New SERO Oct 1st

[Dr.8820]

Wirelessly posted (PPCGEEKS Fire Dept.: Opera/9.70 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) TMO-US_LEO)

^ checkmate!

[nerys]

Originally Posted by blasphemous_prime

Dude, once again, you posted the exact same thing twice in 3 minutes or less. Quit spamming the board, and if you wanna act like a spambot, you'll receive affirmative action like one. Now make one post at a time like you're a legit member. Failure to comply will result in pretty severe consequences. This is your first and final warning.

Your threats are ignored. I was posting from a cell phone. It was not intentional. Grow up.

[nerys]

"This is a typical contract-change clause. You were provided notice re: the Instinct AND re: Android. Sprint was very public about both. Moving on..."

When this has been challenged in other venues and found to be UNREASONABLE it has been defeated. Just because the contract SAYS IT does not make it so if its unreasonable. My contention is its unreasonable.

This is where the law forbidding manufacturers from barring you from using third party parts for your car came from.


"Another very standard clause that says: "Hey, some of our devices--not enumerated here--may require additional terms." Guess what phones fall into that category?"

again has to comply with the same reasonableness issue. alas irrelevant unless people challenge it.

"This is our central issue, Nerys--you're extrapolating that because you COULD activate any phone on SERO that it was a right enumerated in your contract. It was not. The contract refers SPECIFICALLY to the device you INITIALLY activate. The language is very clear here:"

You really need to learn to read better man. No insult but seriously the first 5 words prove you wrong.

"What this means is that your agreement is active once you've activated a SPECIFIC phone. Your ability to change that phone is then strictly covered by the above clauses. When you joined, Sprint was not enforcing any additional terms on any of its phones, but it had clearly reserved the right to do so. Whether or not this is legal is up to the courts--but I can tell you that it's pretty standard."

Uhh that means nothing like what you think it means. What it means is SOME accounts may have an ACTUAL connection between the phone and your contract. In the past sprint would sometimes offer a very good deal on a special phone. They did not want people USING the deal to get that phone AND THEN ESN changing selling the phone and simply paying the $200 ETF. (the deal might for example be good enough that you could profit selling the phone even after paying the ETF) or for example sign up at a new account get a nice deal on a phone ESN change ETF close the account and then use that phone on your other account.

Sometimes in the past and even still today sometimes sprint has offered discounts on phones in excess of $200

THAT is what that clause specifies. PLEASE at least read what your going to propose as evidence.

"It's like I said, man. This ship has sailed. If this was a problem you had, you should have ended your contract with Sprint last year. Now you're angry because they're "charging" you for something you believe you had, but it's been clearly shown that a.) you never had it, and b.) Sprint's been very upfront that you've never had it."

I always had it. When the instinct came out sprint started to take it away. This is wrong THIS is the point of my argument.

"sigh... and again there is nowhere in the contract that you can use what ever phone you want.... jeebus.... "

My reply to this is

sigh... and again there is nowhere in the contract that you can not use what ever phone you want.... jeebus.... (at least at the time I made the contract)

[Dr.8820]

Wirelessly posted (PPCGEEKS Fire Dept.: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 8.12; MSIEMobile6.0) Sprint T7380)

Originally Posted by nerys

Your threats are ignored. I was posting from a cell phone. It was not intentional. Grow up.

you do realize that is a mod....it was nice knowing you!

[iphoney4u]

Mods do need to grow up really. Power hungry nerds. lol. jus sayin.

[nerys]

Originally Posted by Dr.8820

Wirelessly posted (PPCGEEKS Fire Dept.: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 8.12; MSIEMobile6.0) Sprint T7380)

you do realize that is a mod....it was nice knowing you!

Does not really factor into my reply. I treat all people equally. Mods don't get any different treatment.

As a mod I would think he would have realized what was happening (it happens a lot when I post from the cell phone which is why I don't post often from the phone and to the best I can see it was posted twice not 3 times (unless he removed one of the dupes)

Disrespect was not meant but the statement stands.

If there are repercussions from such statements so be it - its not my forum I don't make the rules. But I also do not alter how I interact with people (short of being impolite or offensive in extreme of course IE I follow etiquette appropriate for the conversation)

If he is a good/experienced mod nothing should happen. If he is a little cranky or not nice (it happens) bad things might happen. I can only control what I do so I don't worry about what other people can do too much.

[nerys]

Originally Posted by iphoney4u

Mods do need to grow up really. Power hungry nerds. lol. jus sayin.

Most mods have pretty thick skin. They have to deal with this kind of stuff daily if not hourly. They tend to get thick skin or burn out pretty fast like any other stressful job.

[Dr.8820]

Originally Posted by iphoney4u

Mods do need to grow up really. Power hungry nerds. lol. jus sayin.

try and keep a low profile THIS time..

Originally Posted by nerys

Does not really factor into my reply. I treat all people equally. Mods don't get any different treatment.

As a mod I would think he would have realized what was happening (it happens a lot when I post from the cell phone which is why I don't post often from the phone and to the best I can see it was posted twice not 3 times (unless he removed one of the dupes)

Disrespect was not meant but the statement stands.

If there are repercussions from such statements so be it - its not my forum I don't make the rules. But I also do not alter how I interact with people (short of being impolite or offensive in extreme of course IE I follow etiquette appropriate for the conversation)

If he is a good/experienced mod nothing should happen. If he is a little cranky or not nice (it happens) bad things might happen. I can only control what I do so I don't worry about what other people can do too much.

before this whole thing gets shut down, i will say that i agree with what you are trying to say..however, it is now up to the company to do what they wish. it sucks, it stinks, but it's life. the only to show displeasure is by NOT spending money with that company. but constantly stating over and over that you were wronged isn't going to fix your problem, and you won't get sympathy from those not on sero.

[nerys]

I have not been wronged. I still have my original account at my original price.

I am saying this kind of behavior from a company is wrong.

I am also shocked at so many who side with sprint for some unknown reason I can not possibly understand.

these are corporations. its a privilege to be a corporation not a right. CITIZENS have rights not corporations. This is why you need the PERMISSION of the state to incorporate.

there are LIMITS on what corporations are permitted to do. This is one thing they are usually "NOT" permitted to do and they are bypassing those restrictions with this some phones not allowed policy.

[spectheintro]

Originally Posted by nerys

When this has been challenged in other venues and found to be UNREASONABLE it has been defeated. Just because the contract SAYS IT does not make it so if its unreasonable. My contention is its unreasonable.

That's fine, but it does not change the contract you signed. If you wish to contest it in a court of law, do so. This wording is from 2005. It was in your Ts&Cs when you first agreed to SERO.

again has to comply with the same reasonableness issue. alas irrelevant unless people challenge it.

And again, you're side-stepping the issue. Sprint has publicly declared that some of their phones come with additional terms. This flies in the face of "tell me where in my contract they say I can't use a specific phone." They're telling you, right there, that some of their phones WILL require additional terms. You have, at your discretion, the right to accept those terms or not use those phones. It's very clear-cut.

Uhh that means nothing like what you think it means. What it means is SOME accounts may have an ACTUAL connection between the phone and your contract. In the past sprint would sometimes offer a very good deal on a special phone. They did not want people USING the deal to get that phone AND THEN ESN changing selling the phone and simply paying the $200 ETF. (the deal might for example be good enough that you could profit selling the phone even after paying the ETF) or for example sign up at a new account get a nice deal on a phone ESN change ETF close the account and then use that phone on your other account.

The language is quite clear. If your contract requires that you keep an active connection with a phone (and all SERO contract did; they were standard 2-year contracts), then the term begins when the phone is activated. This, as you noted, establishes a clear link between the phone you activate and the service you possess. Your ability to activate a different phone is not a right granted in your contract; it is firmly at Sprint's discretion. You can read the whole contract: not once do they say you have the right to activate a new phone on your existing contract. What they say is that, if you deactivate a phone WITHOUT activating a new device, you will be assessed an ETF. But beyond that, your ability to activate new phones is basically up to them.

So I've addressed your "show me where" concerns. Now you're sticking to the "unreasonable" terms. I think this is a little disingenuous. There are only two definitions of "unreasonable" to which we can refer: your personal one, or the legal one. The former is irrelevant because I hold a different definition, and the latter is irrelevant because neither of us are in position to accurately determine it. So ultimately, that line of thinking isn't going to get us anywhere: you will cling to your definition, I will cling to mine, and we'll go around in circles. Better to part ways amiably, with (hopefully) you satisfied that I have shown you, in your contract, where it said you couldn't activate any phone you wanted.