Sprint to start charging upgrade fees on 11/10

[lgmayka]

Your purchase of a phone is a contract.
...
And lol its not an "upgrade" its a "replacement"

You missed the context. cruznis300 was claiming that the purchase of a phone magically included a contract specifying an 'upgrade fee'. If Sprint stores now require all phone buyers to sign a tricky contract with hidden fees, my advice stands: Never, ever buy a phone at a Sprint store. Costco and Radio Shack are reportedly more reasonable.

The T&Cs allow for a fee only on upgrades of equipment, not on mere replacements. Since the T&Cs nowhere define just what an 'upgrade' is--as opposed to a downgrade or lateral switch--the provision is arguably meaningless.

[ShakeZula]

Nonsense. There is no contract involved here, and the T&Cs only speak vaguely of "upgrades of equipment," which can mean almost anything. (How is a customer to know just what is an upgrade, vs. a downgrade, vs. a lateral transfer?)

The clear moral of this story is:

Never, ever buy a phone at a Sprint store. As these posts indicate, Sprint employees seem to have been trained to trick customers. Luckily, Costco and Radio Shack think too highly of their customers to treat them this way.

Wah Wah Wah!
Yeah, only thing Sprint store employees do is sit around thinking of different ways to trick customers who come in. Please grow up. Sprint store employees inform you lovely customers who have nothing better to do than to complain about every little thing what company policies are. If any customer has an issue with a contract or if something is unclear, all they have to do is ask,and sprint reps are more than happy to answer any questions they may have. I'm sorry that many Costco/Radio Shack/3rd party retailers aren't kept up to speed on policy changes as fast as corporate stores and tell you whatever it takes to get you to buy. As far as I'm concerned, I'm getting sick and tired of fixing problems 3rd party retailers create.

lgmayka, please continue shop @ costco and radio shack, nothing would make me happier. One less customer who gets unreasonably upset over nothing just makes my day go faster.

[lgmayka]

As for RadioShack, I can assure you that RadioShack IS indeed proceeding with business-as-usual and there are no discounts being given on equipment or credits to customer accounts for these transactions. I cannot find any indication that there's anything going on to the contrary. Additionally, I am in a Sprint Kiosk, owned by RadioShack, and we are also stuck with the fees.

Apparently you didn't get the memo reported here:

http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/sho...6&postcount=77
---
There seems to have been some confusion with
communications flying around to some of your
National Doors in regards to a $36 Upgrade Fee.
We are NOT PARTICIPATING in this fee in our
markets for any channel including Dealers and
National Doors.

FOR CUSTOMER CARE:
When your National Doors or Dealers are calling
in, let the customer care rep know the following
statement "We are not participating in the $36
Upgrade fee in our markets, you will not be able
to provision this as the code is not loaded." If
the customer care rep gives your dealer or
National door a problem, please make sure to get
the name of the rep, dealer name, date it
happened and send the information to me as I will
report them directly to Sprint.
FYI: Sprint is sending out a communication to
their Customer Care team reminding them that we
are not participating in the Upgrade Fee.

For FAST:
When your National Doors or Dealers are trying to
do an ESN swap/upgrade in FAST and it requires
you to include the $36 Upgrade Fee, please get a
screen shot and the customer CSA that they are
trying to provision and send this back to me at
Corporate so we can resolve.
---

[KG4PEQ]

lgmayka, please continue shop @ costco and radio shack, nothing would make me happier. One less customer who gets unreasonably upset over nothing just makes my day go faster.

Gee, thanks. Now I'm stuck with another pain-in-the-butt customer.

[KG4PEQ]

Apparently you didn't get the memo reported here:

http://www.sprintusers.com/forum/sho...6&postcount=77
---snip---

Nope, as a matter of fact we got a memo specifically stating we ARE participating in the fee structure. I wonder if this memo is specific to a certain affiliate market perhaps? That would make the most sense. I did speak with one of the local IAE's today and he made no mention of RS or SPK not participating in the activation/upgrade fee changes. Furthermore, at least as of my last system transmit around 8:00 tonight, there was no communication to lead me to believe otherwise.

I'm betting the memo you're referencing is for an affiliate market, since it does make reference to "in this market" and it's obvious the corporate markets would "want" to participate.

EDIT: I would be EXCELLENT if Sprint would just spit it out: under exactly what circumstances to EXACTLY which fees apply?

[lgmayka]

I'm sorry that many Costco/Radio Shack/3rd party retailers aren't kept up to speed on policy changes as fast as corporate stores and tell you whatever it takes to get you to buy.

You apparently missed the news: Costco and Radio Shack will not be levying the 'upgrade fee' (or will be compensating customers for it), according to reports. With respect to Costco, I heard the news there myself. With respect to Radio Shack, the posted notice that I copied above appears authentic.

If it turns out that most Radio Shack stores are levying the 'upgrade fee', then...there will always be Costco.

[lgmayka]

One less customer who gets unreasonably upset over nothing just makes my day go faster.

Anyone who believes that $36 is 'nothing' has, by definition, not yet learned the value of money.

[ShakeZula]

Gee, thanks. Now I'm stuck with another pain-in-the-butt customer.

NP

[Next Steps]

Customers have every right to shop where ever they pleasse too. I just hope the customers who DO shop at Sprint stores don't demand the reps not include the fee or cause some sort of scene because they don't agree with the new policy. No one is forcing you to upgrade and there are plenty of other ways to get a phone without buying it brand new.

[VCI_Cell]

Nonsense. There is no contract involved here, and the T&Cs only speak vaguely of "upgrades of equipment," which can mean almost anything. (How is a customer to know just what is an upgrade, vs. a downgrade, vs. a lateral transfer?)

The clear moral of this story is:

Never, ever buy a phone at a Sprint store. As these posts indicate, Sprint employees seem to have been trained to trick customers. Luckily, Costco and Radio Shack think too highly of their customers to treat them this way.

Dear Lord, you do have a flair for the dramatic, don't you, LG?

Sprint employees make their real bread and butter on *NEW ACTIVATIONS.* You know enough about this industry to be aware of at least that much. Upgrades, depending on the number of sold add-ons and whether the rep was pre-merger Nextel or pre-merger SPCS, represent a mere fraction of the potential commission that a new activation promises. "New lines," "add-ons," "NewActs" are what managers harp on, what sales contests are designed to drive. Upgrades are an annoyance, and not much more than an opportunity to sell accessories or add-ons.

Now, why would one of these "tricky" sales reps go to all the trouble to obscure this fee in order to entice you to UPGRADE? To invite this hassle on themselves, when they could much more easily be dealing with someone who wants a NEW phone (and who, in all likelihood, isn't going to talk their ear off about the horrors of the cellular industry's abuse of the middle-class American)?

Your partially-justified anger at Sprint would be a lot more tolerable if you would stop painting the company as a handlebar-moustached villain tying you to the railroad tracks.

Jeepers.

[treo650_07]

If you would like, I will gladly note your account what I told you.

Thanks cruznis300. Should I activate my old phone before or after you note the account? What information do you need from me to do it and how should I get it to you?

Thanks again!

[cruznis300]

Nonsense. There is no contract involved here, and the T&Cs only speak vaguely of "upgrades of equipment," which can mean almost anything. (How is a customer to know just what is an upgrade, vs. a downgrade, vs. a lateral transfer?)

The clear moral of this story is:

Never, ever buy a phone at a Sprint store. As these posts indicate, Sprint employees seem to have been trained to trick customers. Luckily, Costco and Radio Shack think too highly of their customers to treat them this way.

There is a contract involved when it comes to the HUP. EVerything I have stated for this was when a customer is eligable for the HUP.. when you take advantage of the HUP you SIGN A CONTRACT. How can you say there is no contract involved.. Therefore I state again, the customer should READ the contract which states it as well as the customer agreeing to the T's and C's by SIGNING the contract.. and it states it on the receipt. Customers can ALWAYS question this as I have been questioned numerous times.

When it comes to new phones at regular price.. we have yet to charge someone because I did not see it in the play book that we should be charging for full price phones.

As far as being tricked.. you are too full of yourself. I have not been tricked.. I even stated that I DO NOT AGREE with this however I need to follow company policy since I am an employee of the company. Oh.. and yeah.. I don't care about customers.. I forgot.. Sorry folks.. I don't care about you so please don't come to me with your problems.

[joako]

I dont think people grasp the concept of a "contract" - simply a legal agreement between two people, be it "I will cut your grass for $50" or "You will pay us for your new mobile phone, we will provide it to you and charge you $36 on your next bill"

In the other contract thread someone was stating that there is no way that Sprint could enforce a contract for service with someone if it was a not a 1 or 2 year SA (IE: month to month, no term agreement, cancel when you want without ETF)

[lgmayka]

I dont think people grasp the concept of a "contract" - simply a legal agreement between two people, be it "I will cut your grass for $50" or "You will pay us for your new mobile phone, we will provide it to you and charge you $36 on your next bill"

No, that's not in dispute. You're missing the primary issues here:

1) A retailer cannot silently charge the customer's account an extra $36. That's a deliberately fraudulent billing.

2) A retailer cannot add $36 onto the advertised retail price of a product. If the product is publicly advertised at $379, the retailer cannot make up a fictitious "fee" in order to charge the customer more. That is false advertising.

[lgmayka]

Therefore I state again, the customer should READ the contract which states it as well as the customer agreeing to the T's and C's by SIGNING the contract.. and it states it on the receipt.
...
When it comes to new phones at regular price.. we have yet to charge someone because I did not see it in the play book that we should be charging for full price phones.

1) The primary issue here was the charging of an extra fictitious "fee" added onto the advertised full-retail price of the phone (without the New For You program). If the retailer adds on the "fee" silently, it is fraudulent billing; if the retailer announces the fictitious "fee," it is false advertising.

I understand that you yourself are not charging the "fee" in that case; but clearly, some other reps are.

2) Secondarily, I must once again point out that the T&Cs do not have specific language about paying a fictitious "fee" for every new phone the customer purchases. The T&Cs vaguely mention a possible fee for "upgrades of equipment," but fail to define what is an upgrade, what is a downgrade, what is a lateral switch, etc. And no, Sprint does not get to unilaterally re-define these terms whenever it wishes. If a contract term is ambiguous, the usual legal practice is to assume that whatever interpretation the parties gave to the clause at the time of its initial writing--as shown in practice--is the appropriate one.