18 month changes

[Guest]

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

>snip>

> Prices haven't increased- potential savings have been impacted. The
phones
> and service cost just as much as they did last week.

-->Exactly. I don't see a price increase on my bill either.
I don't see any difference from what Sprint is doing, to what any other
company is doing, from the standpoint of promotional rebates and changing
them to promote certain services.

Scotty

 

[Guest]

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

"Scott Nelson - Wash DC" <spamcop@bnmnetworks.net> wrote in message news:fJOkc.13340$sK3.5484@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
>> So for a rebate in the future you have to subscribe to Vision for 18
>> months?
>
> -->For this rebate you do.
>
>> In that case its a MAJOR PRICE INCREASE for htose that might want a
>> rebate but don't use Vision.
>
> -->Is this a general rebate or a 'Vision' rebate? It looks like they are
> doing the rebate for having the 'Vision' service, not for buying overall
> service?
> So if one doesn't want 'Vision', why would they get the 'Vision' rebate?

There is a wide range of possibilities between using Vision frequently
and never using it. A traveler may want to use Vision while taking occasional
out-of-town trips, but not enough to warrant paying 18 X $15. Is Sprint
now saying he won't get a handset upgrade rebate?

--

John Richards

 

[Guest]

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

In article <2malc.13887$%S1.7272@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> There is a wide range of possibilities between using Vision frequently
> and never using it. A traveler may want to use Vision while taking occasional
> out-of-town trips, but not enough to warrant paying 18 X $15. Is Sprint
> now saying he won't get a handset upgrade rebate?

Thanks for replying to my pointing out that this is a MAJOR price
increase to force people to pay for Vision whether they want to or not
to qualify for a rebate come next phone purchase.

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-2F2AF8.17425402052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <2malc.13887$%S1.7272@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > There is a wide range of possibilities between using Vision frequently
> > and never using it. A traveler may want to use Vision while taking
occasional
> > out-of-town trips, but not enough to warrant paying 18 X $15. Is Sprint
> > now saying he won't get a handset upgrade rebate?
>
> Thanks for replying to my pointing out that this is a MAJOR price
> increase to force people to pay for Vision whether they want to or not
> to qualify for a rebate come next phone purchase.

There is no price increase- it is a savings reduction. The prices of
equipment and service are the same as they were last week.

 

[Guest]

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

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:AMadncel3JblDwjdRVn-jA@adelphia.com...
>
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-2F2AF8.17425402052004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
>> In article <2malc.13887$%S1.7272@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> > There is a wide range of possibilities between using Vision frequently
>> > and never using it. A traveler may want to use Vision while taking
> occasional
>> > out-of-town trips, but not enough to warrant paying 18 X $15. Is Sprint
>> > now saying he won't get a handset upgrade rebate?
>>
>> Thanks for replying to my pointing out that this is a MAJOR price
>> increase to force people to pay for Vision whether they want to or not
>> to qualify for a rebate come next phone purchase.
>
> There is no price increase- it is a savings reduction. The prices of
> equipment and service are the same as they were last week.

But the rebate qualification rules have changed. You're (deliberately?)
ignoring one important factor:
Those who pay for occasional Vision use (a la carte rather than a pack)
will be excluded from getting a handset rebate that they qualified for
under the previous upgrade rules. This affects me very materially.

--

John Richards

 

[Guest]

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

"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:W3jlc.671$dd.534@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

>
> But the rebate qualification rules have changed. You're (deliberately?)
> ignoring one important factor:
> Those who pay for occasional Vision use (a la carte rather than a pack)
> will be excluded from getting a handset rebate that they qualified for
> under the previous upgrade rules. This affects me very materially.
>
> --
>

I understand that, John, and I find the policy to be very customer
unfriendly, at best. As I stated in another thread, this may be the
beginning of the end for subsidized phones. For everybody except AT&T, WNLP
has not had a material effect on bottom line business. Networks are much
more mature than they were even twoyears ago, and in the next couple of
years, network coverage will be differentiated only by rural coverage.
Except for AT&T, pricing has stabilized, and the entire industry is soon
facing total saturation for postpay users. In short, many of the reasons
for subsidizing phones in the past are rapidly disappearing.

I look at this group as a good example of the maturation process. Eight
months ago, financial stability, coverage, customer service and WNLP were
the main topics of conversation, with customer service being the number on
complaint. Look at it today- phone functionality questions, phone
comparisons and pricing complaints. The others are only mentioned by one
troll, and it has been quite some time since Customer Service was a truly
hot topic around here.

I guess my point is- where is the need for subsidizing phones? Coverages
are close, pricing is about the same and others are already playing hardball
in different areas. It would appear that Verizon has tightened up their
credit requirements to a level never seen in this industry, in an attempt to
push many customers to prepay. Is that any less customer friendly? Not in
my mind.

I understand your concern, and don't mean to belittle it at all. But the
troll is misstating when he says it is a price increase. That was all my
post was pointing out.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <rmarkoff-957BF6.09011501052004
@news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> So for a rebate in the future you have to subscribe to Vision for 18
> months?
>

Nope. Not if you get the 3588i.

Don't want Vision? Don't get it.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

 

[Guest]

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

In article <W3jlc.671$dd.534@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> But the rebate qualification rules have changed. You're (deliberately?)
> ignoring one important factor:
> Those who pay for occasional Vision use (a la carte rather than a pack)
> will be excluded from getting a handset rebate that they qualified for
> under the previous upgrade rules. This affects me very materially.

Everyone except osiris sees the rule change as the PRICE INCREASE it is.
and it is a disgrace to SprintPCS for him call anyone a liar for
pointing that out.

It affects the 75% plus of SprintPCS customers that currently have
Vision phone, but do not have Vision.

So is SprintPCS saying it needs you to subscribe to Vision to be
profittable ( that would help them), and wants you to leave when you
need a new phone?

 

[Guest]

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

"O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote in message news:0e8df3daf26371259fa742b3222872a2@news.teranews.com...
In article <rmarkoff-957BF6.09011501052004
@news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
>> So for a rebate in the future you have to subscribe to Vision for 18
>> months?
>
>Nope. Not if you get the 3588i.
>Don't want Vision? Don't get it.

You imply that Vision is an all or nothing proposition.
It's not.
Some customers (like myself) just want to use it on trips
out of town, so we pay for it a la carte.
Why is Sprint suddenly turning its back on this type of customer?

--

John Richards

 

[Guest]

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

In article <nDulc.717$dd.342@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net says...
> You imply that Vision is an all or nothing proposition.
> It's not.
> Some customers (like myself) just want to use it on trips
> out of town, so we pay for it a la carte.
> Why is Sprint suddenly turning its back on this type of customer?
>

I disagree that this qualifies as turning its back. It *does*
qualify as a very strong incentive to keep the pack.

And you haven't seen the complaints we get from customers warned
about casual usage the first they actually get a bill with those
fees. It's not a lot of users in number, but it's a huge headache
for us *and* the customer. A no-win situation. I can see why SPCS
wants to avoid that.

BTW, that's *not* to say I can't see some validity to your point. I
just don't see it exactly the same way.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

 

[Guest]

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

In article <rmark-D563F1.05573103052004@news4.west.earthlink.net>,
rmark@msn.com says...
> Everyone except osiris sees the rule change as the PRICE INCREASE it is.
> and it is a disgrace to SprintPCS for him call anyone a liar for
> pointing that out.
>

1. That isn't why you're a liar, Phill.

2. No, it's not "everyone."

#2 is why you're a liar.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

 

[Guest]

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

In article <208427a72e9ec9d922d97a47475fcb1d@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <robjvargas@sprintpcs.com> wrote:


> you're a liar.

That's all you know how to say.

A disgrace to Sprinbt PCS is what Vargas is.

 

[Guest]

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

I asked you once before. Stop changing your f**king nym and email address.
How can I keep blocking you if you keep changing your nym? I kind of figured
you did when I saw there were over 90 messages in here. I wonder how many
are yours, probably more than half. Meet by killfile once again. By the way,
the phone you wanted to by from me has been sold on ebay for $150. I decided
that the $100 you offered me was way below what it was worth.

"Robert M." <rmark@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmark-D563F1.05573103052004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
In article <W3jlc.671$dd.534@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> But the rebate qualification rules have changed. You're (deliberately?)
> ignoring one important factor:
> Those who pay for occasional Vision use (a la carte rather than a pack)
> will be excluded from getting a handset rebate that they qualified for
> under the previous upgrade rules. This affects me very materially.

Everyone except osiris sees the rule change as the PRICE INCREASE it is.
and it is a disgrace to SprintPCS for him call anyone a liar for
pointing that out.

It affects the 75% plus of SprintPCS customers that currently have
Vision phone, but do not have Vision.

So is SprintPCS saying it needs you to subscribe to Vision to be
profittable ( that would help them), and wants you to leave when you
need a new phone?

 

[Guest]

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

In article <76c3bf44996e5f32bf7dd139ffa34d19@news.teranews.com>,
"Peterbilt" <amazon-bitch@NO-SPAMeudoramail.com> wrote:

> By the way,
> the phone you wanted to by from me has been sold on ebay for $150. I decided
> that the $100 you offered me was way below what it was worth.

I never tried to buy a phone from you. Don't need to, I get them FREE
from Sprint PCS.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <rmm-8E4B6A.17275503052004@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
rmm@msn.com says...
> In article <208427a72e9ec9d922d97a47475fcb1d@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <robjvargas@sprintpcs.com> wrote:
>
>
> > you're a liar.
>
> That's all you know how to say.
>
> A disgrace to Sprinbt PCS is what Vargas is.
>
And yet, not 48 hours ago, you were pointing out how I was *not*
calling others a liar.

Do you enjoy stepping on your own toes, Phillie?

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

 

[Guest]

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

In article <f5af7a1cbde00c95a926fd12ff3e9075@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:

> And yet, not 48 hours ago, you were pointing out how I was *not*
> calling others a liar.

In one specific case only. You're on early toady, not your usual
midnight insulting session.

Still a disgrace to SprintPCS.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <Rmm-123A1F.17595605052004@news6.west.earthlink.net>,
Rmm@yahoo.com says...
> In article <f5af7a1cbde00c95a926fd12ff3e9075@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > And yet, not 48 hours ago, you were pointing out how I was *not*
> > calling others a liar.
>
> In one specific case only. You're on early toady, not your usual
> midnight insulting session.
>
> Still a disgrace to SprintPCS.
>

So first you accuse me of acting like a broken record, and *then* say
I'm the one doing the insulting.

Typically hypocritical of you, Phillie.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them