[twolostminds]

This has been posted in the General Discussion section for the purpose of providing informative links to Sprint customers

Whether you love Sprint and want to remain a customer and watch this corporation grow and become successful or hate Sprint and are only a customer because they give the best bang for the buck, changes to services over the past year and recent actions by Sprint require the attention of all its subscribers.

Over the past year Sprint has made many changes to its benefits and services in an attempt to increase profits. You may or may not like or agree with many of these changes, that is up to each individuals preferences.

However, if you take into account all the previous changes to discounts, warranties X2, 4G Fee's & then smartphone fee's, as well as the gutting of the premier program and leaked documents showing the demise of it and add the latest actions surrounding the Administration Fee increase, the actions of Sprint have become quite concerning.

Recently Sprint made the decision to raise the Administration Fee to $1.50 per line per month. This is perfectly acceptable as they have the right to make this material change to the subscriber agreement, see the underlined portion below.

[Our Right To Change The Agreement & Your Related Rights
We may change any part of the Agreement at any time, including, but not limited to, rates, charges, how we calculate charges, discounts, coverage, technologies used to provide services, or your terms of Service. We will provide you notice of material changes—and we may provide you notice of non-material changes—in a manner consistent with this Agreement (see "Providing Notice To Each Other Under The Agreement" section). If a change we make to the Agreement is material and has a material adverse effect on Services under your Term Commitment, you may terminate each line of Service materially affected without incurring an Early Termination Fee only if you: (a) call us within 30 days after the effective date of the change; and (b) specifically advise us that you wish to cancel Services because of a material change to the Agreement that we have made. If you do not cancel Service within 30 days of the change, an Early Termination Fee will apply if you terminate Services before the end of any applicable Term Commitment.]

Sprint provided its subscribers notice of the fee change as they are required by contract and law. Under the contract we as subscribers are entitled to end our contract without incurring an EFT if we disagree with this material change and notify Sprint withing the required time period, see bold section above. Several customers have taken advantage of this and have left Sprint having the ETF waived.

This past weekend Sprint made material changes to the Terms & Conditions without notification to its subscribers.

(Previous Terms & Conditions)
“Monthly charges exclude taxes, Sprint Surcharges [incl. USF charge (varies quarterly), cost recovery and administrative fees, & state/local fees by area (e.g., in some areas up to 16% but in most areas less than 3%)]. Sprint Surcharges are not taxes or gov’t-required charges and are subject to change.”

(Updated Terms and Conditions)
“**Monthly charges exclude taxes, Sprint Surcharges [incl. USF charge of up to 14.4% (varies quarterly), Administrative Charge (up to $1.99/line/mo.), Regulatory Charge ($0.40/line/mo.) & state/local fees by area (approx. 5-20%)]. Sprint Surcharges are not taxes or gov't-required charges and are subject to change. Details: Sprint.com/taxesandfees.”

This material change to the Terms & Conditions is not only in direct violation of the "Providing Notice To Each Other Under The Agreement" section that binds both subscribers and Sprint but I believe several federal laws and regulations as well. Customer and account services representatives as well as supervisors and managers are citing this updated portion of the terms and services as the reason for denying requests to have the ETF waived. Adding insult to injury many representatives claim that this changed verbiage has always been there and that there were no changes to the T&C made recently.

This type of corporate behavior if continued will do irreparable harm to not only Sprint's reputation but its ability to attract customers and maintain a low churn rate. This will eventually affect us all in the form a higher prices and slow/nonexistent growth of the network footprint.

Now is the time for all Sprint subscribers to speak out. Your silence now will only serve to harm Sprint and do a disservice to yourself as well in the future.
Send a complaint to the Consumerist
File a complaint with the FCC
File a complaint with the BBB
Really want to get Sprint's attention? File a complaint with the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice.
And lets not forget the FTC.

[heavyd]

Thanks for the links

**Grateful for subpar service from Sprint, just like gwmac said I should be**

[Biohazzard100]

Doesn't say on page 2 of every bill that your terms and conditions may have changed?

[twolostminds]

Originally Posted by Biohazzard100

Doesn't say on page 2 of every bill that your terms and conditions may have changed?

Sprint is required by the subscriber agreement/terms & conditions as well as federal regulations and laws to notify customers in writing of the specific changes, both material and non-material.
The changes to the T&C this weekend were in direct violation of this agreement.

On an unrelated note, how many Sprint customers here also hold shares of Sprint stock? How do you see these changes and the direction Sprint is moving affecting your stock price?

[monkeyboy]

Originally Posted by twolostminds

Sprint is required by the subscriber agreement/terms & conditions as well as federal regulations and laws to notify customers in writing of the specific changes, both material and non-material.

One aspect that irks me is that Sprint acts as if it has unilateral power to declare whether a change is material or non-material, which of course completely invalidates that whole concept since it means that Sprint could (and apparently is not shy about) declaring ALL changes as non-material.

AFAIK, who gets to declare a change as material is not spelled out in the contract. It is logical, given the whole basis of contract law, that what constitutes a "material change" must be agreed upon by both parties. The tack that Sprint seems to be taking is to unilaterally declared whatever changes it wishes as non-material (and apparently changing at will, depending on how many people complain and ask to leave ETF-free), and then dare you to challenge it, through arbitration. I find this behavior unconscionable and definitely not in good faith.

[twolostminds]

Originally Posted by monkeyboy

One aspect that irks me is that Sprint acts as if it has unilateral power to declare whether a change is material or non-material, which of course completely invalidates that whole concept since it means that Sprint could (and apparently is not shy about) declaring ALL changes as non-material.

AFAIK, who gets to declare a change as material is not spelled out in the contract. It is logical, given the whole basis of contract law, that what constitutes a "material change" must be agreed upon by both parties. The tack that Sprint seems to be taking is to unilaterally declared whatever changes it wishes as non-material (and apparently changing at will, depending on how many people complain and ask to leave ETF-free), and then dare you to challenge it, through arbitration. I find this behavior unconscionable and definitely not in good faith.

I just spoke to a gentleman in the regulatory department that insisted I was informed of the $1.99 Administration Fee limit in the welcome package we received a few days after coming to Sprint. I then pulled out said welcome package and read verbatim the section on surcharges and fee's. It did not contain any mention of the $1.99 limit. He then hesitated and said I must have received a letter following that package with the Administration fee information. I asked for a date of mailing and copy of the letter he was speaking of and he refused to provide any such letter.

I am starting to get the feeling that $print feels it can do what it wants when it wants and doesn't care what laws they break in doing so. Who do they think they are, Microsoft?

[Cheeko318]

Originally Posted by twolostminds

I just spoke to a gentleman in the regulatory department that insisted I was informed of the $1.99 Administration Fee limit in the welcome package we received a few days after coming to Sprint. I then pulled out said welcome package and read verbatim the section on surcharges and fee's. It did not contain any mention of the $1.99 limit. He then hesitated and said I must have received a letter following that package with the Administration fee information. I asked for a date of mailing and copy of the letter he was speaking of and he refused to provide any such letter.

I am starting to get the feeling that $print feels it can do what it wants when it wants and doesn't care what laws they break in doing so. Who do they think they are, Microsoft?

I am just curious why you are citing this charge relentlessly rather then taking the route of mentioning the arbitration changes? There is a law president that states that this change is a "material" change.

Would likely be harder for them to argue this point then the $1.99 charge.

[badutahboy]

Great post.. filing complaints now.

[heavyd]

Spreent don't need no steenking laws!

**Grateful for subpar service from Sprint, just like gwmac said I should be**

[twolostminds]

Originally Posted by heavyd

Spreent don't need no steenking laws!

**Grateful for subpar service from Sprint, just like gwmac said I should be**

[Biohazzard100]

Its does say underneath the change about the admin fee change that the terms and conditions are changing right on the bill

[GoldenBlaze]

Originally Posted by Biohazzard100

Its does say underneath the change about the admin fee change that the terms and conditions are changing right on the bill

What they are saying is that they changed the language, which is a deceptive practice that Sprint has been getting away with. In laymans terms, its called a "bait and switch". Sprint bait new customers with one price, with the terms and conditions at the start of a contract, then change the language of those terms and conditions, MID-CONTRACT, to gain a profit, at the consumer's expense, knowing that they will either profit from the additional charges or charging the consumer with an ETF, that they have JUST raised to $350.

The practice is really distasteful and frowned upon. What people don't realize is $1.99 doesnt seem like much for just one person, but multiply that times 30 million customers per month. THEN you will understand why people have gripes, which are warranted.

[lgmayka]

Originally Posted by Biohazzard100

Its does say underneath the change about the admin fee change that the terms and conditions are changing right on the bill

But the implication of changing T&Cs is that customers can leave without ETF. The heart of the problem here is Sprint's sudden unwillingness to obey its own T&Cs and let people go.

[GoldenBlaze]

If Sprint want to be more profitable, make changes at the END of the contract and get rid of the SERO plans AT THE END of the agreements. That way, when the consumer upgrade, they know what they are signing up for. Sprint needs to stop lying about being so much cheaper than the other 3, when in fact on average, Sprint customers only pay on average $5-$30 less that with other carriers, exception the SERO plan/legacy plan holders. It costs Sprint more to keep SERO plans than the profit, IF ANY, they attempt to make off them.

That's a very dirty practice to change the terms to where it makes the customer pay more in the middle of the agreement. Carriers should not be allowed to do that.

[twolostminds]

Originally Posted by GoldenBlaze

If Sprint want to be more profitable, make changes at the END of the contract and get rid of the SERO plans AT THE END of the agreements. That way, when the consumer upgrade, they know what they are signing up for. Sprint needs to stop lying about being so much cheaper than the other 3, when in fact on average, Sprint customers only pay on average $5-$30 less that with other carriers, exception the SERO plan/legacy plan holders. It costs Sprint more to keep SERO plans than the profit, IF ANY, they attempt to make off them.

That's a very dirty practice to change the terms to where it makes the customer pay more in the middle of the agreement. Carriers should not be allowed to do that.

ding ding ding....we have a winner, GoldenBlaze to replace Hesse as CEO!!! Wall Street speculates Sprint attracting more customers and churn rate dropping to historic low. Profits on the rise and network footprint quickly expanding to the level of AT&T & Verizon Wireless.