Quote:
Originally Posted by Raging Idiot
Guru, you answered your question again...
"Why would Sprint try to thwart an investigation?" Just read carefully your last post.
And then I see you write this:
"They might make money by signing up your 3rd party phone from e-bay, but I guarantee you they make more money by selling you the phone too - particularly if the 3rd party phone was fraudulently obtained."
I know you aren't naive. Perhaps just an oversight. Certainly you are aware that if the customer doesn't receive the upgrade (because of embezzlement scheme) that the customer will then have to $purchase$ the upgrade which they otherwise would have received for free.
The person that bought the cell phone from eBay might then sign up a new contract with $print and therefore $print doesn't have to absorb the cost of the phone in the 24 month hidden fee contract.
It's no secret that cell phone costs are largely hidden in the contracts.
So new customers that bring their own phone to the contract are helping $print even more in the overall profit.
A real investigation, and not just an internet chat, should be done in regards to this. Police? Media? HTC? Insurance?
You could say $print would do this or they could do that, and you could say that just because the boxes being received from eBay have "illegal" written all over them doesn't make them illegal -- but it doesn't hold much weight when compared against the simple facts already given.
Raging Idiot
|
You're not reading it right, and making a lot of assumptions too.
As to thwarting an investigation, the only time companies try to thwart investigations is when it exposes deep flaws within the company. That's totally different than publicity, which a company may or may not want for various reasons.
As to upgrading phones, you're assuming that the individual was entitled to the upgrade, (which they're not), that they will upgrade anyway (which there isn't any way to predict), that they'll purchase that upgrade from Sprint (again, no way to predict - but it's a good bet that e-bay buyers stay e-bay buyers), and is irrelevant to the subject of stealing. Are you trying to say that Sprint should care one bit that the customer didnt' get an upgrade but did get a working phone (the theft aside)? Honestly, their primary concern is that you end up with a working phone and stay a customer.
As to signing up a new phone - you need to look at the whole picture. That 3rd party phone came from somewhere - probably Sprint. Unless it was stolen, you can bet Sprint got their cut. I assure you though, Sprint makes more money when you buy a phone directly from them than through a 3rd party, all things considered. Honestly, do you think they'd still sell phones if they made more money by not selling them?
You seem to have the common misconception that just because a person didn't benefit maximally (getting a 6800 for a 6700 in this case) that somehow they were injurred - if they're no worse than they started, they weren't injurred. The carrier, on the other hand, _was_ injurred - they shipped a 6800 and it didn't get to the intended recipient.
I don't know why you think a 3rd party investigation should be started. The only person injured is Sprint or the insurer. If you think you might have witnessed a crime (6800 having been substituted by a 6700), then call customer support and ask them what you were supposed to get - I assure you it's in your file and they'd like to know if someone is stealing from them.