Sprint Embezzlement Scheme?

[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.

[gguruusa]

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.

the salesperson got $200 of someones money! That's why warranty stuff is usually audited. I doubt you could do it 8 times a month though - you'd have to have 8 broken 6700's in stock, 8 newly broken 6700's being brought in, and 8 6800's being exchanged by the same salesperson.

You're right about no chance of prosecution...it's easier and cheaper to review their paperwork or just fire them.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the way this works is a little different than you're imagining... What actually happens is the store orders the 6800 as a replacement, but it's really just increased inventory at this point. Once the ESN swap occurs, that's when the inventory is decremented and the store gets a monetary credit for the swapped phone. If the ESN is the inventory ID, you couldn't swap a different phone.

Regardless, at the end of the month, when the store does it's inventory audit, missing stock is bound to trigger a few red flags.

[Raging Idiot]

This is a bit involved so I'm going to look at this line by line....
People are more apt to take things when there is no one asking about it and no one prosecuting it. A salesperson will continue taking $200 of "someones money" as long as that holds true.

You can buy 6700's in bulk online. And who's to know if the Rep just fixes any of the returned 6700's awaiting repair and gives it back to a customer (whom thinks it was officially refurbished) and thus leaves open the opportunity for the Rep to acquire a 6800 to resell.
The number I used in this instance was "8", which was somewhat random, but used to show the amount of money in relation to salary. It could just as well be "1" or "100" per month.

They only need one 6700 to replace one 6800. Simply put:
I give them my 6700, they call it in under warranty or insurance or whatever, and they get back a 6800, and they give me their 6700.
I've heard here many times that it's random on what they get in regards to replacements in such matters. I imagine that this randomness would effectively offset some of the fraud so that it didn't seem as big a problem as it likely is. Instead of someone being able to embezzle 100% of the time they might only be able to do it 50% of the time...and if the store is looked at as a whole then the amount of embezzlement would diminish even further by proportion.

I'm skeptical on whether they have to add/subtract every refurbished/warrantied/insuranceclaim from their inventory, and if so it would seem probable there are ways around this.

I'm sure someone from Sprint could throw in some nonsense to obfuscate the issue in an attempt to thwart an investigation or public outcry, but this given scenario absolutely stands to reason that it is rather likely occurring indeed.

[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.

[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.