I think the worst part of it is that everything I've heard suggests the problem is on Sprint's end. People call and are given the impression that the problem, like overcharging, is solved. Then they get their next bill and find out it's not, and they have to call again. They do and get hung up or otherwise disconnected and have to call AGAIN. That's three calls of Sprint's making that shouldn't have had to be made at all.
It's like ordering an sandwich in a restaurant, to stick with the restaurant analogy, but they bring you the wrong sandwich, so you send it back. They bring you the same thing again so you again send it back. Then the waitress forgets about you completely so after a while you get her attention and ask where your food is. Then the manager comes out and throws you out. Whose fault is all this? Not yours. Had they brought you the right food in the first place, you'd be done, paid, and gone, probably leaving a tip on the way out. So people who actually want was was agreed to be delivered are now the problem, not the restaurant, or Sprint. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. -- Ron Paul: America's last chance? ...... Original Message ....... On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:43:21 -0400 "Craig Froehle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >If I were violating >> their terms of service (spamming, distributing viruses, etc) that's one >> thing, but the Sprint contract doesn't give any warning about calling >> support too much. And that's the worst part: this was done without >> warning. > >
