Another Carrier Reports a profit.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

While SprintPCS just reported 2 days ago still being in the red;
Nextel just reported its results. Nextel has the same "issues" with
potential loss of customers from WLNP.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=2&u=/ap/20040422/
ap_on_bi_ge/earns_nextel&sid=95573418

It reported profits of $591 million for the last quarter.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<While SprintPCS just reported 2 days ago still being in the red;
Nextel just reported its results. Nextel has the same "issues" with
potential loss of customers from WLNP.
It reported profits of $591 million for the last quarter.>>

Bully for them. And how does this pertain to sprint users or newbies
seeking information on how to use their service?
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

caperenewal@webtv.net (Eric) wrote in message news:<13095-40883F17-309@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>...
> rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
> <<While SprintPCS just reported 2 days ago still being in the red;
> Nextel just reported its results. Nextel has the same "issues" with
> potential loss of customers from WLNP.
> It reported profits of $591 million for the last quarter.>>
>
> Bully for them. And how does this pertain to sprint users or newbies
> seeking information on how to use their service?


Becasue Sprint bailed them out a few years ago by paying to renew
their walkie-talkie service patent.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <7e761144.0404221842.174635fe@posting.google.com>,
pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:

> caperenewal@webtv.net (Eric) wrote in message
> news:<13095-40883F17-309@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net>...
> > rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
> > <<While SprintPCS just reported 2 days ago still being in the red;
> > Nextel just reported its results. Nextel has the same "issues" with
> > potential loss of customers from WLNP.
> > It reported profits of $591 million for the last quarter.>>
> >
> > Bully for them. And how does this pertain to sprint users or newbies
> > seeking information on how to use their service?
>
>
> Becasue Sprint bailed them out a few years ago by paying to renew
> their walkie-talkie service patent.

And the URL for that is, or are you repeating SprintPCS company lore?

You sure you're not confusing it with SprintPCS licensing using a Nextel
patent for VPN with its PC Internet Access cards ??

In any event it doesn't explain the outrageous bonus SprintPCS
Executives got at a time when SprintPCS is still losing money and have
an increased churn.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-FBC725.04511623042004
@news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...

>
> And the URL for that is, or are you repeating SprintPCS company lore?
>
> You sure you're not confusing it with SprintPCS licensing using a Nextel
> patent for VPN with its PC Internet Access cards ??
>
> In any event it doesn't explain the outrageous bonus SprintPCS
> Executives got at a time when SprintPCS is still losing money and have
> an increased churn.
>

Go look up GAAP sometime. Year over year, churn is *down.* So, too,
is debt. We paid down over a billion in long term debt, and paid it
early.

It's not nearly the ill picture you try to paint, Phillie. But then,
truth never has been a strong suit of yours. Nor, I suspect, even a
goal.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <f78a4e86637a26d37b74ef60d3d81c0f@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-FBC725.04511623042004
> @news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
>
> >
> > And the URL for that is, or are you repeating SprintPCS company lore?
> >
> > You sure you're not confusing it with SprintPCS licensing using a Nextel
> > patent for VPN with its PC Internet Access cards ??
> >
> > In any event it doesn't explain the outrageous bonus SprintPCS
> > Executives got at a time when SprintPCS is still losing money and have
> > an increased churn.
> >
>
> Go look up GAAP sometime. Year over year, churn is *down.*

But its still so high, SprintPCS is losing money. Its up from the last
quarter/ and SprintPCS is refusing to tell other telling numbers:

- Comparison of loses versus gains for WLNP

- Cost of new customer acquisition for the 1st quarter.

=====


By the way, did you get a bonus of thirty times your salary,
like Lauer did?
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<But its still so high, SprintPCS is losing money. Its up from the last
quarter/ and SprintPCS is refusing to tell other telling numbers: >>

Broken record.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-17524F.05521523042004@news04.east.earthlink.net...

>
> But its still so high, SprintPCS is losing money.

And if you were to look at Nextels' churn numbers from just three years ago,
they would have been worse than Sprint's today. As would their quarterly
loss, debt and customer satisfaction. Now ask yourself- how much longer has
Nextel been doing this? See the pattern?

>Its up from the last
> quarter/ and SprintPCS is refusing to tell other telling numbers:
>
> - Comparison of loses versus gains for WLNP
>
> - Cost of new customer acquisition for the 1st quarter.

Hmmmm- didn't see Nextel report WNLP numbers, either, and they buried the
customer acquisition costs, because it was much higher than last year.


>
> =====
>
>
> By the way, did you get a bonus of thirty times your salary,
> like Lauer did?

No, but the CEO for Nextel has, even in the lean years.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-17524F.05521523042004
@news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> But its still so high, SprintPCS is losing money. Its up from the last
> quarter/ and SprintPCS is refusing to tell other telling numbers:
>
> - Comparison of loses versus gains for WLNP
>
> - Cost of new customer acquisition for the 1st quarter.
>

No, but thank you for your typically inane response. Subscribership
is up, a 0.2% uptick in churn from quarter to quarter is actually *in
line* with predictions about WLNP (up or down, it would be minimal).
What exactly would cost to acquire change about the picture, Phillie?
Revenue is up, debt is down, that certainly sounds like a strong cash
flow. What would cost per subscriber tell you that isn't already
there?

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <b5695bb4e926d479800d0d904140f279@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:

> *in
> line* with predictions about WLNP (up or down, it would be minimal)

Baloney. SprintPCS has not released the WLNP numbers that support such a
statement.

It also has no released it customer acquisition cost, previously the
highest in the industry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-3FB383.05473524042004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <b5695bb4e926d479800d0d904140f279@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > *in
> > line* with predictions about WLNP (up or down, it would be minimal)
>
> Baloney. SprintPCS has not released the WLNP numbers that support such a
> statement.

Neither did Nextel, who also reported a .2% increase in churn, and has been
recognized as having the lowest churn i the industry for over a year now.

>
> It also has no released it customer acquisition cost, previously the
> highest in the industry.

Once again, this is not correct- keeping in line with the original post in
this thread, Nextel has reported CPGA at least 10% higher than Sprint for a
few quarters now.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-3FB383.05473524042004@news03.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <b5695bb4e926d479800d0d904140f279@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > *in
> > line* with predictions about WLNP (up or down, it would be minimal)
>
> Baloney. SprintPCS has not released the WLNP numbers that support such a
> statement.
>
> It also has no released it customer acquisition cost, previously the
> highest in the industry.

Once again, two false arguments by Phillipe ...

Bob
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-3FB383.05473524042004
@news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> Baloney. SprintPCS has not released the WLNP numbers that support such a
> statement.

Churn increased 0.2% in the last quarter over the previous. how bad
can it be? Not much at all. And in line with what was predicted. A
minimal impact.

>
> It also has no released it customer acquisition cost, previously the
> highest in the industry.
>

You still haven't responded to why this matters in any way that isn't
already reported.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <edc889105124a3cd96baaf94c2ed2911@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-3FB383.05473524042004
> @news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > Baloney. SprintPCS has not released the WLNP numbers that support such a
> > statement.
>
> Churn increased 0.2% in the last quarter over the previous. how bad
> can it be? Not much at all. And in line with what was predicted. A
> minimal impact.

Liar, not in line with predictions.

Let's do the math. .2% per month = 2.4% per year. With 16.3 million
customers, thats 455,200 Extra Customers Lost. At an average of
$61/month each thats $27,312,00 lost.

$27 Million + is "Not much at all" If this doesn't fit the definition
of a Blind Sprint apologist, nothing does.

Lauer also predicted SprintPCS would be a winner from WLNP and then
didnt puiblish those numbers.

Lauer also predicted decreasing costs, and then didnt publish cost of
new customer acquisition.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

So ?
What is your point and how do you expect the group to this ?
You reported it, ok, thanks.
Now why not move on ?

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <edc889105124a3cd96baaf94c2ed2911@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <rmarkoff-3FB383.05473524042004
>>@news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
>>
>>>Baloney. SprintPCS has not released the WLNP numbers that support such a
>>>statement.
>>
>>Churn increased 0.2% in the last quarter over the previous. how bad
>>can it be? Not much at all. And in line with what was predicted. A
>>minimal impact.
>
>
> Liar, not in line with predictions.
>
> Let's do the math. .2% per month = 2.4% per year. With 16.3 million
> customers, thats 455,200 Extra Customers Lost. At an average of
> $61/month each thats $27,312,00 lost.
>
> $27 Million + is "Not much at all" If this doesn't fit the definition
> of a Blind Sprint apologist, nothing does.
>
> Lauer also predicted SprintPCS would be a winner from WLNP and then
> didnt puiblish those numbers.
>
> Lauer also predicted decreasing costs, and then didnt publish cost of
> new customer acquisition.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <f6Qic.11502$e4.242@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
r2175 <razor@nospam.com> wrote:

> So ?
> What is your point and how do you expect the group to this ?
> You reported it, ok, thanks.
> Now why not move on ?


You became the moderator for all of USENET, when?

You move on.



>
> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > In article <edc889105124a3cd96baaf94c2ed2911@news.teranews.com>,
> > O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <rmarkoff-3FB383.05473524042004
> >>@news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> >>
> >>>Baloney. SprintPCS has not released the WLNP numbers that support such a
> >>>statement.
> >>
> >>Churn increased 0.2% in the last quarter over the previous. how bad
> >>can it be? Not much at all. And in line with what was predicted. A
> >>minimal impact.
> >
> >
> > Liar, not in line with predictions.
> >
> > Let's do the math. .2% per month = 2.4% per year. With 16.3 million
> > customers, thats 455,200 Extra Customers Lost. At an average of
> > $61/month each thats $27,312,00 lost.
> >
> > $27 Million + is "Not much at all" If this doesn't fit the definition
> > of a Blind Sprint apologist, nothing does.
> >
> > Lauer also predicted SprintPCS would be a winner from WLNP and then
> > didnt puiblish those numbers.
> >
> > Lauer also predicted decreasing costs, and then didnt publish cost of
> > new customer acquisition.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<You became the moderator for all of USENET, when? >>

The same time you grew a brain and became intelligent. Oh insulting
you... not very Christian of me, eh?
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. wrote:

> In article <f6Qic.11502$e4.242@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> r2175 <razor@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So ?
>> What is your point and how do you expect the group to this ?
>>You reported it, ok, thanks.
>>Now why not move on ?
>
>
>
> You became the moderator for all of USENET, when?

Never, I was making a suggestion to try and resolve a pointless feud.
One you seem to relish, I don't wanna flame anyone , but you yourself
have posted many times about people dumping on you when you try to state
an opinion.
Now you are doing exactly the same thing.
Maybe you should cool out, not saying leave or anything, but take a
break and get perspective.
>
> You move on.

Now who's acting like the moderator ? seriously, chill out ok ?
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <rmarkoff-4A4AE6.05393225042004
@news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
>
> Liar, not in line with predictions.
>
> Let's do the math. .2% per month = 2.4% per year. With 16.3 million
> customers, thats 455,200 Extra Customers Lost. At an average of
> $61/month each thats $27,312,00 lost.
>
> $27 Million + is "Not much at all" If this doesn't fit the definition
> of a Blind Sprint apologist, nothing does.

Y'know, if you hide it well enough, you can use "math" to prove that
2 equals 0. Your "math" is equally as credible.

>
> Lauer also predicted SprintPCS would be a winner from WLNP and then
> didnt puiblish those numbers.
>

He predicted a minimal impact, but that SPCS would come out somewhat
ahead. Hardly the trumpeting you try to make it out to be.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <60e2336b01a5269005e666d736be8c32@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-4A4AE6.05393225042004
> @news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> >
> > Liar, not in line with predictions.
> >
> > Let's do the math. .2% per month = 2.4% per year. With 16.3 million
> > customers, thats 455,200 Extra Customers Lost. At an average of
> > $61/month each thats $27,312,00 lost.
> >
> > $27 Million + is "Not much at all" If this doesn't fit the definition
> > of a Blind Sprint apologist, nothing does.
>
> Y'know, if you hide it well enough, you can use "math" to prove that
> 2 equals 0. Your "math" is equally as credible.

Fine, where's my error? There is none, Just a continuing part of your
false statements when your proven wrong.

..2% increase in Churn is a BIG DEAL, it adds up to over $27 million lost
revenue a year, and that doesn't include downloaded ringers, screen
savers or overages or roaming and long distance charges.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-0FF129.07075226042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <60e2336b01a5269005e666d736be8c32@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <rmarkoff-4A4AE6.05393225042004
> > @news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > >
> > > Liar, not in line with predictions.
> > >
> > > Let's do the math. .2% per month = 2.4% per year. With 16.3 million
> > > customers, thats 455,200 Extra Customers Lost. At an average of
> > > $61/month each thats $27,312,00 lost.
> > >
> > > $27 Million + is "Not much at all" If this doesn't fit the definition
> > > of a Blind Sprint apologist, nothing does.
> >
> > Y'know, if you hide it well enough, you can use "math" to prove that
> > 2 equals 0. Your "math" is equally as credible.
>
> Fine, where's my error? There is none, Just a continuing part of your
> false statements when your proven wrong.
>
> .2% increase in Churn is a BIG DEAL, it adds up to over $27 million lost
> revenue a year, and that doesn't include downloaded ringers, screen
> savers or overages or roaming and long distance charges.

Where's your error? I've already pointed out your flawed math ...

Bob
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <%3Zic.9385$eZ5.4788@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
r2175 <razor@nospam.com> wrote:

> Never, I was making a suggestion to try and resolve a pointless feud.
> One you seem to relish, I don't wanna flame anyone , but you yourself
> have posted many times about people dumping on you when you try to state
> an opinion.

Fine your opinion is duly noted. Now speak to the Blind SprintPCS
apologists that use obscene language, and you'll have some credibility.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<and you'll have some credibility. >>

You, who has 60+ different ids and misquotes people all the time, have
the balls to tell someone else how to get credibility? Whahahahaha!
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-0FF129.07075226042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <60e2336b01a5269005e666d736be8c32@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <rmarkoff-4A4AE6.05393225042004
> > @news03.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > >
> > > Liar, not in line with predictions.
> > >
> > > Let's do the math. .2% per month = 2.4% per year. With 16.3 million
> > > customers, thats 455,200 Extra Customers Lost. At an average of
> > > $61/month each thats $27,312,00 lost.
> > >
> > > $27 Million + is "Not much at all" If this doesn't fit the definition
> > > of a Blind Sprint apologist, nothing does.
> >
> > Y'know, if you hide it well enough, you can use "math" to prove that
> > 2 equals 0. Your "math" is equally as credible.
>
> Fine, where's my error? There is none, Just a continuing part of your
> false statements when your proven wrong.
>
> .2% increase in Churn is a BIG DEAL, it adds up to over $27 million lost
> revenue a year, and that doesn't include downloaded ringers, screen
> savers or overages or roaming and long distance charges.

No, it doesn't unless you can guarantee the following, with cited sources:

1. The customers that churned had an average monthly revenue that matched
reported ARPU. Unlikely, as the high ARPU is directly attributed to
Sprint's large Corporate base, and would be significantly lower if just
consumer nembers were used.

2. The customers replacing those that left had an ARPU significantly lower
than those that left. In light of the current plan structure, this is
highly unlikely.

3. Actually, in order for it to be a loss, you would have to show that the
ARPU for those replacement customers was $0.


You can try to play your little spin game here- I'll bury your ass so deep
you'll need a Chinese dictionary to ask for help out. You see, unlike you,
who conveniently picks and chooses which numbers he thinks are bad, I get
paid really good money to analyze all of the carriers, and know more about
these numbers than you could ever hope for. So, play your little game- I
would take great pleasure in picking apart your stupidity yet one more time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom