Welcome to Our WirelessAdvisor Community!

You are viewing our forums as a GUEST. Please join us so you can post and view all the pictures.
Registration is easy, fast and FREE!

Join Now

Nokia 5170 Owners (SPRINT NETWORK) *IMPORTANT*

Discussion in 'NOKIA' started by unwiredSD, Jan 9, 2002.

  1. unwiredSD

    unwiredSD New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you have ever owned a Nokia 5170 and activated that phone on sprints network, please read this:

    Sprint and Nokia originally entered into a contract to offer several hundred thousand Nokia 5170's for use on the Sprint Network. This contract was voided by Sprint however, due to the phones unsatisfactory performance on their network. This is according both a customer service rep and a network engineer for sprint. An Engineer commented that the phone had substandard call quality due to attempts by Nokia to lessen its licensing costs under CDMA. Hundreds of complaints from users have been logged; however, Sprint has been unmoved. Neither Sprint nor Nokia has offered a refund or any compensation for the phones which do not operate correctly on Sprint's network. Thankfully, Sprint did stop selling the phones on their network; however, they offered no compensation to the thousands of users with sub par hardware.


    Collecting information about the surrounding problems has been extremely difficult as according to one customer service representative Sprint has specifically forbade their employees from discussing the problems related to the 5170's. No doubt this is an attempt to avoid refunding or compensating subscribers for what they probably know is a product that doesn't meet State Consumer Warranty Laws.

    If you are or ever were an owner of a Nokia 5170 activated on the sprint network, please post your thoughts, experience, or suggestions.
     
    #1 unwiredSD, Jan 9, 2002
  2. larry

    larry Sprint loyalist and former mod
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    13,722
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    165
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    My Phone:
    Galaxy S22+
    Wireless Provider(s):
    T-Mobile
    This is old news. Sprint stopped selling that model almost two years ago.
     
    #2 larry, Jan 9, 2002
  3. KevinJames

    KevinJames WA's 1st retired mod
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    4,044
    Likes Received:
    739
    Location:
    Central Valley NorCA
    My Phone:
    Samsung S7-Edge
    Wireless Provider(s):
    AT&T & Verizon
    Though I am not a Sprint proponent, I have to agree with Larry on this one. And add that Sprint wasn't the only one that was burned by this. Verizon also was. The problem, which Nokia readily admits to, was a poor entrance into the CDMA market by Nokia.

    Since CDMA is the future of all domestic phones (CDMA2000 or w-CDMA), Nokia has entered strategic alliances that will ensure its success in the re-entry to this market. Demonstration of this can be seen by the 5185 currently available from Verizon. Sprint still is not happy with Nokia, so it may take a long time before those "wounds" are healed.

    As far as actions, my goodness, just as Larry stated, this is soooo old that anyone still having the phone can't possibly make even "Custard's last stand" with a compensation claim. The 5100 models are now considered junk and, regardless of the technology (TDMA, CDMA, GSM), they are used as the "free-bee" and "loss-leader" phones to entice newbies. Here in Northern Calif., Verizon is offering 5 free.

    Kevin
     
    #3 KevinJames, Jan 10, 2002
  4. unwiredSD

    unwiredSD New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    The law works slowly. It would have been nice for Nokia or Sprint to offer compensation on there own, however, the law will provide a remedy regardless of their desires. I started this thread because getting information from Sprint is impossible (as it has been the last 2 years). I am a owner of a 5170, and it was a nightmare of an experiance. Making profit off of serveral hundred thousand non-working phones is not right. Consumers shouldn't be forced to fund corporate research projects. As I said, this violates all state consumer warrenty laws, and therefore is actionable.

    BTW: the law will consider what consumers PAID for the phone, not what the phone is currently worth.
     
    #4 unwiredSD, Jan 10, 2002
  5. larry

    larry Sprint loyalist and former mod
    Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    13,722
    Cell Tower Picture Gallery:
    165
    Likes Received:
    49
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    My Phone:
    Galaxy S22+
    Wireless Provider(s):
    T-Mobile
    Just wondering why you didn't return the phone within 30 days? It must have been showing signs of problems by then.
     
    #5 larry, Jan 10, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page

Copyright 1997-2022 Wireless Advisor™, LLC. All rights reserved. All registered and unregistered trademarks are the property of their respective holders.
WirelessAdvisor.com is not associated by ownership or membership with any cellular, PCS or wireless service provider companies and is not meant to be an endorsement of any company or service. Some links on these pages may be paid advertising or paid affiliate programs.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...
    Dismiss Notice