Sprint charges early for Number Portability -

Problem is there is no number portability. Maybe in November,
although all the cell phone companies are fighting that.
I understand Verizon will not institute that charge until that
service exists in fact.

I call Sprint (*2) to enquire why I being charged for a service
I am not receiving, and they say it is a cost recovery.

I am complain about paying for a service I am not receiving, and they
transfer me to CANCELLATION.

Luckily my Advantage Agreement long ago expired.

Looks like I'm going to Verizon, and then I can get the Kyocera 7135
that Sprint decided not to carry. With my son across the country already
on Verizon (it had far the best coverage in Wahington, D.C.) the free
unlimited Verizon to Verizon is a big plus.

Who ever even hinted that Sprint is trying to be more customer friendly.

I didn't experience that today.

The FCC mandated it, and it is, in fact, quite expensive. It is costing
the industry a billion dollars just to get ready for it. The reason is
that it changes the fundamental way calls are routed throughout all of
the nation's phone systems.

*ALL* of Sprint's and Verizon's call-routing systems have to be replaced
or upgraded to be able to handle ported numbers, and it affects nearly
all of their other systems as well, from roaming to billing to customer
service.

All of those upgrades cost serious money. If it's not a separate change,
it's built into your monthly charge, because the FCC sure as heck isn't
paying for it...

As for actually paying for number portability as a service to you -
that's different. That comes as a charge when you actually go to have
your number ported. Then Sprint or whoever can charge you $30 to port
your number. That's not a monthly-charge thing.

The monthly charge is simply to cover the costs of upgrading their
systems to handle ported numbers, and it's something they've been
working on for years. If they waited until all of the upgrades were
complete to start recouping the costs from customers, it would just
throw them further into to debt, something they're not going to do
unnecessarily, especially to satisfy a government mandate.

--
Rich Brome
Phone Scoop
http://www.phonescoop.com/

Phillipe <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<pfilm-4022C2....@news01.west.earthlink.net>:

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

> <snip> Attempted explanations for Sprints' new charges.

Sorry. I'm still quiting Sprint.

Absolutely false. Verizon, and I think some other carriers, are *not*
attempting to impose a new charge (a.k.a. rate increase) on customers with a
current agreement ("contract"). This is a *fundamental* difference: Other
carriers respect existing agreements, whereas Sprint does not. Worse, many
Sprint reps and even Sprint bills tell outright lies in order to defraud
customers of their right to cancel without penalty.

Verizon estimates the cost at 10-15 cents per line. Sprint's $1.10/line charge
is either absurdly overblown (by a full order of magnitude!), or Sprint is only
1/10 as efficient as Verizon.

You forgot option #3. That Verizon is, perhaps, vastly understating the
cost, wittingly or otherwise.
--
-+-
RŘß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint
I *don't* speak for them

Possible but unlikely. Verizon's estimate of 10-15 cents per line was
specifically an estimate of how much Verizon might eventually charge if it felt
it needed to (after number portability service actually becomes available).
Common sense dictates leaving oneself as much wiggle room as possible. Verizon
obviously felt quite confident that the cost of number portability will not
exceed 15 cents per line.

I keep hearing how Sprint is working on their Customer Service issues.
Clearly I see evidence every time I deal with them that they are trying to
reduce the lines and hold times by eliminating as many clients as they can.
When they've eliminated at least half of their clients, they feel they will
be more adequately staffed to meet your needs.

"Phillipe" <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pfilm-4022C2....@news01.west.earthlink.net...

All the people here did was show you that the other carriers that you
think are just in this to provide customers with free calls, free
minutes, unlimited access, and no dropped calls ever are different
than Sprint PCS.

Have your son really check his bill (fine print) and see what it
shows. Talk to the reps at the Verizon customer care center (billing),
not the sales reps. See what happens.

You said that your son's phone works great in D.C. which is great for
him. That doesn't mean it's going to work for you. Where are you at?
You need to check with the people that have phones from different
carriers in your location. Get the phone company that works best where
YOU are going to be at. It doesn't make a difference if your son is on
Verizon and you are on SPCS/AWS/Cingular/Nextel/ and/or T-Mobile. They
all talk to each other and usually are located right close to each
other.

GOODBYE
Ralph

Phillipe <pf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pfilm-2C396F....@news01.west.earthlink.net>...

While you may have meant this sarcastically, the way Sprint treats
people, one can't be sure.

.

The original post specifically mentioned that "the free unlimited Verizon to
Verizon is a big plus." So for him, moving to his son's carrier is indeed a
significant advantage--provided that Verizon meets his needs otherwise.

You've been sitting in with the marketing Vice Presidents for both
companies, so you know this?

I suspect Sprint charges less to get more market share. They lose money
on every customer, but they make it up in volume.

P.S. Hows their stock price doing lately?

Yup, everyone's Customer Service sucks, but Verizon sucks less. Consumer
Reports survey said so. Sprint's coverage where I live is such swiss
cheese its awful, T-Mobile, the German cell company is of course worse,
and AT&T has the worst customer Service.

If I want a Kyocera 7135, I have to go Verizon, and I like the
way they are standing up to the RIAA.

Phillipe wrote:

Oh, you mean by caving in and giving up the list of customer Names?

> http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/08/09/news/top_stories/8_9_0323_28_23.txt

Good story about Sprint and Nextel being sued over these new "fees".

Most important note in story is:

"Michael Shames, the executive director of the Utilities Consumers
Action Network, said the group's attorneys won a temporary restraining
order on July 16 against Sprint that forces the company to release
customers from their contracts if they object to the fees."

Luckily Sprint finally emailed me back:

=======

I apologize for the delay in responding.

Upon review of your account, I noticed that your one-year PCS
Advantage Agreement has already satisfied as of [Date, xx, 2003 (in the
past)].

Thank you for contacting Sprint.

==========

Notice the well English grammar the Sprint rep used.

<pfilm-0D0571....@news04.west.earthlink.net>:

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

Tom Veldhouse

Or they are trying to recover the fixed, one-time costs, 10 times more
quickly. That certainly is their right, however, it is significant enough
that early contract termination should be allowed. This amounts to more
than 3.38% of my plan rate.

Tom Veldhouse

Umm ... losing money on every customer, in volume means losing LOTS OF
MONEY. Losing money on every customer can NOT be made up in volume.

Tom Veldhouse

Does no one understand sarcasm?

Let's see, Verizon has said it's gonna cost them 10 to 15 cents a month,
and they won't charge till its in effect. In California, Sprint and
Nextel are being sued because of this attempt to backdoor a price
increase.

Sprint never said they are attempting accelerated cost recovery. CSRs
have refused to let customers out of contracts, and as a result Sprint
is being sued.

I'm just stating the obvious, which is:

1. Number portability costs serious money.

2. That money isn't coming out of thin air.

Verizon's claim that "we're not going to charge our customers for this"
is bullshit. One way or another, they have been spending the money, and
like any company, that eventually matches up with revenue they
collected, which means your money.

..unless they're paying for it with the *billions* of dollars they
defrauded from the state of Pennsylvania:

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/30544

..but that's a separate issue, and another story for another day.

Nice cover ... but I don't think so ;)

Tom Veldhouse

I'm not sure I see it that way. You signed an agreement with Sprint,
which involved Sprint's cost of providing that service at that time. Now
there are many situations where I would expect Sprint to "suck it up"
when costs rise on their end.

But an unfunded government mandate is a bit different, IMHO. Especially
when (as in this case) the government explicitly told carriers they
could charge customers extra, for up to 5 years, to pay for it. Sprint
is simply following the government's advice on how to pay for number
portability.

Would it be nice if Sprint "sucked it up" and included it in your
contract price? Of course. Do they have to? Does it violate the contract
to charge extra? No.

I'm not sure that's comparing apples to apples. There are different
costs here. First is the charge to get ready for it - upgrading
switching equipment, etc. Second is the cost going forward to provide
the service - new call center, etc. I think Verizon might have been
talking about the second type of cost, while Sprint is charging for the
first type. Not positive, though.

Fine how much? $1.10 per month per phone forever?

Show us the proof. Sprint or you.

Sprint is already backing off, as if you call up and bitch
they'll waive your fee. (at least offered that to me).

I don't know exactly. I do know that the CTIA (a biased organization,
but nonetheless...) estimates the conversion cost at $1 billion for all
of the U.S. carriers combined.

Note that is only for the one-time costs, not the ongoing costs. The
one-time costs are significant, however, because number portability
breaks many of the most basic assumptions upon which all
telephone-related systems in the country were based on. It affects
everything - from number assignment, to call routing (most important),
to long distance, to billing, to SMS, to customer service.

Given the extent and cost of the changes, I don't think $1.10 per month
is to out-of-line. Forever? Absolutely not. The government is only
allowing 5 years for the extra charge, and the $1.10 certainly reflects
that window.

And remember, this is only for the one-time costs. For the ongoing costs
- the call center to process ports, and the staff to process the ports,
the costs will most likely be assessed in a porting charge, So you'll
pay $20-30 bucks to port your number, and that will pay the cost of
doing that port.

I don't even know what that means...

They're "backing off" because they're being slammed with lawsuits. With
the way our legal system works, I don't blame them. That doesn't mean
they aren't racking up those costs and trying to assess customers
fairly.

Now, please note that, like I said earlier, I don't know Sprint's actual
costs for number portability. All I know is that it is very expensive -
more than most people realize. It is possible that Sprint is
intentionally overcharging customers for this - I have no way of knowing
- but I'd certainly like to think that's not the case.

Also, it's simply my opinion that Sprint is justified in tacking on an
extra charge to existing contracts to cover an unfunded mandate from the
government. But that's my opinion... If you disagree, join a
class-action suit, and let the courts sort it out.

Wrong. Those are all very different.

You're talking about normal costs of doing business.

This is the government coming in and saying to the carriers: "you have
to do this thing, that you absolutely don't want to do, it will cost you
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars, we will provide zero funding, and it
needs to be done in less than five years."

I'm sorry, but I'd say that's pretty damn different from normal
maintenance costs, budgeting issues, or rising interest rates.

Also keep in mind that the FCC is *simultaneously* mandating E-911 - the
ability to locate you with extreme precision. That's another very
expensive technology that Sprint would not have deployed had it not been
mandated. This money does not come out of thin air.

Maybe those of you on contract would prefer that cost be laid entirely
on new customers, so that the only plans for new customers would be $50
for 300 minutes... but I'm sure you can imagine what effect that would
have. Sprint does need to remain a viable company...

This government mandate has a lot in common with a tax, which is part of
why Sprint is breaking it out into a separate charge - so that you can
understand that the government is making them do this - that they would
never have chosen to do this on their own. If they had a choice in the
matter, it would be a simple budget issue, and yes, then it should go in
your monthly charge. But that's not the case.

As far as covering the cost - how much do you want to bet if I ask to switch
in November from Sprint to Verizon I'm not tagged at least $15 from each of
the two? How is this handled when I switch land line carriers without it
costing them HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Dollars?

news:vjgs2c9...@corp.supernews.com...

Sprint PCS does, and has for a long time, charged $150 PER LINE.

Tom Veldhouse

Add-a-Phones have no associated agreement term at all.

It is written on my paper agreement (printed on a long receipt).

Tom Veldhouse

It depends whether you buy the phone under an existing promotion or
subsidized by Sprint PCS. The agreement that I have says so right on the
receipt, which is where my final agreement was printed.

Tom Veldhouse

Yikes! If so, that is a tremendous reason *not* to buy an Add-a-Phone from a
Sprint store. I have often purchased Add-a-Phones from Best Buy and Circuit
City, have collected appropriate rebates both from those retailers and from
Sprint, and my Add-a-Phones do not have an associated agreement term.

You had better look closely. Best Buy and Circuit City almost always
require you to get a new line of service when you buy those phones, and with
a new line of service and a phone with promotional credits, comes the $150
cancellation fee for that line. Honestly, go check your receipt carefully.
If I could bet you good money ... I would.

Tom Veldhouse

You would lose. I have already successfully cancelled multiple such lines in
the past six months, without penalty.

say goodbye to downloading content such as ringtones and images from
any site other than Verizon's own. Get ready to premium prices for
those. Verizon is blocking downloads from 3rd party sites.

--
Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

I'm not a teenager and have no need to change ringtones hourly.

Why would they deny it; they are a public company?