My name is Marianne Maestas and I am with the Executive Customer Relations department of T-Mobile. I am contacting you on behalf of Mr. Robert Dotson in regards to the email that you sent him yesterday evening.

In your email, you express concerns, as you are not able to use your service for Twitter. As you have been advised, Twitter is not an authorized third-party service provider, and therefore you are not able to utilize service from this provide any longer. You indicate your feeling that this is a violation of the Net Neutrality.

T-Mobile would like to bring to your attention that the Terms and Conditions of service, to which you agreed at activation, indicate "... some Services are not available on third-party networks or while roaming. We may impose credit, usage, or other limits to Service, cancel or suspend Service, or block certain types of calls, messages, or sessions (such as international, 900, or 976 calls) at our discretion." Therefore, T-Mobile is not in violation of any agreement by not providing service to Twitter. T-Mobile regrets any inconvenience, however please note that if you remain under contract and choose to cancel service, you will be responsible for the $200 early termination fee that would be assessed to the account at cancellation.

The arguments are relevant to the issue at hand, because text messaging is not the Internet. Until your communication hits the TPC/IP layer, it's subject to all the corporate crap that phone messages are. The phone companies are more balkanized than you realize, clearly. Specifically, phone service providers are allowed to block any short code they want. Read the policies for using a short code to provide service.
http://www.usshortcodes.com/csc_obtainPol.html
T-Mobile already has the contractual right to pick and choose which short codes it supports.

"Net Neutrality outrage: reports of T-Mobile blocking Twitter" [ZDNet]
"Twitter, Tweeters, And T-Mobile: Everyone Loses" [Silicon Alley Insider]
"T-Mobile Attacks Net Neutrality Unnecessarily: Twitter Problem Not Its Fault" [Wired]

"...in regards to my personal work number being published on a website, consumerist.com, in regards to customers calling me personally in regards to their contact with Sprint..."

In the message, Judy advises customers to call Sprint's main line at 877-812-1223 and wait their turn for incompetent service just like anybody else.

We almost feel bad. Then we remember how evil retention department people are, how skilled in mental manipulation irregardless of the facts... and then it feels good. — BEN POPKEN

Overage on these plans will remain at $.10, so the rate increase would not affect you.

The thing to try then is to cancel the text message package on your plan!

Once you do that, the rate increase will affect you and you can cancel. Maybe. We haven't tried it ourselves, but it seems like a plausible strategy.

We found about the exception because Sprint herself added a comment to one of our posts. That comment, lifted from the fray and presented in marquee glory, after the jump.

Sprint writes:

"These changes do not affect customers who are on a text messaging plan. Our current text messaging plan offers remain at $5/300 msgs., $10/1000 msgs. and $15/unlimited msgs. Overage charges on these plans will also remain at $0.10.

Some media have inaccurately reported that this change means any Sprint customer can cancel his or her contract without having to pay an early termination fee. This may be true for some customers who are adversely affected, but does not apply to everyone. Please see talking points for more specifics. PR is following up with the media who originally aired the inaccurate information, which they did without contacting Sprint, to correct them.

RCR Wireless has updated their online story published yesterday to reflect the correct information. http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=27491"

Talking points? What are these talking points you speak of?

1-888-211-4727 Retention
1-407-475-6982 Judy Rathcliffe, Retention Department Supervisor

UPDATE: Judy's number no longer works.

Initially we were going to post different numbers we had found in a forum. Then, to be sure, we called them and sure enough, some of them had changed. And people say we don't fact-check, pssh.

Previously:
Defeat Sprint's Rate Hike Cancellation Lies
Oct31 Deadline For Free Sprint Contract Killing

The most common line Sprint customer service reps are using is that text messages are an "add-on," and therefore not covered in the original contract.

This is a blatant lie.

You can still cancel without paying a termination fee, but it will take persistence and tenacity. One successful canceller threatened to file a letter with his Public Utilities commission, and then did it. He received a letter confirming he got out of contract without charge a week later.

The reps may try to tell you the change only applies to people with special text message plans, or only to people who signed up after Oct. 1. These too are bald misrepresentations.

Be firm. Be in control.

Some customers report being offered service credits or free text messaging to stay. Be aware that if you accept these carrots, you will have accepted the new terms of service and not be able to cancel over the text message rate hikes.

Canceled Sprint successfully under these terms? Trying to and failed? Share your thoughts in the comments or tips at consumerist.com

Previously: Oct31 Deadline For Free Sprint Contract Killing

Sprint has raised its text-messaging fees to $.15, giving you a "get-out-contract-free" card.

The change constitutes a material change to service. According to Sprint's fine-print contracts, if there's a material change to service, you can cancel service within 30 days without penalty.

The changes went into effect Oct 1, so you have until All Hallow's Eve if you want to dropkick Sprint.

"Sprint Rate Hike Means Penalty-Free Cancellation" [CBS13] (Thanks to Carson!)

If the account holder has died, most cell phone service providers will cancel the account with no early termination fee.

It's sort of like that scene in Mark Twain's Americana classic where Huck Finn attends his own funeral...

My boss needed an email-capable phone, and needed it here and functioning before she left for a business trip to New York.

How much you want to bet that didn't exactly happen? Check your wager, after the jump...

Kyle writes:

"I called T-Mobile a week ahead and ordered her a Motorola something-or-other, which arrived several days later, but the email functionality was not what she had hoped. For clarity's sake let's call her existing phone A and her phone number 1. The new phone B arrived carrying phone number 2. Since she didn't like the phone, we called T-Mobile to order a Blackberry C, being assured it would arrive in time for the trip. It did not, of course, so we had her phone number 1 put into phone B so she could go on the trip with email capability. Phone number 2, a temporary factory number, should have then disappeared.

While she was gone, Blackberry C arrived with phone number 3.

When she returned, we then placed a call to T-mobile to have phone number 1 put into the Blackberry C, planning to then return phone B since we hadn't wanted it anyway. After waiting the 24 hours or so it takes to get a number transferred, we placed 1 or 2 test calls from the Blackberry C, which worked, then placed test calls TO the phone number, which rang on phone B indicating the number had not been transferred as requested.

Eventually the transfer took, so the standing was something like this:

Phone number 1 is now in Blackberry C and is the permanent setup to this day

Phone number 2 disappeared

Phone number 3 disappeared

Phone A old, probably recycled, who knows

Phone B returned to T-Mobile

Blackberry C in use.

Our next T-Mobile bill was wrong, which, let's face it, we kind of deserved for putting them through this. How wrong was the surprise.

Phone number 1: normal monthly charges with the new data charge for email.

Phone number 2: activation of service, pro-rated charges from that point to the date of the Blackberry activation (about 6 days) including prorated data charges for email, early termination of service, and the purchase price of phone B.

Phone number 3: activation of service, monthly service from that point forward including monthly data charges, and the purchase price of the Blackberry.

So on an ongoing basis, we had two active lines, had paid for two new phones, and an early termination fee. All we wanted was one new phone with the existing number, and if their Blackberry had arrived when they said it would, that's all we would have had.

It got better when I tried to explain all of this to a CSR. (I do realize how confusing this is, but we're a telecom company...I know it can be done and understood...don't get me started on telecom taxes and fees). The first few CSRs I talked to basically told me it's all our fault for using Phone B, and the reason Phone Number 3 is still active is because we used it. If you remember, we only used it to see if the number transfer had worked. I did finally get someone to take phone line 3 off the bill, and to refund the purchase price of phone B when someone agreed we had returned it. This was three months later.

On the next bill we see:

Phone number 1: normal monthly charges plus data

Phone number 2: refund for purchase price of phone B, refund for activation fee

Phone number 3: monthly charges plus data prorated to some random date, early termination fee.

So my argument now stands at two early termination fees and all of the monthly charges on phone number 3 that accumulated while they took their sweet time.

After a couple more months of harassment, I did manage to get someone to realize we hadn't intentionally "used" phone number 3, and got the early termination fee refunded. I also got someone to realize we hadn't ever used phone number 2, and got that fee refunded. (I'm leaving out lots of "yes you will" "no we won't" emails and heated arguments - it really just took calling back a thousand times until I reached the one guy who wasn't an idiot).

So, after 6 months of argument, my dispute was down to just 3 or so months of monthly charges on phone number 3 that were never refunded. Getting those months refunded is turning out to be a battle of wills, and I think I might win soon. It is now April, and the business trip that started the saga was last May. I smell victory any day now.

Now, I'm not silly enough to not take blame for the craziness of the situation; I recognize it's unusually complicated, but getting a rep to sit down and say "wait, the customer really only wanted one line in one phone, and at no point does it seem they intentionally tried to rip us off, and since we have numerous lines on this account with them, perhaps we could go the extra mile and make this easy for the sake of customer service" shouldn't be this hard.

Thanks for letting me vent."