hjgjgjgj
@rogers.com | reply to jhboricua
Re: What Is The Problem?
so I guess then if its spelled in the contract then if I was told also spelled out and said on TV Unlimited then I guess I should be getting unlimited not a Unlimited with a cap??? |
|
centsofhumor
join:2007-01-20
Two Rivers, WI | reply to joako
Thank the idiots that pushed for digital  |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to jhboricua
said by jhboricua  :said by pnh102 :I still fail to see any problem with any ETF provided that the terms are clearly spelled out and they are being enforced fairly. That's the problem, they weren't spelled out clearly nor enforced fairly. Sprint was notorious for extending contracts WITHOUT telling their customers when they made trivial changes to their plans, making the ETF an almost non expiring matter. I know they tried to pull that crap with me, twice. They deserve every single lawsuit coming their way. I agree. The same thing happened to me. I have been having massive service issues and they offered to send me a free replacement phone. At the same time they extended my contract by 2 years without telling me. Yes I did get something in return, but they never told me about it. Had I been given the option, I probably would not have accepted if they were up-front about their offer. When I tried to dispute this Sprint did not want to hear any of it. Even worse, they sent me a "return kit" to send back the old phone, what they didn't tell me is that they were sending me a free phone outright and that I had no obligation to return the old phone. So Sprint got a perfectly good phone (the issue was the coverage, not the phone) that they probably sold to someone else as "refurbished."
BTW: That phone they said would fix my issues didn't -- the problem is the coverage and nothing will fix that short of rolling out more towers.
I also have had massive billing issues, as far as Sprint saying I called my bank and disputed the charges. I did no such thing and the charges were never reversed. It took more than a month and it was finally fixed as a "courtesy." I think many of these contracts are very one-sided... you can't sue the company even. If you look at case law, in many cases advertisement for products and services is usually considered an extension of the contract. When you take that into account the providers need to be more lenient to the consumer. The cellco's can promise all these great things and not really deliver and when you call and tell them that your service is not as promised you are told too bad pay $200 if you want to switch "you agreed to the contract" But what about all the promises of "largest network," or "best network," or "fewest dropped calls?" The mobile carriers are barely held to their claims.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
2 edits | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :I still fail to see any problem with any ETF provided that the terms are clearly spelled out and they are being enforced fairly. That's the problem, they weren't spelled out clearly nor enforced fairly. Sprint was notorious for extending contracts WITHOUT telling their customers when they made trivial changes to their plans, making the ETF an almost non expiring matter. I know they tried to pull that crap with me, twice. They deserve every single lawsuit coming their way.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA * |
|
