Sprint Scam?

[LABachlr]

Looks like Sprint may have been charging bogus taxes. Came across this article on HoFo:

NC Times Article

Comments?

Here is the respective HoFo thread:

http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...hreadid=182848

[KevinJames]

The first link does not work correctly, however, if you copy the link and paste it into your browser, the article will come up.

Please note that in the article both Sprint & Nextel strongly contend that the charges are legitimate. Nextel even itemizes what specific three mandates are being addressed.

I can't help but wonder if this is yet another case of an "ambulance chacer" lawyer looking to make a name for himself at the expense of the name of big business.

But, hey! This ought to liven up the Western Forum. Any other juicy tidbits out there?

I know, what do you think is reasonable compensation if the carriers are found at fault? You know, based on past retributions, that you'll NEVER see an actual refund, so what is fair?

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by: KevinJames
The first link does not work correctly, however, if you copy the link and paste it into your browser, the article will come up.

Please note that in the article both Sprint & Nextel strongly contend that the charges are legitimate. Nextel even itemizes what specific three mandates are being addressed.

I can't help but wonder if this is yet another case of an "ambulance chacer" lawyer looking to make a name for himself at the expense of the name of big business.

But, hey! This ought to liven up the Western Forum. Any other juicy tidbits out there?

I know, what do you think is reasonable compensation if the carriers are found at fault? You know, based on past retributions, that you'll NEVER see an actual refund, so what is fair?

Thanks for the tip on the link. My bad. Fixed it.

Yes, they do contend that the charges are legit, of course, however the lawyers were able to win a restraining order that allowed customers to get out of their contract if they objected to the fees:

"...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...."

However, in the HoFo thread that I noted above, some say that Sprint supervisors have been lying to customers saying that this is not the case, and have been refusing to let them out of their contracts.

Also, if these charges are legit, why don't all carriers charge it? Verizon doesn't.

[KevinJames]

Actually Verizon did explain. I know that ATT charges for:

Federal Tax
CPUC Fee
State 911 surcharge
CA Relay services & communications devices fund
CHCFC Surchage
Universal Connectivity

I have no idea what the last two are.

The reason for my original post is that it is so easy to go yelling "fowl" when we don't understand things. Yet I've wondered if those same people are the ones asking for information on illegal use and/or configuration of their phones. I am NOT saying you fit that category. I frankly don't even remember reading &/or responding to a post from you. I would just like to discourage this turning into another Sprint basher thread. Not that I'm all that impressed with them, just that I've gotten tired of the always reading negative things--at home, at work, on the web, etc.

I remember when M-Mode came out and I was very critical of ATT's marketing. Now they seem to have grown it into a believable product and I feel as if I "got egg all over my face." So a wait-and-see attitude is what I propose. The restraining order is no victory to me. Its like a teacher breaking up a fight and sending both kids to the principal's office. They are waiting to see what judgement is rendered. Without investigation it may look like the bigger kid is at fault. But after investigating, everyone is shocked to find out it was little punk that started it.

[LABachlr]

Originally posted by: KevinJames
Actually Verizon did explain. I know that ATT charges for:

Federal Tax
CPUC Fee
State 911 surcharge
CA Relay services & communications devices fund
CHCFC Surchage
Universal Connectivity

I have no idea what the last two are.

The reason for my original post is that it is so easy to go yelling "fowl" when we don't understand things. Yet I've wondered if those same people are the ones asking for information on illegal use and/or configuration of their phones. I am NOT saying you fit that category. I frankly don't even remember reading &/or responding to a post from you. I would just like to discourage this turning into another Sprint basher thread. Not that I'm all that impressed with them, just that I've gotten tired of the always reading negative things--at home, at work, on the web, etc.

I remember when M-Mode came out and I was very critical of ATT's marketing. Now they seem to have grown it into a believable product and I feel as if I "got egg all over my face." So a wait-and-see attitude is what I propose. The restraining order is no victory to me. Its like a teacher breaking up a fight and sending both kids to the principal's office. They are waiting to see what judgement is rendered. Without investigation it may look like the bigger kid is at fault. But after investigating, everyone is shocked to find out it was little punk that started it.

Well said. Just wondered what everyone else thought of this, as there seem to be a lot of people on this forum with a lot of inside info. Wasn't bashing. Was simply asking for thoughts/comments/info from some insiders on this case.

[jayc]

VZW does charge a small amount of "carrier imposed taxes." They are listed under Verizon Wireless' Other charges and Credits:

Fed Universal Service Charge .20
Regulatory Charge .05

To be totally honest though before the Nextel and Sprint lawsuit came along the taxes were labeled only "Other charges and credits." VZW quickly added the "Verizon Wireless'" to that.

Out of curiosity... what kind of carrier imposed taxes does Cingular add? I had a customer claiming he was never charged etc etc taxes at Cingular (he even said he never had a 911 fee.)

[AnthroMatt]

I think the problem with Sprint (I can't speak for Nextel) is that while Sprint never claimed the taxes were government imposed, when people called to cancel their contract because of the new carrier-imposed fees, some CSR's and supervisors were telling them the charges were mandated or imposed by the government, thus they were not allowed to cancel without paying the fee. In fact, this is untrue. The taxes are not based on any government imposition or fee schedule. They are "made up" by the carriers based upon legitimate mandates from the FCC, such as WLNP.

I tend to agree with KevinJames though, the lawsuit seems a bit frivilous. While Sprint may have been preventing some people from cancelling when they were entitled to do so, I also know that they were allowing people to cancel without penalty at the same time. It seems more a matter of poor service on an individual level rather than a broad, corporate effort to defraud customers.

[jayc]

I remember when VZW added a carrier imposed tax about a year ago it said on the bill the customer may cancel without ETF...