At 26 May 2008 21:57:46 -0700 Tim Smith wrote:
> > In this case, the "victim" suspended his service when deployed
overseas
by
> > converting to a $0.75/min rate plan. Upon his return to the states he
> > never called Sprint to reactivate the phone and made a ton of calls at
> > $0.75/min, apparently figuring Sprint would somehow deduce
telepathically
> > he wanted to turn his service back on.>
>
> Wait a second. That's not what the story at that link says. Here's
> what it says:
>
> 1. He asked Sprint to suspend his service from September 2006 through
> March 2007. They did so (although he was still charged, and paid,
> $30/month during this suspension).
>
> 2. He returned in May 2007, turned on his phone, and it worked. He
> assumed this meant his service was restored.
>
> 3. He used the phone for *NINE* *MONTHS*, being billed at the normal
> rate he expected for his plan.
>
> 4. Suddenly, they hit him with a $500 bill, claiming he is on a
> $0.75/minute plan.
>
> How exactly did he contribute to the problem?
With only one side of the story presented, I admittedly read between the
lines a little. He said he had a local/regional plan, IIRC, so he was
accustomed to a few roaming charges on each bill. I suspect he used his
phone very little in those nine months, assuming he was roaming, and
dismissed the $0.75/min. charges as roaming charges. Then when he finally
returned to his home area, returned to a typical several hundred
minutes/month usage pattern and got whacked with the $500 bill.
> > Sprint obviously could've handled this in a more consumer-friendly way
by
> > rerating his bill after the fact, but they had no obligation to. They
did,
> > however, offer to forgive half the bill and agreed to setup a payment
plan.
>
> So you think Sprint is in the right to suddenly, without warning, and
> without being asked, change his plan?
I don't think they did- I think the guy just never bothered to confirm the
plan ever came off of suspention, and his s****adic "roaming" use didn't
lead him to suspect his minute charges were suspention minutes rather than
roaming.
> If he had used his phone *during the time he requested suspension* and
> they had billed him $500, you'd have a good point, but this clearly has
> nothing to do with that.
I think Sprint failed him on two counts- first, not lifting the suspension
in March, which is probably a systemic issue, (but if so, they should've
drilled into him he needed to call them to lift it when he was back) and
again when they refused to rerate the $500 month at normal rates- I think
it'd have been good CS to rerate him, since, unlike, say, with
international roaming, Sprint didn't incur any real "costs" with those
$0.75 minutes. However, from Sprint's POV, he "accepted" the extra nine
months of suspended service by using the phone and paying the bill, so I
see their side of it as well.
Like of these victim stories, we only have his word that he wasn't told he
had to call in March to lift the suspension, or that he wasn't informed
when he suspended it that suspended phones could still be used at a higher
rate.
|
