[Sprint Samsung Galaxy S III] mmcgrat6:
I've been with Sprint through the ups and downs for over thirteen years now and I must say that while I agree that those who do not qualify for discounts do not deserve them, Sprint has taken a major step back in the level of appreciation and respect consumers can expect. A few years back it seemed like things were really turning around with the introduction of the Premier loyalty program. For the first time ever, it felt like the higher ups at Sprint understood that the consumer is the reason this company continues to exist and the long term clients were responsible for sustaining the company through the lean times to get to the profitable phases. But that program was yanked because it negatively affected the stock price due to the perception that it negatively affected profitability. However during that time I was so pleased with Sprint that I constantly sang their praises becoming essentially an ambassador for the organization. I wasn't alone in this as many other long time clients also geeked out about loving Sprint everywhere we went. I know several people who signed service agreements based on these testimonials. However in the past year I've gone from feeling like a valued customer to a series of metrics used to evaluate and drive up stock value. So while no business is operating without the expectation to turn a profit, the way Sprint is going about the process is repugnant in its dehumanizing treatment of consumers and edicts csr's have been sentenced to for implementation. After speaking with several CSR's leading up to upgrading my device this week, the stress mentioned in an earlier posting felt by Sprint staff is absolutely NOT IN ANY WAY customers feeling over-entitled, uppity, or just being mean. One CSR shared that the contact information or even the ability to escalate a concern to increasing levels of authority within Sprint has been written into the rules governing client interactions. WHAT!? In any situation of conflict the one thing that is essential to deescalation and eventual resolution (i.e. acceptance that undeserved discounts are being removed) is that the person feeling wronged feels that the concern was heard and understood. Then it can be explained within the context of that individual's experience and the humanizing shred of dignity and respect each and everyone of us seek and deserve can decompress the situation and no one goes home feeling abused or stressed. But if it's written in the csr guidelines to stick to a robotic answer without offering any path toward resolution (i.e. speaking to a manager or emailing someone up the chain) that chicken sh*t behavior is gonna give you pissed off people who should be relied upon to lash out, terminate their contracts, and make a bad day for whoever answered their call. So it might be easy to blame hot head customer for why Sprint employees are going through such a bad patch right now, but if you step back away from greedy glasses focused solely on profits and inject what anyone over the age of 20 knows about human behavior you'll see that Sprint has no one to blame for screwing this whole thing up other than Sprint.

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 AM ----------

...and as far as all the "beating the system" comments... when we all look at our bills at the taxes, surcharges, technology fees, infrastructure expansion $10/month fees, and any other costs of doing business that get tacked onto what we as subscribers pay each and every month, not to mention the overwhelming volume of privacy violations done behind our backs, it's worth asking a simple question. Who is really the party "beating the system"? So if Sprint has no problem taking these violating liberties with its customers, does it have any moral high ground to stand on to complain about some people shaving $10 a month off their bill? When you look at the infractions from each side it looks to me that the scales of offending behaviors tip unquestionably toward Sprint for gravity of offense.