I like the last email signature, ZING!

This is a good template. His e-mails were polite, professional, and concise. Nice work, T-dawg!

"I received a phone call from our executive staff that you are seeking assistance. I called your work and home numbers and left voice mails in an effort to assist you immediately. Later, I was informed that you prefer email communication.I sincerely apologize if I bothered you or your family with voicemails."

Wow! That's the type of response I'd expect if I were King Of The World or something... awesome.

While it's always a good practice to be courteous and professional, be careful about coming off like a time traveler from 1890 -- I'm not sure when the last time was that somebody outside of a Faulkner novel used the phrase "one of you fine folks" with a straight face.

Still, this is a great example of how civility will get you much farther than threatening to discharge a firearm in someone's face, or perhaps smashing up their office with a hammer.

It's true, civility will get you much farther. I work at a Best Buy as a salesman and I will bend over backwards to help people if they are nice and polite. It will usually get you what you want assuming you don't have unreasonable demands. Best Buy does this because one goal is organic growth, so even if a customer experience in the store taking a loss, if you leave happy on account of the service you get you'll more than likely come back for other purchases.

On the other hand, someone being rude to me or contempuous often puts me (and others) on the defensive and often makes us want to "hold the line" policy wise, meaning it will be harder for you to get what you want.

On a side not, I just want to say that I had a kick ass experience with an AT&T store when I had to get a new phone.

He ran into problems canceling due to a text message rate increase that didn't apply to him (because he has unlimited) and was surprised the low-level CSR's had problems? Wow. I'm not shocked the EECB didn't just turn into a "do what it takes to make this go away".

He was polite and clear in what he wanted, I'll give him that...

@structuralpoke: I agree. The increase didn't have a material change to him. He should have called Verizon and had them agree to waive the ETF before porting.

@structuralpoke: @amejr999: Even though that's a lie cellphone companies have had their customer service reps tell, that's not the way material changes to contract work. It doesn't have to materially affect him at the moment he decides to cancel. The rates were there when he initially activated the phone and they factored into his purchase decision. That's all you need.

@structuralpoke: You are wrong that the rate change did not apply to him. I got out of verizon with no hassle and no ETF just 2 weeks ago based on the same issue and I had a txt plan. International txt message rates were being raised as well even if you had a txt plan. I asked for the ETF to be waived by the CSR, she refused, I asked for a supervisor. Within 5 min I was speaking with a supervisor who while trying to convince me to stay relented to my requests and made a notation in my account to waive the ETF. I picked up my new iphone that same evening. Got my final bill from Verizon last week with no ETF.

@Beerad: I use that phrase all the time. Usually in an ironic context, but still.

@amejr999: It's irrelevant whether or not it caused a material change. He got a postcard in the mail that told him he could cancel with no ETF.

The point is that he was notified by mail that an increase in text message charges would go into effect. Based on the wording of his contractual agreement, he was entitled to cancel his service without an early termination fee. The agreement does not take into consideration whether or not the user has an unlimited text messaging plan as this could be considered a promotional rate and subject to change at any time, where as the cost per text message shouldn't usually deviate.

Prices go up all the time - based on market demand and network load. Verizon saw the need to increase the per message pricing and since this would technically void a contract they must notify end users in writing of the change and offer a window of opportunity to be let out of their current contracts without penalty.

After reading that whole thing, why was I not surprised to hear that he was on Sprint? Sounds to me like he was using an excuse to get on SERO. Not that I'm knocking him for it, it's just pretty transparent.

OK for the love of God, why in the world where this is not officially documented in one place in an unequivocal manner for each carrier?

In other words, it seems like depending on how the customer asks, and which CSR the customer gets, the fee may or may not be waived.

I went through this a while back with Sprint until I escalated to the Consumerist hotline when Sprint changed their fees.

Some smartass will probably reply "you answered your own question... they don't spell it out unequivocally because then more people would cancel, they want to make it hard." Bzzztttt... I guess my real question is more WHY ARE THE CARRIERS ALLOWED TO BE SO DECEPTIVE, SNEAKY and UNDERHANDED?

Who's looking out for *us*? (Besides Consumerist that is.)

Sorry for the rant, but I just don't understand how every week there can be so much damn confusion over what should be a simple policy-based procedure. Every week there is something about "avoid ETF via..." and then the comments are 50-50 regarding success rates even when they follow the same script and cite the same material changes.

When I go to In-N-Out to buy a Double-Double, I don't go into the transaction wondering how much I'm going to pay "this time". It's clear & consistent. You would think a frickin' multi-billion dollar conglomerate could have its s*** together at least as well.

Whatever. No more coffee for me in the morning. Or at least decaf from now on.

@HeartBurnKid: i don't think you know the difference between irony and facetiousness.

I just don't get why the airplane is dropping toilet paper.

I love that stab in the back signature on the last email!

while i usually don't like "blame the consumer" comments, in this case it really is a shame that they didn't stiff him with that ETF. was that obnoxious signature at the end really necessary? with people like these it's just a matter of time before the EECB becomes useless. and isn't sprint the best buy of wireless? who's really having the last laugh here?

@APFPilot: Ha, I thought the same thing. Not sure if it was intentional, but I think phones sometimes add those automatically. Still funny!

I think the OP knew what he was doing when he submitted that last reply. I just wish Verizon had IMAP offering for Gmail Apps for your Domain.

To all of those who have responded to this -

The cancellation was based on my decision to move to Sprint; however, I was still entitled to cancel the service with no ETF as they had sent me the notification. I suppose I could have mentioned that I managed several cell phone stores in the past and understand carrier contracts and the hoops they normally make you jump through. Unfortunately, it took my initial e-mail to finally get some action taken.

As far as the signature in the last e-mail is concerned, it was actually unintentional at the time. I had been corresponding with them while at work and by the time she sent the last reply, I was no longer in the office. Fortunately, the Sprint SERO plan allows for all incoming e-mail to my Gmail account to be delivered to my phone. It wasn't until forwarding this over to Consumerist that I even noticed the signature... :)

@oakie: Everything I know about irony, I learned from Alanis Morisette. :p

@tstephen: Guess I called it right.