Sprint Embezzlement Scheme?

[Raging Idiot]

Originally Posted by gguruusa

They definitely track every device received and exchanged. That's the point of all the paperwork. Fundamentally, the problem boils down to whether you can activate a device that isn't the device received - and that all depends on how they track their inventory. You'd have to supply the lesser device (cause otherwise inventory is just plain missing). Given that they have 1000s of stores where fraud gets committed daily, I'd be suprised if they don't have this particular avenue locked up. But, I've seen bigger oversights. (Honestly, any halfway decent audit should catch this failure to reconcile, and they've been in this business long enough to see most every scam)

Why would Sprint try to thwart an investigation? they're the victim.

Haha, this is naive, and I know you not to be a naive person, and I hate to give it any respect by answering.

[Raging Idiot]

Originally Posted by ajones7279

And I dont think it was a replacement the seller ordered from sprint for herself because she was selling about 20 of them at the time

Yes, and I don't think they track these things very well because I know someone who requested a replacement (due to a lost phone) a couple years ago and Sprint sent them 2. They eventually gave one to their brother after telling him about what happened and he had it activated without a problem.

At first I was thinking people would just sell the phones cross-carriers so that it would be more difficult to track, essentially taking a Sprint phone and selling it as a Verizon phone, but then realized that apparently Sprint isn't even tracking (or rather enforcing) any of the swaps even when it's within their network.
If Sprint enforced policy when they could track it (which would be when the swap occurs inside their own network) then people would only sell the fraudulently obtained 6800's to people using carriers other than Sprint- and Sprint would lose more money.
The simple fact is if Sprint enforces policy they lose money, and if they don't then they likely make money.
They make money by way of enticing more people to their network, via inexpensive high end phones sold on eBay and listed as "Sprint".
It's no secret that Sprint makes it's money from the services, and not the hardware.

The public relations department (and stockholders) of any company wouldn't want any negative press in regards to their company, so they like to keep such matters muffled as much as possible.

This could be happening with any other phone company, it's just my personal experience has been with Sprint.

[gguruusa]

You guys must like consipiracy theories.

Sprint is in the business of making money. They want to make money off of services AND phones. Part of making money is trying to make sure people aren't stealing from you. 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. If you think they're not aware of losses, have a good idea of the root causes, and are trying to plug the holes you're out of your mind. That they wouldn't want to publicize where the holes are is just common sense. Furthermore, what do you think they're going to do? Tell you, the customer, that your phone was stolen and you have to pay for it? No, they're going to thank you for being a customer and fire the person who stole it or illiminate the means by which they stole it. Either way, you, the end user, aren't going to hear about it unless a crime ring is arrested and it makes national news.

Oh - and just because your phone was in a white box or purchased from e-bay doesn't mean it was obtained illicitly - regardless of how little you paid for it.

[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? FBI? FCC? 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

[gguruusa]

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.

[ajones7279]

I didnt say it was or I thought it was ''obtained illicitly''. It was just something to think about. It was the first time that happened and I've bought several phones off eBay with no problems. But u cant rule out the fact that it could be possible though. I'm not complaining tho. I've never had any problems with equipment replacement like the OP and I only had one mogul before swapping for the touch. Difference is, I've only switched in-store once. Any other time was over the phone

[Raging Idiot]

ajones, see that's the thing...It doesn't matter what you say, the Guru is actually quite intelligent and very good at mincing words. Obviously the last thing he would want is an investigation, although he is painting a very large target on himself. It's likely he isn't directly associated with this particular scheme, although he may know someone that is or perhaps has vested interest in Sprint. Of course this will all in turn be vehemently denied. Par for course.

To answer Guru's last post, all I need to do is reference my second post:

Originally Posted by Raging Idiot

Yes, and as long as Sprint isn't losing money from it, and customers aren't complaining (because what would we say, and how many even think about this), then there will be no cross referencing of documents and much more unlikely any prosecutions.

So we're looking at about a $200 profit per switch with nearly zero chance of getting caught, and zero chance of prosecution.
The standard retail Sprint rep could do this about 8 times a month and effectively double their salary.

And so we've come full circle, yet again...to what end?

In another thread from Guru-
"There always seem to be a few people that feel the need to screw things up for everyone else by trying to turn a dime off of someone else's labor."
http://forum.ppcgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=13615
...and yet in the current thread we have:
"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."

It makes sense that Sprint would want us to keep our old phones as long as possible, because they don't have to absorb new phone costs in the monthly payments. Those "free phones" they give away (and deep discounts) are really not "Free" as we all are already aware.

What better way to keep people on the old phones than the scheme already discussed, AS WELL AS facilitate these ROM upgrades. In order for this to be a difficult target of prosecution these ROM upgrades must be given away and not sold.
I don't claim omniscience, and I greatly doubt that the vast majority involved with making these ROMs even think about it being facilitated by the phone company. As one of the thousands of beneficiaries of this it is impossible to say this is a bad thing.
I do know that the phone industry is extremely competitive, and they employ some very smart people to do their statistical analysis on probabilities as well as have many stockholders doing whatever they feel will get more bang for their buck.

[Hellion]

wow, this debate is getting really good!!!
Just call up Sprint when you get your "assumed new phone or wutever" and tell them you suspect it belonged to an employee of Sprint, or isn't the replacement you was to get and to check the ESN of the one you got. That may help. I don't know what i'm talking about just ranting on n on.....

[ajones7279]

Originally Posted by Hellion

wow, this debate is getting really good!!!
Just call up Sprint when you get your "assumed new phone or wutever" and tell them you suspect it belonged to an employee of Sprint, or isn't the replacement you was to get and to check the ESN of the one you got. That may help. I don't know what i'm talking about just ranting on n on.....

Lol. U might actually be able to get them to check the esn. When I ordered my touch over the phone, they actually activated it before they sent it to me and I had to call back and get them to turn my mogul back on until I received the touch the next day. So maybe they do keep some track of the esn. Idk? Then again, it wasnt really equipment replacement. It was a swap thru sales and not insurance

[gguruusa]

Now you're suggesting that the carrier might be actively encouraging employee theft?

BTW, you misunderstood my prior statements - I wasn't suggesting that your postulate wasn't worth looking into, merely that the only injured party is the carrier - and they are perfectly capable of doing their own investigating. I get the feeling you think the public was injurred in some way and they ought to demand a 3rd party investigation. That's just ridiculous.

The rest of your arguments about the carrier making more money by not selling you phones or by you retaining your old phone forever indicate a poor understanding of the carrier business. Like I said before, they make money by selling you phones - if they didn't, you can bet they'd encourage everyone to buy off of e-bay. In the case of you keeping your old phone forever, did you ever consider what it costs to support cell equipment? It's cheaper to give you a $5 phone, not to mention the goodwill it generates, the chance to sell additional services, and the intrinsic benefits of locking you in for another year.

Your point on my statement of "no worse than where you started" would be valid if you consider unexercised rights as having no value. Unfortunately, they do have value.