It would be fair if 4G covered 60%+ of Sprint's Coverage Area... which is dosen't... not anywhere even close. 4G Covers maybe 10% of Sprints Network TOPS... why is that fair that I am charged $10 extra? Would have been more logical if they didn't charge the fee at all, and when 4G covers heck, even 51% of it's customers then charge a fee, cause as it stands right now, less than 80% of the people who are going to own an Evo, will even have 4G avilable to them in the near future.
I would have been better off if they just charged you $450 for the phone, and excluded that Fee, cause essentially that is what the Phone cost is now.
It's legal for Sprint to charge you $10/mo extra *IF* they give you something real and agreed-upon in return for the additional expense.
It's NOT legal for Sprint to charge you $10/mo extra, TELL you they're giving you something real in return, but NOT actually give you anything different. That's called "fraud."
It remains to be seen which will be the case. As I've said before, I can't believe Sprint would be so stupid as to actually attempt the latter, but they've done a terrible job of communicating what the difference really is, especially in the light of their saying that it's not for the 4G access, and the fact that many have raised that the supposed 5GB "cap" is a fiction.
All it's going to take is someone with two handsets, one an Evo, doing a little IP sleuthing and demonstrating the absence of a real 5GB cap on the other 3G devices to generate a class action against Sprint, and I can't believe they'd want that to happen, especially given how easy it would be to demonstrate fraud and false advertising.
Spatula, why do you seem to insist that there is some 5GB limit on handset data from Sprint? Sprint does not have any data limit on handset plans. You do not need to use a handset or "IP sleuthing" to demonstrate this...just read the descriptions of the plans and the Terms and Conditions. Many posters here and elsewhere cannot seem to understand that Sprint ONLY limits data on "aircard" plans, NOT on handset plans. Note that the following limitation from the Terms and Conditions does NOT apply to phone handsets:
From the description of Mobile Broadband Plan (for the "aircards")
3G coverage nationwide: 5GB/mo. in total or 300 MB/mo. while off-network roaming.
From the description of Everything Data plans:
Unlimited data: Web surfing, email, BlackBerry Internet Services (BIS), GPS Navigation, Sprint TV and Radio, NASCAR Sprint Cup MobileSM
cite for last two: http://shop.sprint.com/NASApp/onlinestore/en/Actio
See the difference? Data limitation for aircards, not for phones. Of course, they have the right to change those plan rules at any time...but I have not seen any indication that they plan to. Do you have a reference to a statement by Sprint that they plan to add a limitation to data downloads on phone handsets?
If Sprint says "It will cost you $10 additional per month to activate an EVO on your plan", and you agree, (presumably you will not be able to activate it unless you agree), then there is no fraud. It does not matter whether Sprint says the reason is "for access to the 4G network because you might travel to where it is available" or "because of the advanced technology of the EVO" or "because we want to". If they promised you something concrete and charged you for it then did not deliver it, and you could prove that they never intended to deliver it, you might have a fraud claim. But "premium data experience" is not concrete...how would you know whether or not you got it? And how could you counter a Sprint statement that "All of our phones deliver a premium data experience, we just decided to start charging more for it on this phone"?
As to your earlier argument that it is fraud to charge two different customers different prices for the same product or service...is every car salesperson in your state in jail for fraud?.
Message was edited by: wasbakntyme
I'm not insisting there is a 5GB cap. I'm saying that Sprint is claiming there is one and giving a hypothetical scenario whereby one could demonstrate that what they're saying about "premium data" is false. I have in fact expressed skepticism of the "cap" by putting "cap" in quotation marks and in other posts called it things like "alleged cap" and "supposed cap".
Were someone to show definitively that the cap does not exist and that there are no other differences in network behaviour, it would call into question that the extra $10 a month for this phone's plans is actually paying for anything at all (ergo, fraud on Sprint's part).
Your car analogy is flawed. For it to work, the used car dealer would have to add a line item to charge you for "premium tires" without actually putting premium tires on the car... and yes, that would be fraud if you could prove it (e.g., by showing that they were exactly the same tires as they had on cars that were sold without "premium tires"), even if you agreed to buy the car.
Read my post again...I DID show definitively that the cap does not exist. Please give me a link to where you say that Sprint is claiming that there is one.
You are assuming something in my car analogy that I did not say. My point was that in most car dealerships, NEW car dealerships, customers typically pay different prices for identical vehicles that differ only in the VIN numbers. This was responding to your claim in an earlier post that charging different prices to different customers for the same product or service was fraud. Since that example apparently wasn't clear enough...Is it fraud for a publisher to offer a discounted magazine subscription to some customers but not others? Is it fraud for a cable company to offer cable service at a discount for new customers but not give that discount to existing customers? Or for a cell phone carrier to sell a phone at a discount to customers at contract inception or renewal but not to other customers? Are there any travel agents or airline ticket agents out of jail where you live?
In this case Sprint is not even charging different prices for the same product or service; if nothing else, you get the ability to access the 4G network when and if you are in an area with Sprint 4G service. The fact that you may never be in such an area does not make the extra charge fraud. The extra charge may not be good for customer relations; it may not be a good business decision; but it is not fraud.
If you continue with this belligerent attitude, I am no longer going to respond to your posts. I have not spoken to you disrespectfully, and I ask that if you wish to engage in a conversation with me, you show me the same courtesy that I have shown you.
To sell a product or service that does not exist while claiming that it does is fraud. To advertise the same is false advertising. It's not a matter of just selling the same product at different prices. It's a matter of making a specific claim, ie, "we give you 'premium' service for $10 more" and then not following through on that claim.
(As an aside, even selling the same product at different prices can get a company in trouble. A few years ago I included in a class action in which the maker of my contact lenses was sued because they sold the exact same lenses both as daily wear and extended wear, but they sold the "extended wear" packages at about a 1000% markup over the "daily wear" packages. So it can certainly happen.)
I think to truly demonstrate the absence of a 5GB cap, some testing would be required; I've seen someone else cite a table from some Sprint PR or web page or the like that claims that without the "premium data" there's a 5GB cap. I don't believe it either, but if someone hypothetically wanted to show that there's no 5GB cap in court as part of demonstrating that they didn't actually receive any goods or services described by the $10 charge, some simple testing would be in order so that the facts can be conclusively and irrefutably shown. Ideally that's something anyone bringing such a case would want tested by a third party to remove any allegations of bias, of course.
I continue to disbelieve that a cap exists, as I've indicated, many times.
I have not been belligerent, I am simply disagreeing with you and asking you to back up your statements. You say that you do not believe that there is a data cap, yet you still insist that the lack of a cap must be tested for and demonstrated. You saw someone somewhere cite a table that claims there is a cap; in fact they were probably confusing the aircard plan cap with phone handset plans, as I have also seen. I have shown you that there is no data cap currently on Sprint handset plans; let it go.
Unless you want to claim that "access to the 4G network where it is available" is a product or service that does not exist, let that go too. Again, the fact that you may choose to never use the service does not mean that it is not made available to you.
As a final note, the contact-lens class action you mentioned, like most class actions, was a scam where the lawyers got rich, the company "denied all wrongdoing" and settled the claim "to avoid the costs of litigation", and although atypically provided a cash payment (which was a very small percentage of the claimed injury even if every class member filed for compensation), but also as in almost every class action, gave a coupon towards a future purchase as compensation...requiring the customer to buy more product in order to be compensated. Horrible for the company, huh? They consider the costs of these actions to be marketing expense since it results in higher future sales. The contact lens company was never found guilty or liable in court for it's actions.
So, it's July 2010 I have a EVO with NO 4G in my area at all, I have the Simply Everything plan with Sprint. In my contract it states;
Unlimited Access to the Sprint Data Network.
So, where is this $10 a month Premium Fee comming from? They claim cause the EVO uses more data. Really? More than Unlimited?
This brings about the question of the CEO of Sprint making this video that says there will be NO EXTRA charge for the Extra data ie; HD and so on.
Watch that video and tell my why I should not pursue a classaction. If that is not enough then read the following;
Instead, the upgrade to 4G is more likely to enhance the things you can already do with 3G, said Matt Carter, president of Sprint’s 4G division.
“View it as the difference between watching regular TV and high-definition TV,” Carter said. “Once you’ve experienced high-definition TV it’s hard to go back to standard TV. It’s the same sort of thing here.”
Spokesmanreview Full article here> http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jun/01/to-4g
So Sprint wants to continue to lie to customers and possibly commit fraud by means of false advertisement and bait and switch?
Call them on it and they will hang up on you, tell you something different as none know what the deal is or agree thats it's BS and Unlimited means just that. I had a 3G phone and now the EVO still on a 3G network. Sprint will find out what the FCC is and many other alphabet soup agencies.
The lies stop with me.
Coast to Coast Sprint phone support FROM a Sprint phone or otherwise is and has been down. Thank you Sprint for my 43min hold that was going no where.
I decided to call International Support as they would certainly be open and they were.. in TEXAS!!! I spoke with a woman whom transfered me to a man that sounded loaded and asked me what kind of advertisement I needed... Yeah... 3hrs. after I tried to get an issue resolved, hung up on twice by Brian the so called manager and then placed on a 43min hold to be followed up by what would seem to be a person whom was sitting at a bar (or very recently).
All I can say is hello AG's office. Sprint has pushed me too far and to only think how many more when I google my issue.. there are thousands. A simple courtesy and compassion goes along way Sprint. Remeber that when the Judge issues the Class Action valid and fines you to the point it hurts.