 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / May 2004Sprint lamely plays "Its costly" card.
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. Other than 30 days instead of 15 days new contract termination clause, I wonder what he is considering "costly"? Scotty > Anytime Industry is asked to play nice they may play the "It's so > costly" card. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > in order to curb abuses. And it required Federal action in the form of > the Household Good Transportation Act that was passed in 1980. > 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? > > Anytime Industry is asked to play nice they may play the "It's so > > costly" card. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > in order to curb abuses. And it required Federal action in the form of > > the Household Good Transportation Act that was passed in 1980. >Other than 30 days instead of 15 days new contract termination clause, I >wonder what he is considering "costly"? Probably all the paperwork that has to be filed with the state to show that they are in compliance. Keep in mind that new regulations also require new agancies (more taxes) and means to show these agencies that the company is in compliance. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >Other than 30 days instead of 15 days new contract termination clause, I > >wonder what he is considering "costly"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Keep in mind that new regulations also require new agancies (more taxes) and > means to show these agencies that the company is in compliance. Nice try. The California Public Utilities Commission is already on the ground. > > >Other than 30 days instead of 15 days new contract termination clause, I > > >wonder what he is considering "costly"? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nice try. The California Public Utilities Commission is already on the > ground. With a fully staffed Cellualr Compliance group? I think not. >> Other than 30 days instead of 15 days new >> contract termination clause, I >> wonder what he is considering "costly"? > Probably all the paperwork that has to be filed with > the state to show that they are in compliance. That would be getting off very easy. Verizon, pulling the same marketing tricks as SprintPCS (National Coverage pretense), just reached a settlement that may cost them over $1 billion dollars. <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=8&u=/ap/20040528/ ap_on_bi_ge/verizon_wireless_lawsuit&sid=95573418> "SAN DIEGO - A California judge has approved a settlement of a class-action lawsuit that accuses Verizon Wireless of failing to disclose billing practices and service restrictions for millions of customers, attorneys said Thursday. The nation's largest wireless carrier agreed to give current and former customers two vouchers. One offers a choice of up to $30 off a new or renewed contract, a $24 credit on an existing contract, 1,500 text messages over six months, $15 off Verizon merchandise, or a 120-minute long-distance calling card. " > The nation's largest wireless carrier agreed to give current and former > customers two vouchers. Did it say what the lawyers for the class got? Often these class actions are just covers for the lawyers to get rich while the class members get nothing of value. Worthless cupons that require you buy something you don't otherwise want. Do the lawyers get paid in cupons? Heck no! They get cold, hard cash.  SignatureDonald R. Newcomb DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net > > The nation's largest wireless carrier agreed to give current and former > > customers two vouchers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > otherwise want. Do the lawyers get paid in cupons? Heck no! They get cold, > hard cash. Sorry, your rant against lawyers is not applicable here. > >> Other than 30 days instead of 15 days new > >> contract termination clause, I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as SprintPCS (National Coverage pretense), just reached a settlement that may > cost them over $1 billion dollars. Pretty soon, you'll be advocating a government program to monitor public restroom toilet flushing. After all, the poeple that are too lazy or stupid to read their Service Agreement and do some research on the industry are probably the same ones that don't flush. > 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? >And people complain about the cellular companies? :-) There is absolutly no comparison between the Angels that the cellular companies are and the legislative devils in the various state and federal government agencies. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >And people complain about the cellular companies? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -- Something to ponder- how many extra minutes could you get from your carrier with all of the taxes and Regulatory Fees? In my case, I could more than double my minutes and free long distance as well. And when the new "California Cellular Regulatory Charge" starts appearing on everyone's bills (whether as a seperate charge or an addition to your rate plan), you'll end up with even less service for your dollar. One other thing to think about- where is there a law on the books that allows one state to dictate the content of a website designed and ran from another state? >One other thing to think about- where is there a law on the books that >allows one state to dictate the content of a website designed and ran from >another state? I am not sure what you are getting at here but web sites are not regulated in any way, near as I can tell. Now, if you are refering to a cellular companies web site - I don't know of any of them that post their contracts and so the content being 10pt text is not relevent. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >One other thing to think about- where is there a law on the books that > >allows one state to dictate the content of a website designed and ran from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -- Actually, I was referring to the section of the new regulations that require ths companies to add information to their websites. I think this might have stepped over the line- the websites, while viewable in California, are designed or housed in California. If it were my website, the following disclaimer would appear instead: "Due to new regulations instituted by the California PUC, the information contained on this website has been deemed to be sufficient for only 49 out of the 50 United States, with California being the lone exception. Therefore, we must ask that any resident of the State of California refrain from utilizing the information contained herein. We apologize for the inconvenience, and we do not have the same belief as your State Government. We understand that you are no less intelligent than the rest of the country. Please direct all communications concerning the inability to use the information on this website directly to the California PUC." I know- not very customer friendly, and will never happen. But an action like this might get the type of attention needed to put an end to these frivolous regulations. > 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. :-) > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. >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. Signature_____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] > >Actually, it came out of complaints only from people trying to get the > >double billing corrected- they were being offered alternatives during the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. >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. Signature_____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] > >None of what you guessed at was even close to accurate: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. > >Actually, it came out of complaints only from people trying to get the > >double billing corrected- they were being offered alternatives during the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (and got a reply rate of 5%), Moe and Curly would would be enjoying their > next meals courtesy of the State. Are you saying a couple of Hundred Thousand each to the Republican Party and to the Jeb Bush election campaign makes a difference? >Anytime Industry is asked to play nice they may play the "It's so >costly" card. Anytime Government gets involved it is costly. -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >Anytime Industry is asked to play nice they may play the "It's so > >costly" card. > > Anytime Government gets involved it is costly. And getting ripped off by Cellular Carriers isn't? > > >Anytime Industry is asked to play nice they may play the "It's so > > >costly" card. > > > > Anytime Government gets involved it is costly. > > And getting ripped off by Cellular Carriers isn't? Who's getting rippied off? Who's not getting exactly what they sign up for? And where in the regulations were the carriers forced to change any current business practices, axcept put their 10,000 word Service Agreements in a larger font? The PUC Commissioners were just helping Arnold out with his money problems. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.