If I were supreme court judge of all things electronic, having read all the interesting banter on this forum, I would say Sprint is guilty of not waiting for these so-called "unprofitable" customers' contracts to expire BEFORE expunging them from their ledgers, as it were. All it would take is a refusal to renew their contracts rather than "canning" them for this to be a lot better. Doing that would have saved Sprint the embarassing situation of drawing yet more attention to their already questonable CS from a potential customer base (myself included) who are already critical of the fairness of the indutry's contractual practices.
It simply looks unfair given the terms of the contract agreement. And, economically, how much more is Sprint really going to loose keeping these customers another 6 months or a year while their contracts expire?. This leads me to the impression there is something beyond economics driving the action. It reaks of poor management, public relations, customer service training and customer service skills. Basically they are not spending enough on CS and that will come back and bite them because it looks like Sprint are greedy. ----------------------- Sent with ChatterEmail+ True push email for the Treo Smartphone http://get.chatteremail.com
