marioc21 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Well Sprint certainly doesn't need this. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/sprint-newyork-lawsuit-idUSL2E8FJ6ZM20120419 Not the time to trying to fend off a $300 million lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roberto Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 You beat me by 6 minutes! Didn't even see the post. But you're right, this has certainly come at a bad time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4GRU Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 You beat me by 6 minutes! Didn't even see the post. But you're right, this has certainly come at a bad time. Roberto, I am going to remove your thread. Thanks for posting, though! Glad so many of our members are paying close attention. Rober Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbi Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 "Sprint categorically denies..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4GRU Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I love this quote: With this lawsuit, the Attorney General's office is claiming New York consumers, who already pay some of the highest wireless taxes in the country, should pay even more. We intend to stand up for New York consumers' rights and fight this suit." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioc21 Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) I love this quote: Unfortunately when you read the details of what's being alleged, Sprint may be in some trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if Sprint tries to settle this thing before it goes to trial. Link to complete WSJ article. http://online.wsj.co...0582832286.html Obviously, the attorney general is just trying to make a name for himself to advance his career. He's found a big fish he can go after and generate some headlines. Edited April 20, 2012 by S4GRU Removed quote of WSJ article to protect S4GRU from infringement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffDTD Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 I don't think this was ever about Sprint being able to "keep taxes low for customers" If that were important, they wouldn't have ever tacked on those "Admin fees" that we all get. I'd think the discrepancy is more-so in how much of those taxes collected they turn over to the state. I think I'd rather them collect the maximum allowed tax on the plan (thus avoiding lawsuits) and can the admin fees that line their pockets. But oh well. Its a little disgraceful to me that an employee or someone with access to internal emails chose to keep emails and take them to the state. Its quite possible that sprint could argue those emails are not permissible evidence based on how they were obtained. Of course, considering the anti-big business attitude that is permeating through our society today and in the courts, its likely the judge will allow them on face value alone. If the state issued a clarifying memo in 2002, it would be valuable to revisit the memo with direct reference to the "wireless ecosystem" in 2002. At that time, text messaging had NOT been embraced by the general public at excess. Most of us had minute plans that included a few messages and didn't charge for them incoming, etc. Vision plans (internet) were available , but they also USED MINUTES ON YOUR PLAN, so, the minute bucket itself's usage itself would allot for talk and data while they could argue most customers did not subscribe to text in 2002. Sprint's interpretation of the law would have worked for them in 2002. So, if the memo was issued in 2002, considering the wireless environment, what was the state's actual intent at the time? And are the other carriers collecting and paying taxes for data plans and messaging plans today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiWavelength Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Here's the complete WSJ article. http://online.wsj.co...0582832286.html Mario, I apologize if I have you confused with someone else, but have you not already been warned once about posting full text articles (especially WSJ articles)? http://s4gru.com/index.php?/page/index.html/_/site-guidelines-rules/guidelines-about-posting-articles-from-outside-websites-r26 AJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioc21 Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Mario, I apologize if I have you confused with someone else, but have you not already been warned once about posting full text articles (especially WSJ articles)? http://s4gru.com/ind...de-websites-r26 AJ No, I was not. But it's duly noted for the future. Edit: Had to double check to make sure. No, that wasn't me. But I'll stick to just links in the future. Edited April 20, 2012 by marioc21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strung Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Typical New York. Taxing everything any anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.