "Consumer Code".

I look forward to the California Bill going National.

The Moving Industry went through a similar set of having to accept rules
in order to curb abuses. And it required Federal action in the form of
the Household Good Transportation Act that was passed in 1980.

 

[Guest]

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

Other than 30 days instead of 15 days new contract termination clause, I
wonder what he is considering "costly"?

Scotty



"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-301695.05552928052004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> Anytime Industry is asked to play nice they may play the "It's so
> costly" card.
>
> I'm old enough to remember 1993 when disaster was promised if the
> "Family Leave Act" was passed by Congress, Bush senior had vetoed it 3
> times, it was the first official act President Clinton did, sign it into
> law! "It's so costly" they complained. The disaster never happened, the
> layoffs never happened. The biggest peacetime boom happened, helped by
> the Clinton Tax Reform of 1993, which also was attacked "It's so costly".
>
> Well now California has passed a very reasonable "Consumer Bill of
> Rights" for the Telecommunication Industry, following FOUR years of
> negotiating with the Industry.
>
> And Lauer of SprintPCS instead of taking the High Road and issuing a
> statement like "We already do much of this, and certainly being fair to
> the consumer is something we always want to do, so we'll quickly come
> into compliance ahead of required dates where necessary"
>
> NOPE - He lamely plays the "It's so costly" card, demonstrating that
> SprintPCS isn't interested in playing fair.
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040527/cgth046_1.html
>
> Lauer took the low road:
>
> "We're disappointed that a majority of the California PUC has chosen to
> move ahead with a costly and unnecessary regulatory scheme at this time."
>
>
> The Industry's continued customer unfriendly tactics HAVE made this
> necessary !!! Lauer, look in the mirror, if you really don't like the
> new rules, you have only yourself to blame, you didn't even follow the
> Wireless Industry's own weak, toothless "Consumer Code".
>
> I look forward to the California Bill going National.
>
> The Moving Industry went through a similar set of having to accept rules
> in order to curb abuses. And it required Federal action in the form of
> the Household Good Transportation Act that was passed in 1980.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <4EFtc.15779$nJ6.10597@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Scott Nelson - Wash DC" <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote:

> Other than 30 days instead of 15 days new contract termination clause, I
> wonder what he is considering "costly"?
>
> Scotty

Exactly! I would expect a bimodal distribution in returns anyway, with
many in the first few days (folks go home and find no coverage indoors),
and many at the end of the 14 days - and those likely would for the most
part get displaced toward 30 days while folks decide if they can live
with the dropped calls or whatever issue causes them to decide against
service. Indeed with 30 days instead of 14, some folks might bite the
bullet and decide "I can live with it", so returns may not increase at
all. And either way 3,14,30 days, a returned phone can not be resold as
new. So I for one don't see moving to 30 days as a cost.

Any SprintPCS store employees care to offer their thoughts here?


>
>
>
> "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-301695.05552928052004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> > Anytime Industry is asked to play nice they may play the "It's so
> > costly" card.
> >
> > I'm old enough to remember 1993 when disaster was promised if the
> > "Family Leave Act" was passed by Congress, Bush senior had vetoed it 3
> > times, it was the first official act President Clinton did, sign it into
> > law! "It's so costly" they complained. The disaster never happened, the
> > layoffs never happened. The biggest peacetime boom happened, helped by
> > the Clinton Tax Reform of 1993, which also was attacked "It's so costly".
> >
> > Well now California has passed a very reasonable "Consumer Bill of
> > Rights" for the Telecommunication Industry, following FOUR years of
> > negotiating with the Industry.
> >
> > And Lauer of SprintPCS instead of taking the High Road and issuing a
> > statement like "We already do much of this, and certainly being fair to
> > the consumer is something we always want to do, so we'll quickly come
> > into compliance ahead of required dates where necessary"
> >
> > NOPE - He lamely plays the "It's so costly" card, demonstrating that
> > SprintPCS isn't interested in playing fair.
> >
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040527/cgth046_1.html
> >
> > Lauer took the low road:
> >
> > "We're disappointed that a majority of the California PUC has chosen to
> > move ahead with a costly and unnecessary regulatory scheme at this time."
> >
> >
> > The Industry's continued customer unfriendly tactics HAVE made this
> > necessary !!! Lauer, look in the mirror, if you really don't like the
> > new rules, you have only yourself to blame, you didn't even follow the
> > Wireless Industry's own weak, toothless "Consumer Code".
> >
> > I look forward to the California Bill going National.
> >
> > The Moving Industry went through a similar set of having to accept rules
> > in order to curb abuses. And it required Federal action in the form of
> > the Household Good Transportation Act that was passed in 1980.

 

[Guest]

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

"Scott Nelson - Wash DC" <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote in message
news:4EFtc.15779$nJ6.10597@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Other than 30 days instead of 15 days new contract termination clause, I
> wonder what he is considering "costly"?
>

Possibly the mountain of paperwork that will be required by the state to
measure compliance, along with the time in manhours to fill it out. Or
maybe the filing fees for this paperwork, which will not resemble the $25-30
that is required for the simplest of typical state filings. Or, it may be
the printing costs of the new Service Agreements, which will now require
many sheets of paper to accomodate the new required font size.

Or maybe they are just trying to out-do Florida, who has banned AT&T from
any attempt to inform customers of different plans and pricing (that might
save the customer money) when the customer is calling about a 'billing'
issue. Seems they had a problem with double billing one month, and even
though they had already corrected over half of the overcharges on their own,
some very poorly written regulations were put into place that covered not
only these customers, but all customers. According to the regulation, if
the customer calls AT&T and says there is a problem with their bill because
they are paying too much for service, AT&T is prohibited from offering any
other plan, because the customer has called about a 'billing' issue.

And people complain about the cellular companies?

 

[Guest]

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

Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Or maybe they are just trying to out-do Florida, who has banned AT&T from
> any attempt to inform customers of different plans and pricing (that might
> save the customer money) when the customer is calling about a 'billing'
> issue.

Let me guess... this happened after people called the state and complained
that they were constantly being given sales pitches when inquiring about
billing problems? While AT&T may construe it as "informing the customer of
different plans and pricing (that might save the customer money)," I
guarantee you that in general AT&T wasn't doing it unless they felt they
could make money off of the practice. Hence I think it's entirely
reasonable that the state regulates this. After all, if a customer is
looking to save money, do you really think they'll have a problem figuring
out who to call at AT&T?

> According to the
> regulation, if the customer calls AT&T and says there is a problem with
> their bill because they are paying too much for service, AT&T is
> prohibited from offering any other plan, because the customer has called
> about a 'billing' issue.

There isn't a "problem" with their bill if the customer, say, went over
their "usual" minutes allowance and, say, is being charged by the minute.
I'm sure the intent of the Florida law was in no way whatsoever intended to
stop a customer service representative from saying, "Your bill is $50 higher
than usual this month because you exceeded your 400 'any time' minutes by
120 minutes which your plans bills you at $.40 per minute." PERIOD.
There's no need to add on, "Of course, if you upgraded your plan to the
$55/month plan, you'd have 200 additional minutes and this won't happen
again..., blah, blah" -- people alredy know this! Or if they don't, they
can certainly _ask_.

> And people complain about the cellular companies?

Show me ANYONE who has complained about first not being aware that there
were alternative plans available and then how fortunate they were when some
company representative informed them of such plans. This is VERY DIFFERENT
than people who (1) don't understand their plans and end up getting charged
more than they expected, (2) understand the plan but don't keep close tabs
on their usage and then get annoyed when they go over, and (3) understand
the plan but think it's too expensive in any form whatsoever but still keep
it anyway and just like to whine about it.

 

[Guest]

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

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
news:c9dhgk$h9g$1@news.oregonstate.edu...
> Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
> > Or maybe they are just trying to out-do Florida, who has banned AT&T
from
> > any attempt to inform customers of different plans and pricing (that
might
> > save the customer money) when the customer is calling about a 'billing'
> > issue.
>
> Let me guess... this happened after people called the state and complained
> that they were constantly being given sales pitches when inquiring about
> billing problems? While AT&T may construe it as "informing the customer
of
> different plans and pricing (that might save the customer money)," I
> guarantee you that in general AT&T wasn't doing it unless they felt they
> could make money off of the practice. Hence I think it's entirely
> reasonable that the state regulates this. After all, if a customer is
> looking to save money, do you really think they'll have a problem figuring
> out who to call at AT&T?

Actually, it came out of complaints only from people trying to get the
double billing corrected- they were being offered alternatives during the
call. I agree that in that instance, no sales pitch is the proper way to
go. But to say any call about a billing issue? And while I agree with some
points, why would they be singled out? After all, this is common practice
in any industry. Why are some getting a competitive advantage over another,
when even the State acknowledges that AT&T was proactively working to
correct the initial problem?

>
> > According to the
> > regulation, if the customer calls AT&T and says there is a problem with
> > their bill because they are paying too much for service, AT&T is
> > prohibited from offering any other plan, because the customer has called
> > about a 'billing' issue.
>
> There isn't a "problem" with their bill if the customer, say, went over
> their "usual" minutes allowance and, say, is being charged by the minute.
> I'm sure the intent of the Florida law was in no way whatsoever intended
to
> stop a customer service representative from saying, "Your bill is $50
higher
> than usual this month because you exceeded your 400 'any time' minutes by
> 120 minutes which your plans bills you at $.40 per minute." PERIOD.
> There's no need to add on, "Of course, if you upgraded your plan to the
> $55/month plan, you'd have 200 additional minutes and this won't happen
> again..., blah, blah" -- people alredy know this! Or if they don't, they
> can certainly _ask_.

Not talking about AT&T Wireless in this- its AT&T that got slapped with
this.

>
> > And people complain about the cellular companies?
>
> Show me ANYONE who has complained about first not being aware that there
> were alternative plans available and then how fortunate they were when
some
> company representative informed them of such plans. This is VERY
DIFFERENT
> than people who (1) don't understand their plans and end up getting
charged
> more than they expected, (2) understand the plan but don't keep close tabs
> on their usage and then get annoyed when they go over, and (3) understand
> the plan but think it's too expensive in any form whatsoever but still
keep
> it anyway and just like to whine about it.
>
>

Again, not talking cellular here- its Ma Bell.

 

[Guest]

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

In <HdSdnXpED63J0CfdRVn-sA@adelphia.com> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> writes:

>Actually, it came out of complaints only from people trying to get the
>double billing corrected- they were being offered alternatives during the
>call.

Given the thousands, or more likely, hundreds of thousands/millions of
improper bills that AT&T sent out to former or non customers (and
cheerfully cashing the payments that ten or 20 percent of the people
sent in), I'd say this "punishment" against the company was minimal.

Also, this was not just in Florida which would have been ugly enough. It
was a nationwide practice. And it wasn't just a single batch of bills.

If, say, Moe's Towing and Telephone service sent out 100,000 fake bills
(and got a reply rate of 5%), Moe and Curly would would be enjoying their
next meals courtesy of the State.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

 

[Guest]

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

"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c9dnvb$gqa$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In <HdSdnXpED63J0CfdRVn-sA@adelphia.com> "Scott Stephenson"
<scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> writes:
>
> >Actually, it came out of complaints only from people trying to get the
> >double billing corrected- they were being offered alternatives during the
> >call.
>
> Given the thousands, or more likely, hundreds of thousands/millions of
> improper bills that AT&T sent out to former or non customers (and
> cheerfully cashing the payments that ten or 20 percent of the people
> sent in), I'd say this "punishment" against the company was minimal.

None of what you guessed at was even close to accurate:

http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/nyw171.P2.05262004175117.07790.htm

>
> Also, this was not just in Florida which would have been ugly enough. It
> was a nationwide practice. And it wasn't just a single batch of bills.

Yes, it was a single batch of bills. You might want to research a little
more.

>
> If, say, Moe's Towing and Telephone service sent out 100,000 fake bills
> (and got a reply rate of 5%), Moe and Curly would would be enjoying their
> next meals courtesy of the State.
>

 

[Guest]

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

In <I-6dnT2pB5bo6SfdRVn-uA@adelphia.com> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> writes:

>None of what you guessed at was even close to accurate:

>http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/
nyw171.P2.05262004175117.07790.htm

How many years did Worldcom/MCI do this stuff before their whole house of
cards came atumblin down?

I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes. the facts are out there in the
complaints and settlements with a dozen (or more, by now) State PSCs and
similar groups.


--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

 

[Guest]

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

"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c9dsvi$io9$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In <I-6dnT2pB5bo6SfdRVn-uA@adelphia.com> "Scott Stephenson"
<scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> writes:
>
> >None of what you guessed at was even close to accurate:
>
> >http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/prn/
> nyw171.P2.05262004175117.07790.htm
>
> How many years did Worldcom/MCI do this stuff before their whole house of
> cards came atumblin down?

Wasn't talking about Worlcom- the topic was AT&T.

>
> I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes. the facts are out there in the
> complaints and settlements with a dozen (or more, by now) State PSCs and
> similar groups.
>

Hmmmm- haven't seen any others.