Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nextel billing procedures?there is no second one to compar..

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 2:39:04 AM

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

I am sorry for the cap. I am a two finger typist.



> 1/NEXTEL OFFERED 600 MINUTES ANY MINUTES WHEN I FIRST SIGNED UP WITH
> NEXTEL FOR NATIONAL INSTANT DIRECT CONNECT 500 (N500)IN DECEMBER
2003.
> INFACT, ONLY 500 ANY TIME MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN ALL OF MY
> INVOICES(JUST NOW RECONGIZED) SINCE THE SERVICE HAS ACTIVATED.
>
> 2/TO UPGRADE MY SERVICE ON 07/18/04, NEXTEL HAS PERFORMED THE
> FOLLOWING:
>
> A-THE ADD-ON PHONE WAS INSTALLED WITH NS800 (PRIMARY SERVICE PLAN
WITH
> 800 SHARED ANY MINUTES, ALTHOUGH IT WAS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
> ADD-ON UNIT SHOULD BE THE SECONDARY ONE.
>
> B-THE FIRST AND PRIMARY PHONE WAS CONVERTED FROM N500 TO NS800A, AN
> ACTUAL SERVICE DE-GRADING SERVICE FOR A PRE-EXISTENT PHONE.
>
> IT IS NOT EASY FOR THE MISTAKE TO HAPPEN SINCE THE PROCESS TOOK FOUR
> INVOLMENTS: THE LOCAL DEALER, NEXTEL SERVICE PERSONEL, AND THEIR
> SYSTEMS. THE ANSWER CAN ONLY BE FOUND FROM NEXTEL GUIDE LINE WHICH
> HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO ITS AUTHORIZED DEALER.
>
>
> 3/IN THE 08/17/04 INVOICE, NEXTEL HAS NO EXPLAINATION HOW IT APPLIED
> THE SERVICE PREPAYMENT FOR THE FIRST PHONE??? AND IF NEXTEL HAS
> ASSUMED THAT THE PREPAYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE AUGUST
> INVOICE, IT SHALL NOT BE A CORRECT ASSUMPTION BECAUSE THE CORRECT FEE
> FOR THE FIRST PHONE SHOULD BE THE COMBINED PRORATED AMOUNT OF N500
AND
> NS800. WOULD THAT BE THE REASON FOR NOT TO MENTION ABOUT THIS
PREPAID
> FEE???
>
> 4/THE SECOND PHONE WAS BILLED UPON NS800 (PRORATED) WITH 16 BILLABLE
> MINUTES FOR 26 DAYS INTO THE BILLING CYCLE, 07/18/04-08/12/04 WHILE
> ONLY 500 MINUTES WERE ALLOWED FOR THE 1ST PHONE WITH THE EXTRA
MINUTES
> BIILED AT $.40, ALTHOUGH, ACCORDING TO NEXTEL ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE, I
> WAS ASSUMED TO PAID BOTH N800 AND N500 FOR THE ENTIRED BILLING
> CYCLE???
>
> 5/UPON THE TELEPHONE CONTACT ON 07/29/04, "IT IS THE COMPANY POLICY".
> WAS THE PROVIDED ANSWER FOR MY QUESTION: WHY I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE
> SERVICE WHICH HAD NOT YET STARTED???
>
> 6/I CAN HARDLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE BILLING SYSTEM, ONCE AGAIN, APPLIED
> THE ADVANCE FEES FOR THE VOICE MAIL AND CALLER ID SERVICES ON THE
> FIRST AND PRE-EXISTENCE PHONE SINCE , SYSTEMATICALLY, ADVANCED FEES
> WOULD BE THE "ONLY" POSIBILITY FOR NEW SERVICES???
>
> 7/NEXTEL HAS ALWAYS BILLED ME $70 FOR PHONE ACTIVATION, ALTHOUGH ONLY
> $35 ADVISED. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO SEPARTED $35 CHARGED ITEMS, WITH
> "ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT CREDITS AND CHARGES" WAS BOTH USED AS THE ITEM
> DESCRIPTION FOR THE FISRT AND THE SECTION TITTLE FOR THE SECOND ONES.
> RESPONDING TO MY QUESTION, NEXTEL ISSUED A CREDIT FOR MY JANUARY 2004
> INVOICE. AND NOW, WITH THE SECOND PHONE ADDED, NEXTEL HAS
DIFFERENTLY
> EXPLAINED THAT ONE OF THE CHARGES WAS FOR UP-GRADING THE FIRST PHONE,
> ALTHOUGH BOTH CHARGES WERE GROUPED TOGETHER IN THE SECOND PHONE
> BILLING PORTION??? WITH THE SECTION HEADER AND ITEM DESCRIPTION OF
> THE CHARGES ARE INTERCHANGALBE, THEY ARE CONFUSED ENOUGH TO OVER LOOK
> IF ONE WERE THE SUMMARY OF THE OTHER. IN ADDITION, I HAVE FURTHER
> CONCERNS ABOUT THESE CHARGES. ONE OF THEM WAS PRESENTED BY USING
THE
> SMALEST FONTS (4 PIXELS) AND WELL OFF ALIGNED POSITIONED, WHICH
> RESPECTS TO OTHER CHARGES. WHY NEXTEL ONLY INDICATES $35 "ACCOUNT
> LEVEL EQUIPMENT CHARGE" IN THE FINAL INVOICE SUMMAY, WHILE THE TOTAL
> IS $70???
>
> 8/THE PERCENTAGES OF "FEES NEXTEL ELECTS TO COLLECT" SEEM
> INCONSISTENT. THEY VARRY IN UNDETERMINATE DIRECTIONS FOR DIFFERENT
> MONTHS.
>
> FOR EXAMPLE, FOLLWING ARE THE FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERVICE ASSESSMENT
> FEES IN PERCENT FOR THE CORRESPONDING MONTHS:
>
> JAN04 MAY04 AUG04
> 1.138 1.087 1.124
>
> PARTICUARLY, THE COLLECTED PERCENTAGES COULD BE DIFFERENT FOR EXACTLY
> SAME ITEMS. WITRH THE APPREVIATED DESCRIPTIONS, THE FOLLOWING
> NUMBERS WERE FOUND IN THE 01/17/04 INVOICE FOR TWO DIFFERENT "SUMARY
> OF CHARGES" SECTIONS(INPERCENTAGE):
>
> SET SHCC SUA FUA(APPREVIATIONS OF THE DEXCRIPTIONS)
> .21 2.7 1.2 1.138 (FOR ACTIVATION FEE TOTAL)
> .17 2.2 1.1 1.087 (FOR USAGE AND SERVICE FEE TOTAL)
>
> 9/DUE TO NEXTEL EXCESSIVELY COMPUTING METHOD, $530.46 IS THE AMOUNT
> ASKED IN MY 08/17/04 INVOICE, APPROXIMATELY TWICE OF THE EXPECTED
> AMOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TAXES AND REGULATORY FEES TOTAL IS ALSO
> EXCESSIVE.
>
> SO FAR, NEXTEL HAS SENT ME NOTICE, THREATENING TO RESTRICT MY SERVICE
> AND A LATE CHARGE ADDED IN THE 09/17/04 INVOICE. I DO NOT ACCEPT NOR
> SHOULD I BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELINQUENCY SINCE THERE HAS NNOT BEEN
> ANY RESOLUTION FOR MY MENTIONED CONCERNS, AFTER ONE TELEPHONE CONTACT
> AND TWO RELATING EMAILS. FURTHERMORE, DUE TO NOTES MARKED ON THE
> INVOICES, NEXTEL HAS NOT PROVIVED ME COPIES OF THE INVOICE VIA WEB
> REQUEST, ABOUT 8 WEEKS AGO, BESIDES THE AUTO-RESPONSE OF REQUEST
> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, THE ONES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO BE FURNISHED BY SOME OF
> YOUR REQUEST. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WAIT LONGER FOR NEXTEL. I
ONLY
> CAN GO WITH WHAT I HAVE.
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 12:10:13 PM

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

On 21 Oct 2004 22:39:04 -0700, dcnxtl@yahoo.com (dcnxtl) wrote:

>I am sorry for the cap. I am a two finger typist.

What does that have to do with typing in all caps?
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.
!