Sprint reneges on a written offer

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message news:5rYad.460017$8_6.126853@attbi_s04...
>
> This all makes sense, but from what I've gleaned from this ng, the consensus
> seems to be that so long as users restrict their non-phone Vision use to
> under a certain threshold, which appears to be anywhere from 300MB to 1GB
> per month, Sprint will probably look the other way. I don't know if Rob was
> the source of this

AFAIK, Rob never mentioned a specific MB limit. Whatever this secret limit
is, it must be set pretty high because I've never seen anyone post in this NG
that Sprint slapped their hands for exceeding the limit. If the limit was as low
as 300MB, you'd be seeing lots of posts from customers complaining that they
got nailed.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

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

"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:neKbd.8066$5b1.2864@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:5rYad.460017$8_6.126853@attbi_s04...
>>
>> This all makes sense, but from what I've gleaned from this ng, the
>> consensus seems to be that so long as users restrict their non-phone
>> Vision use to under a certain threshold, which appears to be anywhere
>> from 300MB to 1GB per month, Sprint will probably look the other way. I
>> don't know if Rob was the source of this
>
> AFAIK, Rob never mentioned a specific MB limit. Whatever this secret limit
> is, it must be set pretty high because I've never seen anyone post in this
> NG
> that Sprint slapped their hands for exceeding the limit. If the limit was
> as low
> as 300MB, you'd be seeing lots of posts from customers complaining that
> they
> got nailed.
>
> --
> John Richards

I'm not saying that it is 300MB, or even 1GB, just that I've seen all sorts
of numbers tossed around here that span this range. I certainly have no idea
what the limit is, or if there even is one (i.e., it might be like the
"speed limit" in Montana before they changed the law, which was up to the
trooper to determine).

However, whether or not Sprint does have an undisclosed limit, and if it
does, what it actually is, is less important, I think, than for people who
take advantage of this "loophole" to try to be reasonable about their use of
tethered access, and to make relatively conservative estimates as to what
this limit might be, for several reasons.

One, to minimize the chances that they'll get penalized for abuse. Two,
because, well, it's abuse, which is wrong, especially given Sprint's
generosity in looking the other way for non-abusers (although I'd guess that
this has less to do with corporate altruism than with other factors). And
three, because if people do abuse this "loophole", Sprint will eventually
change its policy in a way that will hurt other, non-abusing users.

I am surprised, though, that no one's been reported here of being penalized
by Sprint for abusing this, as I would assume that there are people who've
tried to stream and download MP3s, videos and other large files that would
be likely to lead to their being penalized. I can't imagine that you could
keep your laptop tethered 24/7 and download GB's a day without Sprint
cracking down at you.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:hRKbd.261928$3l3.231536@attbi_s03...

<snipped>
> I am surprised, though, that no one's been reported here of being
penalized
> by Sprint for abusing this, as I would assume that there are people who've
> tried to stream and download MP3s, videos and other large files that would
> be likely to lead to their being penalized. I can't imagine that you could
> keep your laptop tethered 24/7 and download GB's a day without Sprint
> cracking down at you.

There have been several individuals that did report they got nailed ...
possibly a year ago or so.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8QQbd.5169$NX5.1762@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:hRKbd.261928$3l3.231536@attbi_s03...
>
> <snipped>
>> I am surprised, though, that no one's been reported here of being
> penalized
>> by Sprint for abusing this, as I would assume that there are people who've
>> tried to stream and download MP3s, videos and other large files that would
>> be likely to lead to their being penalized. I can't imagine that you could
>> keep your laptop tethered 24/7 and download GB's a day without Sprint
>> cracking down at you.
>
> There have been several individuals that did report they got nailed ...
> possibly a year ago or so.

I don't recall that, but do seem to remember Rob mentioning that he
heard of one or two customers who got nailed, and that it was a pretty
obvious violation because they downloaded several GB.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

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

"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:5ZTbd.8162$5b1.2828@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8QQbd.5169$NX5.1762@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> > news:hRKbd.261928$3l3.231536@attbi_s03...
> >
> > <snipped>
> >> I am surprised, though, that no one's been reported here of being
> > penalized
> >> by Sprint for abusing this, as I would assume that there are people
who've
> >> tried to stream and download MP3s, videos and other large files that
would
> >> be likely to lead to their being penalized. I can't imagine that you
could
> >> keep your laptop tethered 24/7 and download GB's a day without Sprint
> >> cracking down at you.
> >
> > There have been several individuals that did report they got nailed ...
> > possibly a year ago or so.
>
> I don't recall that, but do seem to remember Rob mentioning that he
> heard of one or two customers who got nailed, and that it was a pretty
> obvious violation because they downloaded several GB.
>
> --
> John Richards

John, the first time some posted it, was just a few months after Vision was
initiated. There were one or two others a few months after that, and the
most recent was someone who piped in a few weeks ago.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

I take it by your non-response that you're satisfied by my posting, Bob?

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:3aVbd.132746$He1.76510@attbi_s01...
> Bob, now you're definitely having some reading problems yourself. I was
> referring to someone else who got fired, NOT Rob, that the previous poster
> (Isaiah Beard) had cited.
>
> And I quote:
>
> "I know of at least one person who was fired from their job (not at
Sprint)
> because they mentioned in a blog that the company they work for uses PHP
to
> deliver online content.
>
> I can't believe we're still arguing over our mutual mis-readings of each
> others' postings!
>
> --
> Kovie
> kovie@earthlink.netizen

My apologies. I thought you were speaking of Rob - O/Siris ...

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:ecVbd.263995$3l3.69190@attbi_s03...
> I take it by your non-response that you're satisfied by my posting, Bob?
>
> --
> Kovie
> kovie@earthlink.netizen

Didn't see it Kovie. Must of marked it read by mistake. I'll check it out.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

Accepted. Misreadings and misinterpretations of others' postings is bound to
happen. I've been guilty of it myself in the past, including with yours. I'm
just trying to keep the tone down to a sub-Crossfire level.

;-)

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen


"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hrVbd.5427$NX5.3406@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:3aVbd.132746$He1.76510@attbi_s01...
>> Bob, now you're definitely having some reading problems yourself. I was
>> referring to someone else who got fired, NOT Rob, that the previous
>> poster
>> (Isaiah Beard) had cited.
>>
>> And I quote:
>>
>> "I know of at least one person who was fired from their job (not at
> Sprint)
>> because they mentioned in a blog that the company they work for uses PHP
> to
>> deliver online content.
>>
>> I can't believe we're still arguing over our mutual mis-readings of each
>> others' postings!
>>
>> --
>> Kovie
>> kovie@earthlink.netizen
>
> My apologies. I thought you were speaking of Rob - O/Siris ...
>
> Bob
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i4Wbd.5451$SZ5.5279@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:0SBbd.127272$He1.116492@attbi_s01...
>>
>> The following is an except from Sprint's current TOS, found by clicking
>> on
>> the above T&C link:
>>
>> Terms & Conditions
>>
>> 9 - Terms and Conditions of Services
>> Effective June 30, 2004
>>
>> Other Sprint PCS Vision Terms.
>>
>> ...Vision is not available for use with server devices or host computer
>> applications, other systems that drive continuous heavy traffic or data
>> sessions, or as substitutes for private lines or frame relay connections.
>> Unlimited Vision plans/options may not be used with Sprint PCS phones or
>> smart phones being used as a modem in connection with other equipment
> (e.g., computers, etc.) through use of connection kits or other
>> phone-to-computer/PDA accessories, or Bluetooth or other wireless
>> technology. We may terminate services without notice for any misuse...
>>
> Ya gotta read between the lines. First off, the first sentence says
> "Vision
> is not available ..." We know that it is available, as we have used the
> service. They have to say that terminology. If "Not" was not included,
> then
> the interpretation would be that Sprint says it's ok to tether up and use
> the service to your heart's content. If this happened, everyone would be
> dropping their dial - ups for the $10 to $20/mo. option and taking all the
> available bandwidth. This was not the intent of Vision, at least not at
> this
> time. They might change this philosophy once they upgrade their hardware
> and
> software with EV-DO and then to EV-DV.
>
> Towards the end of the above paragraph, they say we can't use our phones
> to
> access Vision tethered to the laptop and that if we do, they may terminate
> service. So, they are saying the capability is there, but if you get
> caught
> using it, they might cancel the service. No one has disputed what's said
> in
> their legalese.
>
> So, going back to square one, it's against the rules, and yet they know we
> are using it. Most of us who post here and use the service in low to
> moderate amounts (99%), aren't getting any warnings from SPCS or threats
> of
> account cancellation. The remaining 1% are either getting billed for their
> usage or have had their accounts cancelled.
>
> Now, no one has posted here saying they had their accounts cancelled, but
> Rob has piped in saying that SPCS has cancelled a number of accounts. We
> have had some posters here who have piped in, saying that they are getting
> charged.
>
> IOW, as our former resident troll Phillipe said, those of us that are not
> incurring additional charges are staying under SPCS's radar. That's all
> there is to it.
>
> Bob
>

Now I really am confused. What have we been arguing about, if we both agree
that Sprint's TOS says that "we can't use our phones to access Vision
tethered to the laptop and that if we do, they may terminate service" (your
words)? I thought you said in an earlier post that Sprint's TOS DID NOT say
this. And I quote yet again:

"Yes, I meant accessing the web via tethered use. And once and for the last
friggin' time, SPCS does not disallow tethered usage under the TOS. Go to
the Terms and Conditions link at the bottom of www.sprintpcs.com and tell me
where it's disallowed."

Are we arguing over the differences between the terms "can't use" and "does
not allow"? I sure hope not, as that is about as meaningful as Clinton's
famous reinterpretation of the word "is".

Bottom line, we both (finally) appear to agree that Sprint's policy is that
while, technically, it is possible to use your phone as a modem, legally,
you're not allowed to do this, and can be cut off if you try, and that this
is stated (albeit not as clearly as it could be) in their TOS. We also both
agree that so long as they choose to look the other way, those of us who
choose to take advantage of this should be reasonable about our "abuse" of
this apparently rarely enforced policy.

If this is true, then what this debate has been about is now beyond me.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

Steve Summit wrote:

> 3. If you do connect your laptop to your phone and transfer fewer
> than 269,128,413 bytes per month, Sprint looks the other way and
> does not penalize you for the fact that you have not paid for the
> transfer of those bytes. (You haven't paid because your Vision
> plan doesn't cover them, you see.)

How did you come up with that number?


--
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?)

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:AMYbd.246063$MQ5.15566@attbi_s52...
<snipped>
> Bottom line, we both (finally) appear to agree that Sprint's policy is
that
> while, technically, it is possible to use your phone as a modem, legally,
> you're not allowed to do this, and can be cut off if you try, and that
this
> is stated (albeit not as clearly as it could be) in their TOS. We also
both
> agree that so long as they choose to look the other way, those of us who
> choose to take advantage of this should be reasonable about our "abuse" of
> this apparently rarely enforced policy.

I agree.
>
> If this is true, then what this debate has been about is now beyond me.

It's been going on because of your constant curiosity ... and not accepting
the original answers that were given to you.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

In article <O8Cbd.241483$MQ5.218837@attbi_s52>, kovie@earthlink.netizen
says...
> Also, having worked for a number of corporations, more happily at some than
> at others, I personally believe that unless a company is out and out
> committing a crime or doing something hugely unethical and immoral (which is
> usually criminal anyway, and which in either case you're morally obliged to
> blow the whistle), so long as you work for that company, you're being
> unethical yourself by revealing inside information about the company.
>

I agree. And I think that, while I worked there, I posted here and made
quite clear my respect for Sprint's right to keep secrets. What I knew
then, and still see far too much of, though, is that Sprint allows a
dreadful ignorance of policy in its reps. The dreaded "call back in 10
minutes and get another answer" syndrome. That alone was my reason for
the revelations I made. I still feel obligated to keep what I knew then
of the internal "atmosphere" that I experienced. But I *do* feel
justified in the few things I posted.

--
RØß
O/Siris
~+~
A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792

 

[Guest]

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

O/Siris wrote:

> I agree. And I think that, while I worked there, I posted here and made
> quite clear my respect for Sprint's right to keep secrets. What I knew
> then, and still see far too much of, though, is that Sprint allows a
> dreadful ignorance of policy in its reps.

Actually, this is one of the few major, major complaints that I have about
Sprint, and it pisses me off.

Just to confirm something I already knew, I called *2 a couple weeks ago and said

"Any plan changes within the first three months don't require a contract
extension, right?"

"No, that's not right sir."

About a minute later I ended up explaining that I'm working for a company that
resells Sprint and that our Sprint AE herself mentioned that that was the case,
after which she said she'd go double check and sheepishly came back and told me
I was right.

Sprint needs to get their front line CSRs trained better.

(The fact that I must extend my contract if I change plans after three months,
even if I don't take a promo, is my other major problem with Sprint.)

--
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?)

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ipZbd.5706$SZ5.5155@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:AMYbd.246063$MQ5.15566@attbi_s52...
> <snipped>
>> Bottom line, we both (finally) appear to agree that Sprint's policy is
>> that
>> while, technically, it is possible to use your phone as a modem, legally,
>> you're not allowed to do this, and can be cut off if you try, and that
>> this
>> is stated (albeit not as clearly as it could be) in their TOS. We also
>> both
>> agree that so long as they choose to look the other way, those of us who
>> choose to take advantage of this should be reasonable about our "abuse"
>> of
>> this apparently rarely enforced policy.
>
> I agree.

Finally!

>>
>> If this is true, then what this debate has been about is now beyond me.
>
> It's been going on because of your constant curiosity ... and not
> accepting
> the original answers that were given to you.
>
> Bob
>
>

Not exactly what I asked (and why should I accept someone's answer if it
makes no sense?), but let's leave it at that and save everyone the agony...

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bda6161f4b2160098968b@netnews.comcast.net...
In article <O8Cbd.241483$MQ5.218837@attbi_s52>, kovie@earthlink.netizen
says...
> Also, having worked for a number of corporations, more happily at some
> than
> at others, I personally believe that unless a company is out and out
> committing a crime or doing something hugely unethical and immoral (which
> is
> usually criminal anyway, and which in either case you're morally obliged
> to
> blow the whistle), so long as you work for that company, you're being
> unethical yourself by revealing inside information about the company.
>

I agree. And I think that, while I worked there, I posted here and made
quite clear my respect for Sprint's right to keep secrets. What I knew
then, and still see far too much of, though, is that Sprint allows a
dreadful ignorance of policy in its reps. The dreaded "call back in 10
minutes and get another answer" syndrome. That alone was my reason for
the revelations I made. I still feel obligated to keep what I knew then
of the internal "atmosphere" that I experienced. But I *do* feel
justified in the few things I posted.

--
RØß
O/Siris

Well, in a sense you were being a "whistleblower" (good), not a corporate
mole (bad), because you knew something about your company that you didn't
like or agree with and which you believed was not properly serving its
customers, and felt you were doing these customers a favor by alerting them
of this, while at the same time not betraying your company in any unethical
way, by, say, revealing proprietary product information.

You were clearly walking on very thin ice with your company, and they would
have had grounds to dismiss and possibly prosecute you had they found this
out. But I'm guessing that revealing this limited information was an act of
conscience for you (and which, in this instance, I applaud you for, even
though it was obviously risky for you).

So, I'm just curious, last you heard when you were there, what are you
prepared to reveal about Sprint's unenforced "phone as modem use not allowed
under Vision" policy? Without asking you to reveal how, do they actually
have a way to tell if you're using it this way? And if so, why don't they
enforce it for all but the most flagrant abusers, if their policy
specifically forbids it? Is it because it's just not worth their bother to
go after people who are reasonable about their usage, or, perhaps, because
they don't want to potentially alienate such customers, on whom they're
still making a good profit? Or is it because they're just too disorganized
to do this?

I suppose it might seem that I'm contradicting myself here by asking you to
reveal "inside info", but you no longer work there, and from what I
understand you've already answered some or all of these questions before.
I'd understand if you prefer not to answer them here, of course, as I am
asking you to "tip Sprint's hand" as to their internal thinking (or lack of
it). I'm just curious, nothing more.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:cM2cd.189395$wV.182148@attbi_s54...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ipZbd.5706$SZ5.5155@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> > news:AMYbd.246063$MQ5.15566@attbi_s52...
> > <snipped>
> >> Bottom line, we both (finally) appear to agree that Sprint's policy is
> >> that
> >> while, technically, it is possible to use your phone as a modem,
legally,
> >> you're not allowed to do this, and can be cut off if you try, and that
> >> this
> >> is stated (albeit not as clearly as it could be) in their TOS. We also
> >> both
> >> agree that so long as they choose to look the other way, those of us
who
> >> choose to take advantage of this should be reasonable about our "abuse"
> >> of
> >> this apparently rarely enforced policy.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> Finally!
>
> >>
> >> If this is true, then what this debate has been about is now beyond me.
> >
> > It's been going on because of your constant curiosity ... and not
> > accepting
> > the original answers that were given to you.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
> Not exactly what I asked (and why should I accept someone's answer if it
> makes no sense?), but let's leave it at that and save everyone the
agony...

I agree. I gotta say that with your continued curiosity, as with the reply
to Rob's post, you just won't let this go ... will you!. Just accept the
fact that SPCS is not enforcing Vision usage for those that do it on a
limited basis, and leave it at that ..., before someone gets an itch up
their ass @ SPCS to change this current situation, and everyone gets hit for
tethered online charges. Is that a deal Kovie?

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

In article <cf3cd.399422$Fg5.344502@attbi_s53>, kovie@earthlink.netizen
says...
> "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bda6161f4b2160098968b@netnews.comcast.net...
> In article <O8Cbd.241483$MQ5.218837@attbi_s52>, kovie@earthlink.netizen
> says...
> > Also, having worked for a number of corporations, more happily at some
> > than
> > at others, I personally believe that unless a company is out and out
> > committing a crime or doing something hugely unethical and immoral (which
> > is
> > usually criminal anyway, and which in either case you're morally obliged
> > to
> > blow the whistle), so long as you work for that company, you're being
> > unethical yourself by revealing inside information about the company.
> >
>
> I agree. And I think that, while I worked there, I posted here and made
> quite clear my respect for Sprint's right to keep secrets. What I knew
> then, and still see far too much of, though, is that Sprint allows a
> dreadful ignorance of policy in its reps. The dreaded "call back in 10
> minutes and get another answer" syndrome. That alone was my reason for
> the revelations I made. I still feel obligated to keep what I knew then
> of the internal "atmosphere" that I experienced. But I *do* feel
> justified in the few things I posted.
>
> --
> RØß
> O/Siris
>
> Well, in a sense you were being a "whistleblower" (good), not a corporate
> mole (bad), because you knew something about your company that you didn't
> like or agree with and which you believed was not properly serving its
> customers, and felt you were doing these customers a favor by alerting them
> of this, while at the same time not betraying your company in any unethical
> way, by, say, revealing proprietary product information.
>
> You were clearly walking on very thin ice with your company, and they would
> have had grounds to dismiss and possibly prosecute you had they found this
> out. But I'm guessing that revealing this limited information was an act of
> conscience for you (and which, in this instance, I applaud you for, even
> though it was obviously risky for you).
>
> So, I'm just curious, last you heard when you were there, what are you
> prepared to reveal about Sprint's unenforced "phone as modem use not allowed
> under Vision" policy? Without asking you to reveal how, do they actually
> have a way to tell if you're using it this way? And if so, why don't they
> enforce it for all but the most flagrant abusers, if their policy
> specifically forbids it? Is it because it's just not worth their bother to
> go after people who are reasonable about their usage, or, perhaps, because
> they don't want to potentially alienate such customers, on whom they're
> still making a good profit? Or is it because they're just too disorganized

It's not unenforced. But enforcement *is* prioritized, so that light
usage is just too much of a dminishing return. So far as I'm aware, it
remains such. Like a speeder who's only a couple of miles over will
almost always get away with it, Sprint has defined a level beyond which
the damage merits a reaction.

And that's literally the attitude: usage of the phone as a modem hurts
the network. I don't buy it, to be blunt. I think it's a question of
capacity planning, and Sprint doesn't seem to know how to do that if
everyone with a phone (or even a significant number of them) started
using the phone as a modem. But, so long as Sprint says all of it
hurts, all of it remains vulnerable to action.


--
RØß
O/Siris
~+~
A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792

 

[Guest]

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

In article <ckq9ld$2eo$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>, scs@eskimo.com says...
> (The whole deal with transferring the Bolingbrook
> call center to IBM was hastily contrived as a cover-up for the
> abduction of Vargas. Rob's farewell posts to this newsgroup were
> forged by Fimblenister himself, who had managed to guess the
> passcharacter protecting Rob's PLP private key.)
>

You know you've made the big time when people start making conspiracy
theories about you.

--
RØß
O/Siris
~+~
A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
but moderation in principle is always a vice.
Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792

 

[Guest]

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

"O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bdcb24cd3c34ad598968e@netnews.comcast.net...

>It's not unenforced. But enforcement *is* prioritized, so that light
>usage is just too much of a dminishing return. So far as I'm aware, it
>remains such. Like a speeder who's only a couple of miles over will
>almost always get away with it, Sprint has defined a level beyond which
>the damage merits a reaction.

>And that's literally the attitude: usage of the phone as a modem hurts
>the network. I don't buy it, to be blunt. I think it's a question of
>capacity planning, and Sprint doesn't seem to know how to do that if
>everyone with a phone (or even a significant number of them) started
>using the phone as a modem. But, so long as Sprint says all of it
>hurts, all of it remains vulnerable to action.


I feel that I should start a new thread on this by now, but it appears that
there's a "don't rock the boat by asking too many questions about this
matter" sentiment here, for fear that Sprint will pick up on the interest
and start penalizing or charging tethered users (as if they don't already
know, given what you've said about their ability to tell who's already doing
this). So I'll let this thread die its rightful death. I'll just add that
sooner or later Sprint is bound to make this a paid service, probably
offering a variety of plan options based on usage level. Once they figure
out a way to make a net profit off it, and feel that network capacity can
support it, they'll roll out some plans. Hopefully, some of those will be
rolled into existing Vision plans and thus not require an extra fee.

And that, as they say, is that.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen