Bad News From Sprint

[Ryan P.]

No more Premier program (gold or silver)
Everyone forced into a 20 month upgrade cycle
Double the activation fee
Satisfaction guarantee time cut in half to 14 days

Here's the link from androidpolice.com: http://snipr.com/vbkoh

They claim these cost cutting measures allow them to "invest in the
things our customers care about." What would that be? It certainly
doesn't look like they are investing in network coverage!

Is this the price of getting the iPhone?

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Ryan P.
No more Premier program (gold or silver)
Everyone forced into a 20 month upgrade cycle
Double the activation fee
Satisfaction guarantee time cut in half to 14 days
Here's the link from androidpolice.com: http://snipr.com/vbkoh
They claim these cost cutting measures allow them to "invest in the
things our customers care about." What would that be? It certainly
doesn't look like they are investing in network coverage!
Is this the price of getting the iPhone?

Yup.

Only suckers play the game. You can't win, you can't even break even.

Consider what percentage of your net income $100/month is. Then ask
yourself, why the FUCK do you happily fork that over for something so
silly?

[James]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 06:08:01 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Ryan P.
No more Premier program (gold or silver)
Everyone forced into a 20 month upgrade cycle
Double the activation fee
Satisfaction guarantee time cut in half to 14 days
Here's the link from androidpolice.com: http://snipr.com/vbkoh
They claim these cost cutting measures allow them to "invest in the
things our customers care about." What would that be? It certainly
doesn't look like they are investing in network coverage!
Is this the price of getting the iPhone?

Yup.
Only suckers play the game. You can't win, you can't even break even.
Consider what percentage of your net income $100/month is. Then ask
yourself, why the FUCK do you happily fork that over for something so
silly?

You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the
game.

[SMS]

On 9/16/2011 3:08 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

<snip>

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Consider what percentage of your net income $100/month is. Then ask
yourself, why the FUCK do you happily fork that over for something so
silly?

Are you crazy? It's all free. "Free" is the problem. "Free" phones,
"free" home alarms, "free" DVR, etc..

Only $100/month for cell phone service? Look at the families with kids
where the parents are paying for unlimited data for multiple lines.

It's not one-time purchases of stuff like big screen TVs that are
sucking up income from people, it's the multiple recurring monthly fees
for cell phones, cable TV, broadband, Netflix, alarm monitoring, and
even ridiculous stuff like identity theft protection (I actually know
two people that were foolish enough to sign up for identity theft
protection), credit card monitoring, and credit reports.

If you tell someone who's complaining about some of these monthly fees
about much lower cost alternatives, they will often have a silly excuse
about why they simply can't change. I told someone who was complaining
about the endless fess to drop their cable/broadband and AT&T landline
and replace it with Sonic.net and Dish network, which would cut their
monthly outlay by about $80/month, and the excuses were: a) I'd have to
run some more wires, and b) the DSL modem isn't free. They could cut
their monthly cell phone outlay by $100 a month, for three phones, by
moving from Verizon to Pageplus (none of them use much data so the
100MB/month would be sufficient), but the excuse is "we won't get free
or discounted phones every two years."

I think of the words of Mark Crispin, inventor of the IMAP e-Mail
Protocol: "It's best not to argue with people who are determined to
lose. Once you've told them about a superior alternative, your
responsibility is fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace."

[Paul Miner]

Post by SMS
If you tell someone who's complaining about some of these monthly fees
about much lower cost alternatives, they will often have a silly excuse
about why they simply can't change. I told someone who was complaining
about the endless fess to drop their cable/broadband and AT&T landline
and replace it with Sonic.net and Dish network, which would cut their
monthly outlay by about $80/month, and the excuses were: a) I'd have to
run some more wires, and b) the DSL modem isn't free. They could cut
their monthly cell phone outlay by $100 a month, for three phones, by
moving from Verizon to Pageplus (none of them use much data so the
100MB/month would be sufficient), but the excuse is "we won't get free
or discounted phones every two years."

As soon as I saw the phrase, "much lower cost alternatives", I knew
Pageplus couldn't be far behind. You didn't disappoint.

[Ryan P.]

Post by SMS
<snip>

Consider what percentage of your net income $100/month is. Then ask
yourself, why the FUCK do you happily fork that over for something so
silly?

Are you crazy? It's all free. "Free" is the problem. "Free" phones,
"free" home alarms, "free" DVR, etc..
Only $100/month for cell phone service? Look at the families with kids
where the parents are paying for unlimited data for multiple lines.
It's not one-time purchases of stuff like big screen TVs that are
sucking up income from people, it's the multiple recurring monthly fees
for cell phones, cable TV, broadband, Netflix, alarm monitoring, and
even ridiculous stuff like identity theft protection (I actually know
two people that were foolish enough to sign up for identity theft
protection), credit card monitoring, and credit reports.
If you tell someone who's complaining about some of these monthly fees
about much lower cost alternatives, they will often have a silly excuse
about why they simply can't change. I told someone who was complaining
about the endless fess to drop their cable/broadband and AT&T landline
and replace it with Sonic.net and Dish network, which would cut their
monthly outlay by about $80/month, and the excuses were: a) I'd have to
run some more wires, and b) the DSL modem isn't free. They could cut
their monthly cell phone outlay by $100 a month, for three phones, by
moving from Verizon to Pageplus (none of them use much data so the
100MB/month would be sufficient), but the excuse is "we won't get free
or discounted phones every two years."

Unfortunately, 100MB is nowhere near enough data for me. And MetroPCS
doesn't offer service in my area. US Cellular would be comparable,
maybe, except I get an 18% discount with sprint, making my bill $76
after taxes (on the $79.95 plan). Looking at close to $90 with US Cellular.

I'm closely watching Sprint's service, though. If they don't get back
some of the coverage they've lost over the past few years, they won't be
a viable option.

[SMS]

I'm closely watching Sprint's service, though. If they don't get back
some of the coverage they've lost over the past few years, they won't be
a viable option.

They don't appear to have any interest in spending vast amounts of money
to improve coverage in lower population areas and Verizon has no
interest in enabling Sprint as a competitor.

[Ryan P.]

Post by SMS

I'm closely watching Sprint's service, though. If they don't get back
some of the coverage they've lost over the past few years, they won't be
a viable option.

They don't appear to have any interest in spending vast amounts of money
to improve coverage in lower population areas and Verizon has no
interest in enabling Sprint as a competitor.

All the more reason why its a bad idea to let AT&T and T-Mobile merge.
Clearly reducing the number of competitors has had a negative impact
already.

[SMS]

Post by Ryan P.
No more Premier program (gold or silver)
Everyone forced into a 20 month upgrade cycle
Double the activation fee
Satisfaction guarantee time cut in half to 14 days
Here's the link from androidpolice.com: http://snipr.com/vbkoh
They claim these cost cutting measures allow them to "invest in the
things our customers care about." What would that be? It certainly
doesn't look like they are investing in network coverage!

If cutting the return period is going to gain them more revenue then
they must have been getting a huge number of returns during that extra
16 days from 15 to 30. You have to wonder why. Actually you don't have
to wonder, you just have to ask people who've tried Sprint.

[Ryan P.]

Post by SMS

Post by Ryan P.
No more Premier program (gold or silver)
Everyone forced into a 20 month upgrade cycle
Double the activation fee
Satisfaction guarantee time cut in half to 14 days
Here's the link from androidpolice.com: http://snipr.com/vbkoh
They claim these cost cutting measures allow them to "invest in the
things our customers care about." What would that be? It certainly
doesn't look like they are investing in network coverage!

If cutting the return period is going to gain them more revenue then
they must have been getting a huge number of returns during that extra
16 days from 15 to 30. You have to wonder why. Actually you don't have
to wonder, you just have to ask people who've tried Sprint.

Having been with Sprint for 10 years, I've never had a problem with
them. Reception, until this past year, was always great. Now that I
see the 3G coverage shrinking (thanks to Verizon terminating the the 3G
roaming agreements Sprint had with Alltel), and constant "tower trouble"
which has lead to a very weak signal in my home (in the middle of
Milwaukee, not in the boondocks), I have become more wary of them.

But... not enough to want to move to AT&T's porous network (their lack
of service in rural Wisconsin makes them useless to me), or pay $30 more
per month to go to Verizon.

Although, in Sprint's defense, the 3G speeds I have at home (despite
weak voice reception) are great. I often see speeds of 2 megabits (250
kilobytes).

I see reducing the return time to 14 days as more of a money grab for
the ETF's rather than a massive amount of returns.

On a side note... I did commit and ordered a Galaxy II today. Saved
close to $100 by ordering it through Walmart Wireless rather than
through Sprint. $154, no tax, no shipping charge and a "no activation
fee special." Would be $249 from sprint.com or in a store.

[SMS]

Post by Ryan P.

Post by SMS

Post by Ryan P.
No more Premier program (gold or silver)
Everyone forced into a 20 month upgrade cycle
Double the activation fee
Satisfaction guarantee time cut in half to 14 days
Here's the link from androidpolice.com: http://snipr.com/vbkoh
They claim these cost cutting measures allow them to "invest in the
things our customers care about." What would that be? It certainly
doesn't look like they are investing in network coverage!

If cutting the return period is going to gain them more revenue then
they must have been getting a huge number of returns during that extra
16 days from 15 to 30. You have to wonder why. Actually you don't have
to wonder, you just have to ask people who've tried Sprint.

Having been with Sprint for 10 years, I've never had a problem with
them. Reception, until this past year, was always great. Now that I see
the 3G coverage shrinking (thanks to Verizon terminating the the 3G
roaming agreements Sprint had with Alltel), and constant "tower trouble"
which has lead to a very weak signal in my home (in the middle of
Milwaukee, not in the boondocks), I have become more wary of them.

AT&T has done the same thing to T-Mobile though ironically no matter
which way the acquisition of T-Mobile goes it appears as if T-Mobile
will get back much of the lost roaming.

Post by Ryan P.
Although, in Sprint's defense, the 3G speeds I have at home (despite
weak voice reception) are great. I often see speeds of 2 megabits (250
kilobytes).

So use Google Voice on the 3G. Give out your Google Voice number as your
primary contact number.