David Pogue, You Better be Right

I have had half a Treo 650 for the past 9 months or so. The keyboard got marinated in a skim latte with sugar. Don't ask; I covered this before. So, I have been stuck mostly with Graffiti to enter text. It has been a major pain. But, I have been unable to purchase a replacement. I did not want to waste $150 to cancel my Sprint contract. But, I could get a new 650 for more than $150 less as a new customer at another carrier. Then, I thought, maybe a Blackberry. They are generally cheaper but I don't like the form factor on some and I really like my Treo. The Motorola Q got my attention for a while, then I played with some phones using Windows Mobile 5.0 and decided I like the Palm OS better.

Finally, Sprint came out with the 700p. The price was enough to give me pause.

Then, I watched David Pogue's video review of the 700p. I like Mr. Pogue. In fact, he is my hero. With the possible exception of CIT Judge, I can't imagine a job more fun than his. My side gig as tech columnist for the Chicago Bar Association's magazine, The Record, is fun. But, it is not the New York Times. I don't have every major and minor tech company begging me to review their latest gizmo. Rather, I beg them to loan me stuff for review. I also don't get to go to trade shows (other than the ABA's Tech Show). I don't work from home. When Jim Coates retires from the Tribune, I am hoping for a call. But, I am not holding my breath.

So, David Pogue. I listened to you and I put my trust in you. I went out and renewed my Sprint contract for two years to get a very small break on a very expensive phone. Tomorrow, I will synch it up with my office computer and, hopefully, be as bowled over as you were.

Sprint, I have a question for you. Why is it that you treat me, a long-term customer in mid-contract, like a pariah? Why do I get the worst possible deal on a new phone? A person walking in off the street would have paid $150 less than me for the same phone. Is there a class action lawyer out there looking into price discrimination in the mobile phone industry? I had a couple crazy options to buy the phone cheaper including creating a new line (which meant giving up my phone number for at least 30 days) or canceling and coming back without a contract (which would net out at no savings). In the end, I felt trapped by my contract with Sprint. I told them so on the phone and in person. No one would budge. I threatened to cancel and get a 700w from Verizon. No one cared. In the end, I did exactly what they knew I would do--I renewed my crazy contract because I need a phone and want this one.

I may be a sap regarding my contract. If so, I have no one to blame but myself. But if this phone is less than perfect, I have David Pogue to blame. You hear me, Mr. Pogue?

Comments

David Pogue said…
I hear you!

I'm telling you, you'll like it! :)

--Pogue
Jun 25, 2006, 11:33:00 PM
Anonymous said…
No different with any other carrier - I jumped ship from Verizon after 8 long and expensive years. Did they care? Of course not. Did they even try to keep me as a customer? Not as much as asking me if there was wnything that they could do.
Jun 26, 2006, 8:08:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance topic. So, let's
Read more

Precious Tritium

Image
One thing I have learned as a customs lawyer who does a lot of classification work is that there are millions of odd items moving in international trade the existence of which I am completely ignorant. Such is the case of the gaseous tritium light sources used in, among other things, firearm sights. These things use tritium sealed in a glass that has been coated in phosphor. The radioactive tritium decays, releasing beta particles, which interact with the phosphor causing it to emit light. In other words, it creates light with no external power source. Pretty cool.  Tritium is, of course, a real thing. It is an isotope of hydrogen. We know this from the excellent documentary "Spider-Man." This comes up in relation to the Court of International Trade decision in Trijicon, Inc. v. United States  in which the importer challenged the tariff classification of several versions of the gaseous tritium light sources ("GTLS"). The plaintiff uses them to make gun sights. The
Read more