Sprint reneges on a written offer

[Guest]

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

I am on a month-to-month agreement with SPCS. Have been since '99. Wanted to
add a 3rd line for my son. Called retention, was offered the following deal
by a representative --who gave me her name and employee ID # for
confirmation:

3 lines
1100 shared minutes
Unl. N/W starting at 7 p.m.
Unl mobile-mobile calls
2 year contract required
$85.50 ($90 less 5% discount for the2 year deal).

When I called back later to sign up, was told by a supervisor that SPCS
would not honor the deal --even though it had been noted in my file that the
company had agreeed. "She made a mistake," was the response. No way would
they honor it. Instead, they told me the charge would be $109 -- or $25 a
month more than I was told.

I have stood by SPCS for five years, and gave them first shot at holding me
for at least 2 more. They dropped the ball big time, and did not seem to
care.

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Igel" <rigel@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9VH8d.6098$gs1.5586@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I am on a month-to-month agreement with SPCS. Have been since '99. Wanted
to
> add a 3rd line for my son. Called retention, was offered the following
deal
> by a representative --who gave me her name and employee ID # for
> confirmation:
>
> 3 lines
> 1100 shared minutes
> Unl. N/W starting at 7 p.m.
> Unl mobile-mobile calls
> 2 year contract required
> $85.50 ($90 less 5% discount for the2 year deal).
>
> When I called back later to sign up, was told by a supervisor that SPCS
> would not honor the deal --even though it had been noted in my file that
the
> company had agreeed. "She made a mistake," was the response. No way would
> they honor it. Instead, they told me the charge would be $109 -- or $25 a
> month more than I was told.
>
> I have stood by SPCS for five years, and gave them first shot at holding
me
> for at least 2 more. They dropped the ball big time, and did not seem to
> care.

Written offer? What written offer? I don't believe I've ever seen a written
retention offer in my 6 years with SPCS. When you say you spoke to
retention, did you get transferred to the retention / cancellation dept, or
did you just speak with regular customer service?

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Igel" <rigel@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9VH8d.6098$gs1.5586@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>I am on a month-to-month agreement with SPCS. Have been since '99. Wanted
>to
> add a 3rd line for my son. Called retention, was offered the following
> deal
> by a representative --who gave me her name and employee ID # for
> confirmation:
>
> 3 lines
> 1100 shared minutes
> Unl. N/W starting at 7 p.m.
> Unl mobile-mobile calls
> 2 year contract required
> $85.50 ($90 less 5% discount for the2 year deal).
>
> When I called back later to sign up, was told by a supervisor that SPCS
> would not honor the deal --even though it had been noted in my file that
> the
> company had agreeed. "She made a mistake," was the response. No way would
> they honor it. Instead, they told me the charge would be $109 -- or $25 a
> month more than I was told.
>
> I have stood by SPCS for five years, and gave them first shot at holding
> me
> for at least 2 more. They dropped the ball big time, and did not seem to
> care.
>
>
>

This basically happened to me recently. Around 5 months ago I signed up for
a retention deal, which I thought it was a good deal ($50/1000). Several
days later I realized that I might need a higher minute plan so I called
Sprint to see if they had something for me, and I was offered a $100/2500
deal that included Vision and a 2nd line. This seemed like a really good
deal to me but I wasn't ready to spend this much monthly, so I thanked the
rep and said I'd get back to them.

A couple of days later I decided to go for it (I figured that with the extra
1500 minutes I could dump my landline and the savings would pay for itself)
and called Sprint. I said that I wanted to sign up for this deal, but was
told that there was no such plan, and that the rep I spoke too must have
made a mistake. They quoted another plan that would have been around $20
more. I thanked them and hung up, and called back, hoping to get another rep
who knew about or was able to offer this plan. I had to do this 5 or 6
times, each time getting the same "no such plan" response, before I finally
got a rep who was able to offer me this plan, which I signed up for and have
been on ever since.

I'm guessing that either Sprint doesn't tell all of its reps about its best
plans, or authorize them to offer them, or their reps know about these
plans, but play hardball and try to offer less attractive plans, until you
demonstrate that you won't settle for anything less but their best plans.
It's kind of like buying a car: do your research, know what their bottom
line is, and don't relent until you get the plan you want. Keep calling and
you'll get this plan, and perhaps an even better one if you're really
persistent (and lucky).

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

I'm wondering why Sprint "allows" people with unlimited Vision to access the
internet via a laptop and cable, even though it's forbidden under the TOS,
so long as you don't abuse this (which at present seems to be no more than
300-500MB/month).

Is it because:

1 - It's not worth their time and expense to go after people who don't abuse
this "policy".

2 - They don't want to risk losing non-abusing customers by going after
them.

3 - They believe that this "look the other way" policy actually attracts
customers, and gives them an incentive to sign up for unlimited Vision.

4 - They're tracking this usage in order to develop a profitable business
model for charging for such usage, which they'll eventually roll out.

5 - Some other reason?

Just curious.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

Sorry, I meant for this to be a new post, not a response, but hit the "Reply
to Group" button by mistake. My mistake. Ignore this reply, respond to new
post instead.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:SCX8d.342590$Fg5.24837@attbi_s53...
> I'm wondering why Sprint "allows" people with unlimited Vision to access
the
> internet via a laptop and cable, even though it's forbidden under the TOS,
> so long as you don't abuse this (which at present seems to be no more than
> 300-500MB/month).
>
> Is it because:
>
> 1 - It's not worth their time and expense to go after people who don't
abuse
> this "policy".
>
> 2 - They don't want to risk losing non-abusing customers by going after
> them.
>
> 3 - They believe that this "look the other way" policy actually attracts
> customers, and gives them an incentive to sign up for unlimited Vision.
>
> 4 - They're tracking this usage in order to develop a profitable business
> model for charging for such usage, which they'll eventually roll out.
>
> 5 - Some other reason?
>
> Just curious.

Could be any one of these answers.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

The reps in the Retention/Cancellation department have access to
plans that the regular CSRs don't have access to.

--
John Richards


"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message news:TwX8d.191801$MQ5.163108@attbi_s52...
[snip]
>
> I'm guessing that either Sprint doesn't tell all of its reps about its best
> plans, or authorize them to offer them, or their reps know about these
> plans, but play hardball and try to offer less attractive plans, until you
> demonstrate that you won't settle for anything less but their best plans.
> It's kind of like buying a car: do your research, know what their bottom
> line is, and don't relent until you get the plan you want. Keep calling and
> you'll get this plan, and perhaps an even better one if you're really
> persistent (and lucky).

 

[Guest]

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

"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:%WZ8d.14755$Qv5.14594@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> The reps in the Retention/Cancellation department have access to
> plans that the regular CSRs don't have access to.
>

The original poster said that he spoke to retention when he got the offer he
mentioned, so that's not the issue.

> --
> John Richards
>
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:TwX8d.191801$MQ5.163108@attbi_s52...
> [snip]
>>
>> I'm guessing that either Sprint doesn't tell all of its reps about its
>> best plans, or authorize them to offer them, or their reps know about
>> these plans, but play hardball and try to offer less attractive plans,
>> until you demonstrate that you won't settle for anything less but their
>> best plans. It's kind of like buying a car: do your research, know what
>> their bottom line is, and don't relent until you get the plan you want.
>> Keep calling and you'll get this plan, and perhaps an even better one if
>> you're really persistent (and lucky).
>

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

Kovie wrote:
> I'm wondering why Sprint "allows" people with unlimited Vision to access the
> internet via a laptop and cable, even though it's forbidden under the TOS,
> so long as you don't abuse this (which at present seems to be no more than
> 300-500MB/month).
>
> Is it because:
>
> 1 - It's not worth their time and expense to go after people who don't abuse
> this "policy".
>
> 2 - They don't want to risk losing non-abusing customers by going after
> them.
>
> 3 - They believe that this "look the other way" policy actually attracts
> customers, and gives them an incentive to sign up for unlimited Vision.
>
> 4 - They're tracking this usage in order to develop a profitable business
> model for charging for such usage, which they'll eventually roll out.
>
> 5 - Some other reason?


Probably more like:

6 - There's no definitive mechanism to determine whether someone is
really connecting a laptop or just really into using Vision services.
So, they go after the users that anyone would clearly know could not
possibly have transferred 600, 700, 800 megabytes, 2 gigs - by just
browsing away on their vision phones.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

 

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:_G39d.135630$wV.87711@attbi_s54...
> "John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> message news:%WZ8d.14755$Qv5.14594@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > The reps in the Retention/Cancellation department have access to
> > plans that the regular CSRs don't have access to.
> >
>
> The original poster said that he spoke to retention when he got the offer
he
> mentioned, so that's not the issue.

Kovie, have you noticed the subject header ... yet? I'm still waiting to
hear back on the *written offer* he received from a phone call.

What's more, who's to say who he spoke to on the follow up call to SPCS. He
said he spoke to a supervisor. I'm under the impression that the retention
dept doesn't have supervisors, that they are all on top of the CS dept.

Bob

 

[Steph]

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

"Bob Igel" <rigel@hotpop.com> wrote in
news:9VH8d.6098$gs1.5586@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> I am on a month-to-month agreement with SPCS. Have been since '99.
> Wanted to add a 3rd line for my son. Called retention, was offered the
> following deal by a representative --who gave me her name and employee
> ID # for confirmation:
>
> 3 lines
> 1100 shared minutes
> Unl. N/W starting at 7 p.m.
> Unl mobile-mobile calls
> 2 year contract required
> $85.50 ($90 less 5% discount for the2 year deal).
>
> When I called back later to sign up, was told by a supervisor that
> SPCS would not honor the deal --even though it had been noted in my
> file that the company had agreeed. "She made a mistake," was the
> response. No way would they honor it. Instead, they told me the charge
> would be $109 -- or $25 a month more than I was told.
>
> I have stood by SPCS for five years, and gave them first shot at
> holding me for at least 2 more. They dropped the ball big time, and
> did not seem to care.
>

Sounds like you were given the price for the first line with add-a-phone
options, and with the two year agreement it includes the PCS-PCS and
first add-a-phone free.

An extra $20 for the third phone would make sense (not sure about the
difference between $20 and $25).

Most likely if you had taken her upon the deal during the original phone
call the error would have been discovered and she would have re-
evaluated the deal with you.

Retention or not, I don't see how they would agree to that.

 

[Steph]

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

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:SIa9d.7058$Vm1.827@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:_G39d.135630$wV.87711@attbi_s54...
>> "John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> in message news:%WZ8d.14755$Qv5.14594@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> > The reps in the Retention/Cancellation department have access to
>> > plans that the regular CSRs don't have access to.
>> >
>>
>> The original poster said that he spoke to retention when he got the
>> offer
> he
>> mentioned, so that's not the issue.
>
> Kovie, have you noticed the subject header ... yet? I'm still waiting
> to hear back on the *written offer* he received from a phone call.
>
> What's more, who's to say who he spoke to on the follow up call to
> SPCS. He said he spoke to a supervisor. I'm under the impression that
> the retention dept doesn't have supervisors, that they are all on top
> of the CS dept.
>
> Bob
>
>

I think the subject refers to the fact the OP claims the retention
person entered it in the call tracking system, so not on paper until it
comes out of a printer, it was "written" on the customer history
record.

 

[Steph]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in
news:SCX8d.342590$Fg5.24837@attbi_s53:

> I'm wondering why Sprint "allows" people with unlimited Vision to
> access the internet via a laptop and cable, even though it's forbidden
> under the TOS, so long as you don't abuse this (which at present seems
> to be no more than 300-500MB/month).

I get charged no matter what.
I have only used the tethered access sparingly when connected, and only
maybe 7-10 days total out of a year.

> Is it because:
>
> 1 - It's not worth their time and expense to go after people who don't
> abuse this "policy".

Not in my mind.

> 2 - They don't want to risk losing non-abusing customers by going
> after them.

Again, doesn't seem to be my experience.

> 3 - They believe that this "look the other way" policy actually
> attracts customers, and gives them an incentive to sign up for
> unlimited Vision.
>

Improperly managing expectations is just a recipe for disaster. I have
unlimited Vision (and it appears my account was modified somehow back
when they did a warranty replacement on the handset), yet get charged
for virtually any internet access. I don't even use the vision on the
handset hardly now.

> 4 - They're tracking this usage in order to develop a profitable
> business model for charging for such usage, which they'll eventually
> roll out.

Couldn't even care at this point.

> 5 - Some other reason?
>
> Just curious.
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Steph" <CUT_skipatrol@hotmail.com_CUT> wrote in message
news:Xns957B505A47CB2skipatroluunet@24.25.203.148...
> "Bob Igel" <rigel@hotpop.com> wrote in
> news:9VH8d.6098$gs1.5586@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> > I am on a month-to-month agreement with SPCS. Have been since '99.
> > Wanted to add a 3rd line for my son. Called retention, was offered the
> > following deal by a representative --who gave me her name and employee
> > ID # for confirmation:
> >
> > 3 lines
> > 1100 shared minutes
> > Unl. N/W starting at 7 p.m.
> > Unl mobile-mobile calls
> > 2 year contract required
> > $85.50 ($90 less 5% discount for the2 year deal).
> >
> > When I called back later to sign up, was told by a supervisor that
> > SPCS would not honor the deal --even though it had been noted in my
> > file that the company had agreeed. "She made a mistake," was the
> > response. No way would they honor it. Instead, they told me the charge
> > would be $109 -- or $25 a month more than I was told.
> >
> > I have stood by SPCS for five years, and gave them first shot at
> > holding me for at least 2 more. They dropped the ball big time, and
> > did not seem to care.
> >
>
> Sounds like you were given the price for the first line with add-a-phone
> options, and with the two year agreement it includes the PCS-PCS and
> first add-a-phone free.
>
> An extra $20 for the third phone would make sense (not sure about the
> difference between $20 and $25).

The extra $5 could be the additional taxes and surcharges to the account
with the addition of the phone.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

"Steph" <CUT_skipatrol@hotmail.com_CUT> wrote in message
news:Xns957B50D12C0Cskipatroluunet@24.25.203.148...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:SIa9d.7058$Vm1.827@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>>
>> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
>> news:_G39d.135630$wV.87711@attbi_s54...
>>> "John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote
>>> in message news:%WZ8d.14755$Qv5.14594@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>>> > The reps in the Retention/Cancellation department have access to
>>> > plans that the regular CSRs don't have access to.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The original poster said that he spoke to retention when he got the
>>> offer
>> he
>>> mentioned, so that's not the issue.
>>
>> Kovie, have you noticed the subject header ... yet? I'm still waiting
>> to hear back on the *written offer* he received from a phone call.
>>
>> What's more, who's to say who he spoke to on the follow up call to
>> SPCS. He said he spoke to a supervisor. I'm under the impression that
>> the retention dept doesn't have supervisors, that they are all on top
>> of the CS dept.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>
> I think the subject refers to the fact the OP claims the retention
> person entered it in the call tracking system, so not on paper until it
> comes out of a printer, it was "written" on the customer history
> record.
>

Which is why I didn't bother to comment on that aspect of his posting.
Thanks Steph.

Bob--you're nit-picking here and missing the point. I was just trying to
fill in the OP on the inconsistencies one can expect when calling Sprint
about previously made offers. I had a similar situation, where I was offered
a great deal by one rep, which I wasn't ready to sign onto at the time, and
then had to call multiple times before getting another rep who could give me
the same offer. Whatever one thinks of this "policy", it's the way it is and
one just has to be aware of it and find a way to work around it.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:Gtd9d.14$Gb2.5@fe36.usenetserver.com...
> Kovie wrote:
>> I'm wondering why Sprint "allows" people with unlimited Vision to access
>> the internet via a laptop and cable, even though it's forbidden under the
>> TOS, so long as you don't abuse this (which at present seems to be no
>> more than 300-500MB/month).
>>
>> Is it because:
>>
>> 1 - It's not worth their time and expense to go after people who don't
>> abuse this "policy".
>>
>> 2 - They don't want to risk losing non-abusing customers by going after
>> them.
>>
>> 3 - They believe that this "look the other way" policy actually attracts
>> customers, and gives them an incentive to sign up for unlimited Vision.
>>
>> 4 - They're tracking this usage in order to develop a profitable business
>> model for charging for such usage, which they'll eventually roll out.
>>
>> 5 - Some other reason?
>
>
> Probably more like:
>
> 6 - There's no definitive mechanism to determine whether someone is
> really connecting a laptop or just really into using Vision services. So,
> they go after the users that anyone would clearly know could not possibly
> have transferred 600, 700, 800 megabytes, 2 gigs - by just browsing away
> on their vision phones.
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.


I still find it hard to believe that Sprint can't tell whether Vision access
originated from a phone or from a device connected to the phone via a cable.
Surely the connections are originated differently, and data packets contain
enough information to identify which is which. E.g., the phone's likely to
have packets that identifies it as using J2ME or WAP while a laptop
connection's likely to have packets that identifies it as using J2SE or
ActiveX/COM.

As to whether Sprint bothers to look at the data to this level of detail,
I'm not so sure.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen
>

 

[Guest]

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

Kovie wrote:
> enough information to identify which is which. E.g., the phone's likely to
> have packets that identifies it as using J2ME or WAP while a laptop
> connection's likely to have packets that identifies it as using J2SE or
> ActiveX/COM.

Not possible. As far as web browsing is concerned, HTTP is HTTP, and the choice
of technology (Java, ActiveX/ASP, whatever) is made on the SERVER. Not the client.

> As to whether Sprint bothers to look at the data to this level of detail,
> I'm not so sure.

It doesn't exist.



--
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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Steph" <CUT_skipatrol@hotmail.com_CUT> wrote in message
news:Xns957B517051898skipatroluunet@24.25.203.148...
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in
> news:SCX8d.342590$Fg5.24837@attbi_s53:
>
>> I'm wondering why Sprint "allows" people with unlimited Vision to
>> access the internet via a laptop and cable, even though it's forbidden
>> under the TOS, so long as you don't abuse this (which at present seems
>> to be no more than 300-500MB/month).
>
> I get charged no matter what.
> I have only used the tethered access sparingly when connected, and only
> maybe 7-10 days total out of a year.
>

>
> Improperly managing expectations is just a recipe for disaster. I have
> unlimited Vision (and it appears my account was modified somehow back
> when they did a warranty replacement on the handset), yet get charged
> for virtually any internet access. I don't even use the vision on the
> handset hardly now.
>


Isn't this a billing error rather than Sprint policy, as others have noted,
especially if you're being charged for phone Vision access on your unlimited
Vision plan?

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

Kovie wrote:
> Isn't this a billing error rather than Sprint policy, as others have noted,
> especially if you're being charged for phone Vision access on your unlimited
> Vision plan?
Old, slow Wireless Web access is not included in the Vision plans.

However, if you're using a Vision phone, Vision should be used automatically to
browse the web.

I'd suggest to the person having problems that they speak to Sprint tech
support; something does smell fishy here.



--
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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:ck6vhr$gci$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Kovie wrote:
>> enough information to identify which is which. E.g., the phone's likely
>> to have packets that identifies it as using J2ME or WAP while a laptop
>> connection's likely to have packets that identifies it as using J2SE or
>> ActiveX/COM.
>
> Not possible. As far as web browsing is concerned, HTTP is HTTP, and the
> choice of technology (Java, ActiveX/ASP, whatever) is made on the SERVER.
> Not the client.
>
>> As to whether Sprint bothers to look at the data to this level of detail,
>> I'm not so sure.
>
> It doesn't exist.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.

I see. I'm no expert on this, but it just doesn't make sense that there's NO
way to tell the difference between phone and non-phone Vision access.
Wouldn't non-phone browsers such as IE make HTTP calls that a phone-based
one never would, at least at the current level of phone-based browser
technology? E.g. for streaming video or audio content, or for images too
large for any existing phone-based browser to handle? My point is that
perhaps there's nothing in an HTTP call that explicitely says "Hey, I'm
Internet Explorer!", but surely there's some fairly obvious indirect way of
telling what the source is?

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen