Sprint threatens to cancel wireless services to soldiers for "excessive roaming".

[Braidedheadman]

Have a look at the article:

http://www.betanews.com/article/Spri...nes/1184001111

In a nutshell, Sprint has sent out letters informing a number of its customers that their services with Sprint will be terminated on the 30th of July for frequently roaming outside of the company's network. Among those who received such letters were 200 soldiers returned from Iraq and redeployed to West Point where they will serve during the summer as instructors.

While West Point is in an area of "best coverage", according to Sprint, the soldiers found that actual signal strength in their area was very poor and were consequently roaming outside of Sprint's network as a result.

One soldier claimed that he paid less through Middle Eastern carriers to contact friends and family in the US while he was stationed in Iraq than he now pays to contact them from within the country.

[xTYBALTx]

In other news, bank threatens to foreclose on soldier's house for "delinquent payment of mortgage."

[Kerostasis]

As long as they aren't charging cancellation-of-contract fees (which would be really unlikely), who really cares? The soldiers can always find someone else to offer the service instead, and carriers are happy to offer good deals to people switching for the first time.

[Braidedheadman]

@xTYBALTx:
Sarcasm? Not sure. If it is, I think you may have missed the point. The soldiers are stationed in an area that Sprint claims - on their own coverage maps - is one of "best coverage". They shouldn't be roaming off the network whatsoever. Sprint is targeting those who display symptoms of a broader issue rather than addressing the root cause and has lowered the bar for customer service in that respect. Kerostasis makes a good point, however. Still, it's worth being aware of such things.

The item of the soldier paying more to contact family from within the States than he paid from abroad is just another point of interest.

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by Braidedheadman

The item of the soldier paying more to contact family from within the States than he paid from abroad is just another point of interest.

Why is that? You're talking about two different markets here. That some things cost more in the US than in the middle east isn't much of a surprise. Food does. Should we start complaining that US farmers are price gouging us on that basis? I don't know how much international calls on middle east carriers cost and I don't know what kind of calls that soldier is comparing (is it roaming on a cell phone in the US versus an international landline call from the middle east or what?). But, it doesn't seem that surprising to me that cellular service might cost more in the US than in the middle east. Cell phone companies in the US will charge as much as they can while maintaining a profitable business.

[stickyjeans69]

Cingular, the new AT&T for the win....

[Braidedheadman]

Originally Posted by sordavie

Why is that? You're talking about two different markets here. That some things cost more in the US than in the middle east isn't much of a surprise. Food does. Should we start complaining that US farmers are price gouging us on that basis? I don't know how much international calls on middle east carriers cost and I don't know what kind of calls that soldier is comparing (is it roaming on a cell phone in the US versus an international landline call from the middle east or what?). But, it doesn't seem that surprising to me that cellular service might cost more in the US than in the middle east. Cell phone companies in the US will charge as much as they can while maintaining a profitable business.

/Shrug.

I said it was interesting, not surprising.

Also, just because a corporation can charge as much as they do, does it necessarily follow that they must? Suppose that everyone suddenly said, "We want to pay lower rates than what we now pay." Would the companies turn around and say, "Screw you lot, we're taking our business elsewhere!" I don't think so.

It's off topic, and I don’t what to hijack my own thread here, but Medicare/Medicaid come to mind. It's no secret that US residents pay an arm and a leg more for pharmaceuticals that residents of other countries receive at a fraction of US costs. And then mainly because the public in those countries has said, "We refuse to pay your exorbitant prices." Did they (the pharmaceutical companies) pack up and leave? No, they continue to sell product in bulk and profit in those markets nonetheless. But that's a whole other can of worms for a different debate and I don't wish to go down that road here.

Markets are, as you point out, leveraged by what the consumer population is willing to support. I say the differences in US vs ME carrier prices is a point of interest because people could be paying less. If that doesn’t strike someone as being "interesting", albeit not very surprising, I'd have to wonder why. Unless of course, one has made a hobby of shoveling cash out the front door as fast as one can... Then I can see where an avenue of cost savings might not be very interesting.

I'll close by saying that I only posted this thread to perhaps get people thinking. I take no particular position of any kind here per se (I don’t own a cel phone - not a practical expense for me at this time) and expect people to make of the article what they will.

[ScratchMonkey]

MA's deployed members use our TeamSpeak server to talk with their family. Why screw with cell phones if you're deployed somewhere where you can get Internet access? (We've even had some who got satellite service via Europe and were able to game over it, albeit at high latency.)

If you know a deployed soldier who needs TS to talk to his family, have him contact us. We want to help.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by Braidedheadman

It's off topic, and I don’t what to hijack my own thread here, but Medicare/Medicaid come to mind. It's no secret that US residents pay an arm and a leg more for pharmaceuticals that residents of other countries receive at a fraction of US costs. And then mainly because the public in those countries has said, "We refuse to pay your exorbitant prices." Did they (the pharmaceutical companies) pack up and leave? No, they continue to sell product in bulk and profit in those markets nonetheless. But that's a whole other can of worms for a different debate and I don't wish to go down that road here.

False analogy: The pharmaceutical companies can and do charge more in the US, not because US citizens are willing to pay more, but because Patent laws protect them from competition in the US for a period of time. Those patent laws hold no force in other markets outside the US, so the drug-makers have to compete with generic brands from the outset.

Pharmaceutical prices could be slashed overnight here in the US simply by revoking patent protections on drugs, but that would have lots of other side effects that I don't think we want to deal with.

Sorry to continue your "whole other can of worms", but I thought your bolded point was worth correcting.

[xTYBALTx]

Why does a Big Mac cost more in the US than in Egypt?

[Kerostasis]

That one I'll accept. Of course, the ratio of American burger prices to Egyptian burger prices is only about 2 to 1, where we can easily pay 20 or 30 times as much for drugs, so its not quite as scary.

[Sirusblk]

I hate to say it but Sprint has terrible customer service. I go with T-Mobile because at least they actually respect the consumer and offer the best customer service.

I'd say this is like Insurance Companies saying they refuse to cover someone because they simply aren't making a profit. It's not right.

[ednos]

I can't believe anyone puts up with anything the telephone companies throw at them. Oh wait, that's right, we have the FCC protecting our poor, struggling huge-ass corporations.