sprint & clearwire fighting over 4g speeds..wth!

[dougeetx]

Sprint/Clearwire in arbitration over 4G monthly fees | Explain the Fee!

 

[mrrogers1]

:

Sprint/Clearwire in arbitration over 4G monthly fees | Explain the Fee!

This thread is worthless without links.

ETA: hyperlinks didn't appear hot before in the Evo browser. I see it is now.

 

[explainthefee]

I appreciate the link to my article. This is an ongoing battle that I've been trying to fight for the last 6 months.

At this point, I'm just trying to provide everyone with as much information as possible. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out in the next few months.

Keep an eye out on my site - I've got a few things coming up soon!

-Brian
explainthefee.com

 

[Caitlyn McKenzie]

There's an actual website on this? People are actually... debating this still?

Look, just right off that article there's a straightforward logical flaw:

Sprint's said that the fee isn't for 4G, right? Well, this Clearwire agreement isn't for 4G, it's for the possibility of 4G. With this "newfound" information that Sprint is being charged ~$5 a device/month, perhaps they want to eliminate it so they can stop charging us?

But no, that'd be just silly! Let's bash Sprint some more.

 

[xtn]

And really who cares? Sprint's contract with you the customer is completely free standing and separate from their supply contract with Clear.

I agreed to pay them ten dollars a month, and their agreement with Clear is irrelevant.

 

[sbd]

And really who cares? Sprint's contract with you the customer is completely free standing and separate from their supply contract with Clear.

I agreed to pay them ten dollars a month, and their agreement with Clear is irrelevant.

Not if a lawsuit gets filed against you for charging for something that you don't provide. Sprint signed a contract to pay a flat price for the usage of 4G devices on their network. If the customer can not connect to their service because it is not available in the area, why should they get paid for no usage.

"We have been engaged in ongoing negotiations with Sprint to resolve issues related to wholesale pricing for Sprint 4G smartphone usage under our commercial agreements with Sprint,"

There is no usage for a phone that can not use their service. Sprint on the other hand knew this because they turned around and added 100% profit to what they pay Clear to all 4G devises even when they do not have access to 4G. They both are guilty as far as I am concerned and Sprint is only going through the motions to make it look like they are not at fault here with this sham arbitration. It is a PR stunt because they are being sued here in San Diego and probably other cities for unlawful business practices and false advertising. So now that they are being sued, all of a sudden they care about being charged for the non usage of 4G. Does the fact that Sprint owns 54% of Clear have anything to do with it??

The whole complaint can be found here.
Here is the summary of the complaint below.


I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

1. In June 2010, defendant Sprint staged a nation-wide rollout of its new HTC Evo 4G phone ("Evo 4G"), manufactured by Taiwan-based HTC Corporation. With great fanfare, the Evo 4G phone was marketed as the first cell phone able to access Sprint's 4G network. In August 2010, with similar fanfare, Sprint began selling a second 4G phone, the Samsung Epic 4G ("Epic 4G"), which was also marketed as having 4G access. Both of these phones are marketed by defendants under the tagline "Sprint: First and Only Wireless 4G from a National Carrier." (See Exhibit A.)

2. Sprint, however, is only able to provide 4G service through Clearwire Corporation ("Clearwire"), of which Sprint controls 54%. Sprint's partnership with Clearwire is complicated by the fact that Sprint and Clearwire also continue to compete for wireless subscribers. This competition, and the reluctance of major Clearwire shareholders to provide funding for further buildout of 4G capability on behalf of Sprint, has prevented Sprint from effectuating a rapid rollout of 4G.

3. Thus, Sprint's 4G coverage is limited to areas where Clearwire has built out their 4G network, which, as of this filing, encompasses 53 markets in 22 states. In California, Sprint only offers 4G service in the cities of Merced, Modesto, Stockton and Visalia. Of the major California areas, Los Angeles and San Francisco have been promised 4G access "in the near futuFe" by Sprint, but no specific California 4G rollout dates have been made public (See Exhibit A). Other major urban areas, such as San Diego and Sacramento, have no prospect of having Sprint 4G access in the near term.

4. Sprint customers who purchase Sprint's 4G phones such as the Evo 4G and the Epic 4G are required to purchase Sprint's "Everything Data" plan and are also required to pay an additional $10.00 charge that is specific to the 4G device. Thus, all Sprint customers with 4G phone contracts have been charged a monthly premium for a 4G-capable phone, but Sprint has failed to provide 4G service to most areas. In, California, for example, only a small fraction of Sprint's customers (in Merced, Modesto, Stockton and Visalia) actually have access to 4G service. (See Exhibit A.)

5. The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has established certain Truth In Billing requirements, which include billing only for items legitimately charged to customers and explaining why such charges are imposed. Sprint's conduct violates these Truth In Billing requirements.

6. As a result, despite its obligations to avoid disseminating uniformly misleading billing statements, Sprint improperly charged customers for data services that customers purchasing 4G phones did not receive, resulting in Sprint reaping substantial benefits from monies improperly retained. Defendants are thus being unjustly enriched as a result of their deceptive billing practices.

7. Moreover, the "Premium Data" charge applied to 4G phone owners violates state and federal anti-cramming laws including, 47 U.S.C. ? 201 (b) and Cal. Pub. UtiI. Code ? 2890.

8. Despite having collected what is likely several million dollars from customers for such charges and having retained and benefitted from the use of such monies Sprint has not given notice to its customers of the true nature of its purported "Premium Data" charge. This action seeks such relief, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure this problem does not recur.

 

[jonathanlc2005]

seriously... it bothers me so much people ***** and moan over 10 dollars. really, 10 dollars... its not like we are living in Ethiopia. people spend this money to take sprint to court and yet it costs more then the 2 years you would spend over 10 dollars.

 

[I.R.R.V.]

To be honest, I at first thought this was frivolous, but now I think it makes sense. While yes it is only ten dollars, multiply that by how many 4G phones are out there, and factor in the fact that many have no access to the service. Seems to me that it should be a elected add on, like the hotspot feature. When they have it fully rolled out then make it mandatory to pay the fee. I have the evo, but I keep the 4g off. I am a truckdriver and when I hop in and out of the areas my phone seems glitchy. Just my 2 cents.

 

[theelite1x87]

Considering Verizon charges you 30 dollars PER LINE if each person wants a smartphone (regardless of device), this being ON TOP of the "data plan" you pay for, i dont think 10 bucks is that big a deal...

of course, I am in a 4G area so I guess this issue doesn't strike me like it strikes others.

 

[I.R.R.V.]

I don't mind the fee I got my evo knowing I would have to pay it, but the I think about it All the high end phones will have 4 g. But not everyone will be able to use it, So it really is not a matter of the cost of the situation But the fact that it charges a premium for the new devices and for a service that not everybody has the ability to use. And if I understand this lawsuit correctly Print only wants to play the other company for the device is that actually using 4 g not for the devices that are capable of 4 g. But that is not an option that they are giving their customers so I guess is kind of not fair. That being said I love my evo and even if I don't use the 4 g I'm still happy with the device and I'm okay with the price. But the premium data fee is the only reason why I have not gotten my wife 1 yet

 

[xtn]

Not if a lawsuit gets filed against you for charging for something that you don't provide.

Yes, even if someone files such a lawsuit complaining about my unfair business practices regarding my subscribers, it is still a completely separate issue from how I purchase my supply on the front end. Details of the wholesale side transaction have no merit in any arguement over the structure of the retail side transaction.

Are we discussing the Clear/Sprint negotiations or are we discussing the end user claim against Sprint?

If it's the latter I can poke a lot of holes in the logic of the complaint you posted. If it's the former I'll suggest that while it is interesting it's none of our business as subsribers.

 

[prodigal27]

After reading the complaint, it seems like the $10 fee is definitely for 4G access, and not simply because it's unlimited data. Clearwire charges Sprint $4.46 for every user on the 4G network (not for out-of-network users), and Sprint charges EACH 4G capable user (in or out of network) $10. The problem is that Clearwire is unable to expand because they are only getting paid for customers who have access to 4G, not for future market areas. If you read the complaint, Clearwire is hoping they can get close to $9 for each user, so they can complete their expansion.

This is how it affects me...
It seems Sprint has the $10 fee, so they can pay the charges from Clearwire for their expansion. But, Sprint only pays them $4.46 for each user, on the condition they are in a 4G market. Which means Sprint charges EVERY customer on a 4G device $10, but only pays Clearwire a fraction of that. I find this is unacceptable, I want 4G in the next 2 years for my market area, and Sprint is pocketing the "fee", when it should be going to Clearwire for expansion. Currently, the amount that Sprint pays them is only enough to keep existing markets running.
Clearwire has paused all expansion because they simply don't have enough money.
After reading the dispute I'm 100% sure the $10 was initiated so Sprint wouldn't have to pay for the expansion themselves. Instead, they have the 4G users pay for it. Which I'm fine with, but if my money doesn't go towards the expansion, it's just mindless profit. I'm fine paying the $10 on the premise that it's going toward 4G expansion.
Anyone who still doesn't think the $10 is for 4G capability, I suggest you read the article.

 

[Caitlyn McKenzie]

The article specifically said that Clearwire charges them regardless of 4G availability. I suggest you re-read the article.

 

[prodigal27]

Could you quote that? This is what I found.
Prusch said Clearwire booked its wholesale average revenue per user at $4.46 in the third quarter, but said the figure could be as high as $9 in the third quarter "if the wholesale pricing issues are resolved favorably."

Being a Clearwire user, means you are on the 4G network.

 

[prodigal27]

Here's another one..

"According to Clearwire, several hundred thousand Evo and Epic subscribers currently use their phones outside of Clearwire's coverage area. Clearwire argues that its wholesale agreement with Sprint calls for Sprint to make monthly payments to Clearwire for those devices, despite the fact that the gadgets aren't connecting to Clearwire's WiMAX network."

So to sum that up, if you aren't in a 4G area, Sprint isn't giving Clearwire a payout.

 

[Caitlyn McKenzie]

Could you quote that? This is what I found.
Prusch said Clearwire booked its wholesale average revenue per user at $4.46 in the third quarter, but said the figure could be as high as $9 in the third quarter "if the wholesale pricing issues are resolved favorably."

Being a Clearwire user, means you are on the 4G network.

No it doesn't. The whole article is based on how Sprint doesn't want to pay for 4G devices not in service area, while Clearwire does. Sprint is charging everyone based on the current agreement which they're not happy with.

 

[prodigal27]

No it doesn't. The whole article is based on how Sprint doesn't want to pay for 4G devices not in service area, while Clearwire does. Sprint is charging everyone based on the current agreement which they're not happy with.

Okay I think we are thinking the same thing here. I agree, Sprint thinks they don't have to pay Clear for each user, but Clear thinks otherwise. I believe currently that Sprint is considering Clearwire users, as people who have access to 4G, and are only paying that much.
Currently they are in arbitration to clear things up in regards to their contract. And I side with Clearwire on this, in order for them to expand, they need to have the funding from future market areas. And on top of that, things seem to point more and more that our $10 fee, is supposed to go towards 4G access. Problem is, since I'm not in a 4G market, my money goes straight to Sprint and never makes it to Clearwire for their expansion.

 

[Caitlyn McKenzie]

OR: Sprint doesn't want to pay for it because of the ridiculous flak it's receiving from people like the "EXPLAIN THE FEE" website. They want to stop charging people outside of 4G areas, but Clearwire doesn't.

 

[workindev]

Why does Sprint have to "explain the fee" in the first place? It is a well documented fee that you know about before you even buy the phone. If you don't like the fee, you can easily get out of it by not buying a phone that requires it.

I'm having a hard time seeing how an optional fee like this could be so controversial.

 

[Insp_Gadget]

Why does Sprint have to "explain the fee" in the first place? It is a well documented fee that you know about before you even buy the phone. If you don't like the fee, you can easily get out of it by not buying a phone that requires it.

I'm having a hard time seeing how an optional fee like this could be so controversial.

It's only "optional" if you're willing to do without the best phones that Sprint offers. As Sprint terms it, what exactly does "Premium Data" mean? They are charging us for "Premium Data". Sprint has yet to truly define that term. They won't call it "4G" because that would mean they would have to admit to charging people for service they are not receiving.

Is it "unlimited" data? No, because we were already getting that before, and other phones have the same unlimited data, and don't require the fee.

It isn't a matter of knowing about the fee beforehand. The point is that the fee has not been properly explained to anyone's satisfaction. Saying "We're going to charge you a premium because you'll probably use more data than our other phones" is a crock, because there are other phones that use just as much data and have comparable web browsers and services.

So, what is the fee REALLY for? That's the question being posed by ExplainTheFee.com.

The fee needs to be explained because it's the LAW that it be explained. The light being cast on Sprint's relationship with Clearwire is shedding a little more insight into the possible motivation for the fee, but Sprint still hasn't confessed what the $10 fee is REALLY for. They're hiding the explanation behind a bunch of smoke-and-mirrors marketing speak. In the meantime, the majority of customers that own these "4G" smartphones aren't getting "4G" service and are paying an extra $240 over the life of their contract.

That, in my opinion, is wrong... especially considering that the money isn't all going to the expansion of the 4G infrastructure.