On 09 Jul 2007 15:42:00 -0400, Bill Motzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is the action _ethical_ considering the inconvenience of having to find and > pay for a new contract and possibly a new phone under threat of loosing > your phone number in 3 weeks?
What would take someone more than 3 weeks to get a new phone contract? You can set it up in 15 minutes in a mall...how hard can it be? > I still think Sprint should have waited for > each contract to expire and then refuse renewal. How exactly does that avoid the "inconvenience of having to find and pay for a new contract and possibly a new phone under threat of loosing your phone number in 3 weeks"? You're only delaying the exact same situation, but both Sprint and the customer had to endure months, if not years, of a bad situation AND Sprint ends up taking even more of these folks' money while delivering substandard (by their standard) service. To me, it would be *less* ethical to string these customers along until their contract expired instead of cutting them loose today and waiving their balances. I really have a hard time understanding what more Sprint can do for these people without acting like a charity.
