Home  ›  Carriers  ›


Info & Phones News Reviews › Forum  

all discussions

show all 6 replies



Oct 29, 2003, 12:30 PM
Does anyone play less than $13 bucks in tax with sprint? I have a 49.99 and I pay around $14 in tax. When I had T-mobile I only payed $5. It sucks! Mad
Chris Russell

Oct 29, 2003, 5:09 PM
I have an Oct. 1 bill of $45.17 (plan change on 9/30) with taxes and fees of $7.23. Read what you are paying for, I have a hunch that there are local charges also imposed.


Oct 30, 2003, 7:55 AM
Or probably charges that Sprint has contrived to offset the cost of LNP...E911... Some corporate executives six figure year end bonus... You know, the charges they name as "federal" or "state"... The reason that these fees vary from carrier to carrier is partially elusive... on the outside we would think the carriers with "excessive" fees are gouging us... but then we might look conversely at this practice and in like kind with other industry practices such as handset subsidy and such... is it possible that the carriers that are charging less are banking on subscriber loyalty because the fees are less?... Hard tellin'. In any event Nextel, Sprint PCS, CIngular (just to name a few) have all been sued for this practice. Big numbers, bean count...

Oct 30, 2003, 10:05 AM
How did the lawsuits turn out?

Nov 2, 2003, 8:35 AM
Sorry it took so long to get back... if you go to WirelessWeek.com or rcrnews.com and type in Sprint PCS lawsuits you will get the the whole gambit of **** they have had served to them on a plate... Nextel, Verizon, Cingular... they are not exempt... they're all cut from the same cloth.

It is what it is.

Nov 3, 2003, 2:53 PM
What I wanted to know was if any of the lawsuits have been settled or won?

Nov 4, 2003, 8:13 AM
My subscription to RCR ran out and I cant access the web only articles for you... check out this link

http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?keyword=lawsuit ... »

Second article from the bottom... As I recall this lawsuit was launched for excessive fees that named "federal" or "state" and were not federally or state imposed. Instead they were carrier imposed fees with misleading names... The plaintiffs argued the validity of the fees.

My other resource is wirelessweek.com... I will see what they have for us.

You must log in to reply.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram


All content Copyright 2001-2018 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.