Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

sprint phone i want to buy but maybe shouldnt

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
June 26, 2004 10:09:20 AM

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

Hi a freind of mine has a phone its a sprint phone and she owes the phone
company like 200 dollars so shes not going to pay it so now she wants to sell
me the phone which i want to get so my questions is will this phone still be
ok or will sprint tell me nooo you cant use that phone because somebody owes
us money ?
she told me no there will be no problems just activate it but another guy
said nope if someone owes money on the phone it is useless.
So which is it ?

Tanx
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 10:09:21 AM

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

Holly <c@t69.net> wrote:
> Hi a freind of mine has a phone its a sprint phone and she owes the phone
> company like 200 dollars so shes not going to pay it so now she wants to sell
> me the phone which i want to get so my questions is will this phone still be
> ok or will sprint tell me nooo you cant use that phone because somebody owes
> us money ?

That is precisely how I started with Sprint, but yes, the account must be
paid off or you won't be able to activate the phone until it is.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 10:32:29 AM

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

In article <Xns951415B15574Cewrfdgrstnetaakeanfk@
140.99.99.130>, Hollyc@t69.net says...
> Hi a freind of mine has a phone its a sprint phone and she owes the phone
> company like 200 dollars so shes not going to pay it so now she wants to sell
> me the phone which i want to get so my questions is will this phone still be
> ok or will sprint tell me nooo you cant use that phone because somebody owes
> us money ?
> she told me no there will be no problems just activate it but another guy
> said nope if someone owes money on the phone it is useless.
> So which is it ?
>
> Tanx
>

If she hasn't paid up, and that phone was active on her
account when we suspend it, the phone cannot be used by
anyone else until she does pay up.

She's scamming you.

Nice "friend."

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 4:12:18 PM

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

Thats what the rest of the world calls guilt by association. Sprint would
rather use any leverage it can gain to get an account paid off than gain a new
customer.
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 4:42:49 PM

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

"Nebby0007" <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040626081218.11031.00000554@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Thats what the rest of the world calls guilt by association. Sprint would
> rather use any leverage it can gain to get an account paid off than gain a
new
> customer.

Another false argument by Phillipe ... It's an industry standard to not
activate that phone that has a balance on it.

Bob
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 5:34:12 PM

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

Bob Smith <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> "Nebby0007" <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040626081218.11031.00000554@mb-m02.aol.com...
>> Thats what the rest of the world calls guilt by association. Sprint would
>> rather use any leverage it can gain to get an account paid off than gain a
> new
>> customer.
>
> Another false argument by Phillipe ... It's an industry standard to not
> activate that phone that has a balance on it.

Besides which, if you activate the phone even if it has a balance, that
removes a big incentive the original customer had to pay off the balance.

But I suppose Foolippe doesn't think SPCS should be allowed to collect
money legitimately owed them.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 26, 2004 11:26:55 PM

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

In article <20040626081218.11031.00000554@mb-m02.aol.com>, nebby0007
@aol.com says...
> Thats what the rest of the world calls guilt by association. Sprint would
> rather use any leverage it can gain to get an account paid off than gain a new
> customer.
>

What UTTER hogwash, Phillie. You think a customer deserves to profit
off of a legitimate debt they're skipping out on? That phone won't
work because the previous person has no right to profit from their
own fraud.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
June 26, 2004 11:56:23 PM

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

"O/Siris" <0sîrîs@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b46d477c50c223b989a30@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <Xns951415B15574Cewrfdgrstnetaakeanfk@
140.99.99.130>, Hollyc@t69.net says...
> Hi a freind of mine has a phone its a sprint phone and she owes the phone
> company like 200 dollars so shes not going to pay it so now she wants to
sell
> me the phone which i want to get so my questions is will this phone still
be
> ok or will sprint tell me nooo you cant use that phone because somebody
owes
> us money ?
> she told me no there will be no problems just activate it but another guy
> said nope if someone owes money on the phone it is useless.
> So which is it ?
>
> Tanx
>

If she hasn't paid up, and that phone was active on her
account when we suspend it, the phone cannot be used by
anyone else until she does pay up.

Hmmm.... interesting.. so why can't the phone be activated on another
account..
after all... it's the account that's owed money.. not the phone..??


She's scamming you.

Nice "friend."

--
-+-
RØß
O/Siris
I work for SprintPCS
I *don't* speak for them.
June 27, 2004 12:45:30 AM

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

"Nebby0007" <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040626081218.11031.00000554@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Thats what the rest of the world calls guilt by association. Sprint would
> rather use any leverage it can gain to get an account paid off than gain a
new
> customer.

Not necessarily so.

Sprint probably subsidized the purchase price of the phone, and the customer
agreed to an initial term of service, usually one or two years, as part of
the deal. Sprint got the expectation of a certain number of months worth of
revenue. The customer got a phone at a fraction of what it would have cost
had it been purchased at retail.

If the customer renegs on the term of the agreement, what incentive would
Sprint have to release the phone back into service? In fact, if word got
out that anyone could transfer a phone that had not met its term commitment,
it would be an incentive for customers to do just that, and Sprint would
take even more losses.

No, that phone is not free and clear (no pun intended) for hookup to the
Sprint network until the account on which it was billed has satisfied its
obligation.

It is somewhat analogous to your buying a car, under a 3 year note, and then
trying to sell it after having paid only the first year's worth of payments.
Why should the buyer of your car expect to take title without first
satisfying your original lender?
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:33:43 AM

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

> It's an industry standard to not
> activate that phone that has a balance on it.


Worst argument for a poor business practice.

"Others do it too"

Guilt by association that is.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:35:49 AM

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

> But I suppose he doesn't think SPCS should be
> allowed to collect money legitimately owed them.


Blind apologist for Sprint, Sobol.

No one ever said Sprint cant collect monet LEGIMATELY owed to it (although we
know of all the billing mistakes, part of teh reason for 1,400,000 fols leaving
Sprint in the 1st quarter).

That is hardly the same thing as holding a cell phone hostage.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:35:50 AM

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

Nebby0007 <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote:

> Blind apologist for Sprint, Sobol.
>
> No one ever said Sprint cant collect monet LEGIMATELY owed to it (although we
> know of all the billing mistakes, part of teh reason for 1,400,000 fols leaving
> Sprint in the 1st quarter).
>
> That is hardly the same thing as holding a cell phone hostage.

Read what I said.

If the deadbeat can't dump a cell phone when they owe a balance on the
account, that gives them more incentive to pay off the balance first.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:36:47 AM

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

And we all know Sprint never makes billing errors.

{sarcasm}

NOW THAT IS HOGWASH.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:36:48 AM

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

Nebby0007 <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote:
> And we all know Sprint never makes billing errors.

Of course Sprint makes billing mistakes.

Irrelevant, because a smart Sprint customer who is having problems with
billing will be proactive and start pounding on Sprint to fix the problem
when they get the bill, not wait a month until the bill is past due.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:38:56 AM

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

> The customer got a phone at a fraction of what it
> would have cost had it been purchased at retail.

Thats assuming you're silly enough to believe the "LIST" prices for the junky
Sanyo and Samsung phones SprintPCS uses.


Try looking at a Sony T637 or a Motorola v400 or 600,
and then tell me about the phones SprintPCS uses.

The Sanyos are under secret recall.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:38:57 AM

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

Nebby0007 <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote:
>> The customer got a phone at a fraction of what it
>> would have cost had it been purchased at retail.
>
> Thats assuming you're silly enough to believe the "LIST" prices for the junky
> Sanyo and Samsung phones SprintPCS uses.

OK. I actually agree with you on the quoted list prices.

However, I'm about to take advantage of a promotion whereby I will buy a
Samsung A660 for $29.99. That is not the retail price of the phone. Feel
free to tell me it is, but understand that if you do, I reserve the right
to laugh in your face.

In order to receive the $170 in instant rebates off what Sprint claims is
the list price, I must commit to a two-year Advantage Agreement.

If Sprint holds up their end of the bargain (giving me the phone for
close to nothing), I should reasonably expect to be required to hold up
my end.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 3:39:31 AM

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

That is incorrect PhilLIE. Sprint PCS is not saying the buyer is
guilty of not paying the seller's bill. Sprint PCS expects the seller
and only the seller to pay the bill. The only thing Sprint PCS is
saying the buyer is guilty of is buying something that he can not use.
Perhaps the price is low enough to be equal the remaining value of the
battery and the accessories, and the buyer can buy a new phone of the
same model thereby having a backup battery and an additional charger, etc.


Nebby0007 wrote:
> Thats what the rest of the world calls guilt by association. Sprint would
> rather use any leverage it can gain to get an account paid off than gain a new
> customer.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 5:34:45 AM

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

In article <ctWdnW1og-qNk0PdRVn_iw@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net
says...
> In order to receive the $170 in instant rebates off what Sprint claims is
> the list price, I must commit to a two-year Advantage Agreement.
>
> If Sprint holds up their end of the bargain (giving me the phone for
> close to nothing), I should reasonably expect to be required to hold up
> my end.
>

That's got nothing to do with this thread, though. It's another in
Phillie's long line of straw men. The person selling the phone to
the OP has built up $200 in debt to SPCS. And the OP says that
person intends to not pay it. It doesn't matter if that phone was
subsidized or not, or if the customer is on an Advantage Agreement or
not.

Someone is trying to renege on a legitimate debt, and the person
screwing the OP over in this case isn't SPCS, it's the fraud trying
to sell him or her that phone.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 5:34:46 AM

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

O/Siris <0siris@spr?ntpcs.com> wrote:

> That's got nothing to do with this thread, though. It's another in
> Phillie's long line of straw men.

I know, but I felt it necessary to counter his point anyhow...

> The person selling the phone to
> the OP has built up $200 in debt to SPCS. And the OP says that
> person intends to not pay it. It doesn't matter if that phone was
> subsidized or not, or if the customer is on an Advantage Agreement or
> not.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 5:35:46 AM

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

In article <20040626193549.05051.00000506@mb-m24.aol.com>, nebby0007
@aol.com says...
> That is hardly the same thing as holding a cell phone hostage.
>
>

Liar. It is *exactly* the same thing. It is a collection attempt.
The phone is tied to a service for which the user is openly refusing
to pay. They have no right to profit from it.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 5:36:17 AM

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

In article <20040626193647.05051.00000507@mb-m24.aol.com>, nebby0007
@aol.com says...
> And we all know Sprint never makes billing errors.
>
>

You are assuming things for which you have no basis in logic. As
usual.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 5:38:07 AM

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

In article <10ds6n3rp552tf6@corp.supernews.com>, TheDoc@ev1.net
says...
> Hmmm.... interesting.. so why can't the phone be activated on another
> account..
> after all... it's the account that's owed money.. not the phone..??
>

Because the user is not being allowed to profit from their fraud.
It's really that simple.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
June 27, 2004 6:05:57 AM

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

"Nebby0007" <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040626193647.05051.00000507@mb-m24.aol.com...
> And we all know Sprint never makes billing errors.
>
> {sarcasm}
>
> NOW THAT IS HOGWASH.

What is your point? You disagree with the practice? So what? The fact is
that it is considered reasonable and customary to refuse to activate phones
ties to accounts with unpaid balances.

No one is "holding a phone hostage."
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 9:35:09 AM

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

"Nebby0007" <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040626193549.05051.00000506@mb-m24.aol.com...
> > But I suppose he doesn't think SPCS should be
> > allowed to collect money legitimately owed them.
>
>
> Blind apologist for Sprint, Sobol.
>
> No one ever said Sprint cant collect monet LEGIMATELY owed to it (although
we
> know of all the billing mistakes, part of teh reason for 1,400,000 fols
leaving
> Sprint in the 1st quarter).
>
> That is hardly the same thing as holding a cell phone hostage.

How many times has someone, including yours truly asked you to copy and
paste the information to back up that 1,400,000 number you keep spouting
Phillipe. All it takes is a copy and paste, along with citing the page
number ... BUT you still won't back up your own words. Only a troll wouldn't
do it Phillipe ...

Bob
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 9:36:40 AM

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

"Nebby0007" <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040626193856.05051.00000508@mb-m24.aol.com...
> > The customer got a phone at a fraction of what it
> > would have cost had it been purchased at retail.
>
> Thats assuming you're silly enough to believe the "LIST" prices for the
junky
> Sanyo and Samsung phones SprintPCS uses.
>
>
> Try looking at a Sony T637 or a Motorola v400 or 600,
> and then tell me about the phones SprintPCS uses.
>
> The Sanyos are under secret recall.
>

Uh ... no, they aren't. Once again, another lie by Phillipe ...

Bob
Anonymous
June 27, 2004 9:38:31 AM

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

"Nebby0007" <nebby0007@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040626193343.05051.00000505@mb-m24.aol.com...
> > It's an industry standard to not
> > activate that phone that has a balance on it.
>
>
> Worst argument for a poor business practice.
>
> "Others do it too"
>
> Guilt by association that is.

No, it isn't and you darn well know it Phillipe. All you do is bring up
false arguments, lies, innuendo, and just utter horse pucky here ...

Bob
Anonymous
June 28, 2004 8:03:12 AM

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

In article <aMGdnU49Bvkb-EPdRVn-hw@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net
says...
> I know, but I felt it necessary to counter his point anyhow...
>
>

I can certainly understand that. He's got an abundance of alleged
points needing similar treatment.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
July 1, 2004 2:35:43 PM

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

I have been gone for a few weeks. I see nothing here has changed.

"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TOnDc.2131$lh4.1699@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> That is incorrect PhilLIE. Sprint PCS is not saying the buyer is
> guilty of not paying the seller's bill. Sprint PCS expects the seller
> and only the seller to pay the bill. The only thing Sprint PCS is
> saying the buyer is guilty of is buying something that he can not use.
> Perhaps the price is low enough to be equal the remaining value of the
> battery and the accessories, and the buyer can buy a new phone of the
> same model thereby having a backup battery and an additional charger, etc.
>
>
> Nebby0007 wrote:
> > Thats what the rest of the world calls guilt by association. Sprint
would
> > rather use any leverage it can gain to get an account paid off than gain
a new
> > customer.
>
!