Churn, Churn, Churn

G

Guest

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-4B3022.11494920042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...
> Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
> 2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.
>
>
> Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
> give it back now??

Who said his bonus was based on a lower churn rate? From what I see from
that P/R, is that all numbers were improved from last year, especially with
EBITA. As to churn rate, it was down when comparing it to last year's first
quarter. Impressive considering that WLNP came on line in December.
>
> NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.

What does that have to do with the 16.3MM direct customers?

Bob
 
G

Guest

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-4B3022.11494920042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...
> Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
> 2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.

OK- but you failed to mention the following:

"The wireless segment lost 8 cents a share on an adjusted basis, half the
year-ago loss of 16 cents. "

"It's the first time that Sprint PCS has surpassed the company's traditional
wireline operations in total revenue."

http://tinyurl.com/23pl6

and this:

"SG Cowen analyst Tom Watts described Sprint's growth as "fantastic."
"We're seeing the benefits of all the intense marketing over the last couple
of quarters ... and strong uptake of data services," he added."

http://tinyurl.com/2rfwd


Oh- and after all of the posting about the Stockholders Meeting, this might
be of interest to you:

"NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Shareholders at Sprint Corp.'s (FON) annual meeting
Tuesday sided with management and voted to re-elect Linda Koch Lorimer.
Holders also turned down shareholder proposals to curb executive pay and
separate the chairman and chief executive positions."

http://tinyurl.com/36b5x

So, cling to your churn number. That is, cling to that number until
everybody shows higher churn for the quarter, then we'll talk. Its the only
2004 number you have to whine about.

>
>
> Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
> give it back now??

Have a URL for that statement?

>
>
> NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

In article <S1fhc.1$rO.0@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <supportdesk70@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

{ lame attempt at diverting attention from BAD Numbers. }

Getting angry at me won't change the Millions plus folks who voted with
their feet how they felt about Sprint. Thats over 5 million per year.

It's not a troll to post a SprintPCS new release.

Churn for the quarter was 8.7 %. Reported as the monthly 2.9%, and
increase from the 2.7% of the previous quarter, and we had all these
SprintPCS employees on here telling us things were getting better.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-64D154.14504620042004@news02.east.earthlink.net>...
> In article <S1fhc.1$rO.0@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Richards" <supportdesk70@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> { lame attempt at diverting attention from BAD Numbers. }
>
> Getting angry at me won't change the Millions plus folks who voted with
> their feet how they felt about Sprint. Thats over 5 million per year.
>
> It's not a troll to post a SprintPCS new release.
>
> Churn for the quarter was 8.7 %. Reported as the monthly 2.9%, and
> increase from the 2.7% of the previous quarter, and we had all these
> SprintPCS employees on here telling us things were getting better.

So then we'll go by what CNN says:

*****************
Long-distance giants Sprint (FON: Research, Estimates) and AT&T (T:
Research, Estimates) and Baby Bells SBC Communications (SBC: Research,
Estimates) and BellSouth (BLS: Research, Estimates) are also due to
report this week, and none of them are expected to post higher profits
than a year earlier.

For that matter, analysts aren't forecasting earnings growth for any
of these four for the entire year. And Sprint is the only company for
which analysts see a profit increase in 2005.
******************

From http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/technology/telecom/

And since you're all up in arms about PCS being merged back into FON,
then that means that those numbers DO include PCS.

Are you going to call CNN an apologist now?
 
G

Guest

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-64D154.14504620042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <S1fhc.1$rO.0@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Richards" <supportdesk70@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> { lame attempt at diverting attention from BAD Numbers. }
>
> Getting angry at me won't change the Millions plus folks who voted with
> their feet how they felt about Sprint. Thats over 5 million per year.

And over 8 million for Verizon when they report their numbers, even if they
report the same churn as last quarter. So, what's your point?

>
> It's not a troll to post a SprintPCS new release.
>
> Churn for the quarter was 8.7 %. Reported as the monthly 2.9%, and
> increase from the 2.7% of the previous quarter, and we had all these
> SprintPCS employees on here telling us things were getting better.

Keep clinging to the churn number- its the only one that didn't improve over
the previous year.
 
G

Guest

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

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:tc-dnRH_bO69QhjdRVn-vA@adelphia.com...
>
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:rmarkoff-64D154.14504620042004@news02.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <S1fhc.1$rO.0@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "John Richards" <supportdesk70@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > { lame attempt at diverting attention from BAD Numbers. }
> >
> > Getting angry at me won't change the Millions plus folks who voted with
> > their feet how they felt about Sprint. Thats over 5 million per year.
>
> And over 8 million for Verizon when they report their numbers, even if
they
> report the same churn as last quarter. So, what's your point?
>
> >
> > It's not a troll to post a SprintPCS new release.
> >
> > Churn for the quarter was 8.7 %. Reported as the monthly 2.9%, and
> > increase from the 2.7% of the previous quarter, and we had all these
> > SprintPCS employees on here telling us things were getting better.
>
> Keep clinging to the churn number- its the only one that didn't improve
over
> the previous year.

Actually Scott, it did improve over the same quarter last year, which was at
3.1.

Bob
 
G

Guest

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

In article <rmarkoff-4B3022.11494920042004
@news02.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.
>
>

It's 21 million customers, Phillie. And it's DOWN year over year.
Are you saying a 0.2% bump in churn after WLNP settles in is
catastrophic?

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
 
G

Guest

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

In article <rmarkoff-4B3022.11494920042004
@news02.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.
>
>

Woops, missed that one. Although I'd still include the affiliate
customers in any claims, even your false ones.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
 
G

Guest

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

In article <896343612dc52dc920749ccf9f478b1f@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-4B3022.11494920042004
> @news02.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.
> >
> >
>
> Woops, missed that one. Although I'd still include the affiliate
> customers in any claims, even your false ones.

Directly from the SEC filings. So saying my statements are false, is a
bald faced LIE.

Failing to face up to the 5 million folks a year who vote with their
feet about SprintPCS service is why SprintPCS is STILL losing money.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <23d3429347172116ed791c34b44829f4@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:

>
> It's 21 million customers. And it's DOWN year over year.
> Are you saying a 0.2% bump in churn after WLNP settles in is
> catastrophic?

It's 16.4 Postpaid direct customers, against whom churn is calculated.

If you don't like those numbers, your argument is with SprintPCS,
who filed that with the SEC, and not me.

Considering Lauer was quoted as saying WLNP would be neutral, and many
apologists were saying SprintPCS was coming out ahead from WLNP, seeing
that churn went up, shows who the LIARs really are.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <7e761144.0404201832.123e352d@posting.google.com>,
pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:

> *****************
> Long-distance giants Sprint (FON: Research, Estimates) and AT&T (T:
> Research, Estimates) and Baby Bells SBC Communications (SBC: Research,
> Estimates) and BellSouth (BLS: Research, Estimates) are also due to
> report this week, and none of them are expected to post higher profits
> than a year earlier.
>
> For that matter, analysts aren't forecasting earnings growth for any
> of these four for the entire year. And Sprint is the only company for
> which analysts see a profit increase in 2005.

And SprintPCS is still losing money. I quote directly from their SEC
filings, not from 3rd party statements about the wireline company.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-895090.05353021042004@news02.east.earthlink.net>...
> In article <7e761144.0404201832.123e352d@posting.google.com>,
> pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:
>
> > *****************
> > Long-distance giants Sprint (FON: Research, Estimates) and AT&T (T:
> > Research, Estimates) and Baby Bells SBC Communications (SBC: Research,
> > Estimates) and BellSouth (BLS: Research, Estimates) are also due to
> > report this week, and none of them are expected to post higher profits
> > than a year earlier.
> >
> > For that matter, analysts aren't forecasting earnings growth for any
> > of these four for the entire year. And Sprint is the only company for
> > which analysts see a profit increase in 2005.
>
> And SprintPCS is still losing money. I quote directly from their SEC
> filings, not from 3rd party statements about the wireline company.

Well, Sprint can't make a statement like the one I did from CNN, yet
that statement is made by analysts.

And as for it being PCS vs. Sprint corp, as of Friday, it won't
matter, they'll be the same organization.

If whether a company makes or loses money that big of an issue, then
leave, go to Verizon who you brag about them making a profit.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-528BCA.05334621042004@news02.east.earthlink.net>...
>>
> Considering Lauer was quoted as saying WLNP would be neutral, and many
> apologists were saying SprintPCS was coming out ahead from WLNP, seeing
> that churn went up, shows who the LIARs really are.

And you said the PCS stock would toumble to nothing and Sprint would
be out of business.

Shows who the liar in this newsgroup is.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <7e761144.0404210558.56adc487@posting.google.com>,
pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:

> If whether a company makes or loses money that big of an issue, then
> leave, go to Verizon who you brag about them making a profit.

I am just posting what a SprintPCS press release said. If you are
unhappy about that, your argument is with SprintPCS, not me.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-2203BE.09482721042004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
> In article <7e761144.0404210558.56adc487@posting.google.com>,
> pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:
>
> > If whether a company makes or loses money that big of an issue, then
> > leave, go to Verizon who you brag about them making a profit.
>
> I am just posting what a SprintPCS press release said. If you are
> unhappy about that, your argument is with SprintPCS, not me.

But my argument that you post like a broken record is with you.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <7e761144.0404211109.6ded9500@posting.google.com>,
pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:

> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:<rmarkoff-528BCA.05334621042004@news02.east.earthlink.net>...
> >>
> > Considering Lauer was quoted as saying WLNP would be neutral, and many
> > apologists were saying SprintPCS was coming out ahead from WLNP, seeing
> > that churn went up, shows who the LIARs really are.
>
> And you said the PCS stock would toumble to nothing and Sprint would
> be out of business.

And the URL for that is:

You can't find one as it doesn't exit.

>
> Shows who the liar in this newsgroup is.


Is O/Siris posting under your account?

No, I said SprintPCS as we know it would not exist by end of 2004, and I
am spot-on. Its being absorbed into Sprint.

In November I posted:

" Unless Customer Service is changed, SprintPCS as we know it will not
be here in 12 months."

And even though its being outsourced to IBM, (I think we can both agree
that qualifies as a change), SprintPCS will not exist as we know it by
November 2004, as its performance will not be broken out like it is now
for the SEC.

And even now SprintPCS is hiding data.

No data on win-loss numbers from WLNP.

No numbers this quarter on $$$ cost for acquistion per new customer.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <7e761144.0404211100.33646062@posting.google.com>,
pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:

> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:<rmarkoff-2203BE.09482721042004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
> > In article <7e761144.0404210558.56adc487@posting.google.com>,
> > pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:
> >
> > > If whether a company makes or loses money that big of an issue, then
> > > leave, go to Verizon who you brag about them making a profit.
> >
> > I am just posting what a SprintPCS press release said. If you are
> > unhappy about that, your argument is with SprintPCS, not me.
>
> But my argument that you post like a broken record is with you.

Posting about an April 20 Press Release on April 20, is hardly a broken
record. If SprintPCS has losses every quarter that is the broken record,
not my posting the new results.
 

Eric

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,373
0
19,280
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<Posting about an April 20 Press Release on April 20, is hardly a
broken record. If SprintPCS has losses every quarter that is the broken
record, not my posting the new results. >>

I think he was referring to your constant posting of "Sprint PCS rates
last in CS according to Consumer Reports/JD Powers" and "customers vote
with their feet" stuff. That sounds like a broken record, day after
day, and usually multiple times each day.
 
G

Guest

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-06A09F.14484421042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <7e761144.0404211109.6ded9500@posting.google.com>,
> pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:
>
> > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:<rmarkoff-528BCA.05334621042004@news02.east.earthlink.net>...
> > >>
> > > Considering Lauer was quoted as saying WLNP would be neutral, and many
> > > apologists were saying SprintPCS was coming out ahead from WLNP,
seeing
> > > that churn went up, shows who the LIARs really are.
> >
> > And you said the PCS stock would toumble to nothing and Sprint would
> > be out of business.
>
> And the URL for that is:
>
> You can't find one as it doesn't exit.

Sure it does, here's one right here, under your Catonhat ID -
http://tinyurl.com/ysx4o

Here's another - http://tinyurl.com/ytwvs What's interesting in this one, is
I found another different new ID on him, and within this one thread,
Phillipe posts with 5 separate IDs. Up to 67 separate IDs now.

One more here - http://tinyurl.com/2pval This one says SPCS is out of
business in 2005.


>
> >
> > Shows who the liar in this newsgroup is.

Why, it's you of course.
>
>
> Is O/Siris posting under your account?
>
> No, I said SprintPCS as we know it would not exist by end of 2004, and I
> am spot-on. Its being absorbed into Sprint.

Nope, you said that they would be out of business ... flat ... period. Don't
try to cover your ass with this bullshit now!

>
> In November I posted:
>
> " Unless Customer Service is changed, SprintPCS as we know it will not
> be here in 12 months."
>
> And even though its being outsourced to IBM, (I think we can both agree
> that qualifies as a change), SprintPCS will not exist as we know it by
> November 2004, as its performance will not be broken out like it is now
> for the SEC.
>
> And even now SprintPCS is hiding data.
>
> No data on win-loss numbers from WLNP.
>
> No numbers this quarter on $$$ cost for acquistion per new customer.

So what? Those are all false arguments. All they need to show is their what
the number of customers they have, and they do that via the net increase
numbers. There is no requirement to your alleged win-loss numbers from WLNP.
Why is it necessary to say what the new customer acquisition costs are?

Bob

Bob
 
G

Guest

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

In article <rmarkoff-2203BE.09482721042004
@news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> I am just posting what a SprintPCS press release said.
>

No, liar, you are not. You are adding to it. Editorializing.
--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
 
G

Guest

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

In article <rmarkoff-9F45A8.14562721042004
@news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> In article <7e761144.0404211100.33646062@posting.google.com>,
> pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:
>
> > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:<rmarkoff-2203BE.09482721042004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
> > > In article <7e761144.0404210558.56adc487@posting.google.com>,
> > > pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:
> > >
> > > > If whether a company makes or loses money that big of an issue, then
> > > > leave, go to Verizon who you brag about them making a profit.
> > >
> > > I am just posting what a SprintPCS press release said. If you are
> > > unhappy about that, your argument is with SprintPCS, not me.
> >
> > But my argument that you post like a broken record is with you.
>
> Posting about an April 20 Press Release on April 20, is hardly a broken
> record. If SprintPCS has losses every quarter that is the broken record,
> not my posting the new results.
>

Posting it in four different threads within a couple of hours *is*
like a broken record.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
 
G

Guest

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

In article <ceb66561b08b02782bde2ff234bf6b7b@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-2203BE.09482721042004
> @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > I am just posting what a SprintPCS press release said.
> >
>
> No, liar, you are not. You are adding to it. Editorializing.

As if you never editorialize. THAT'S all you do.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <bb9f269cfb3c472b08bd7e0e66cb0e59@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-9F45A8.14562721042004
> @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > In article <7e761144.0404211100.33646062@posting.google.com>,
> > pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:
> >
> > > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<rmarkoff-2203BE.09482721042004@news05.east.earthlink.net>...
> > > > In article <7e761144.0404210558.56adc487@posting.google.com>,
> > > > pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If whether a company makes or loses money that big of an issue, then
> > > > > leave, go to Verizon who you brag about them making a profit.
> > > >
> > > > I am just posting what a SprintPCS press release said. If you are
> > > > unhappy about that, your argument is with SprintPCS, not me.
> > >
> > > But my argument that you post like a broken record is with you.
> >
> > Posting about an April 20 Press Release on April 20, is hardly a broken
> > record. If SprintPCS has losses every quarter that is the broken record,
> > not my posting the new results.
> >
>
> Posting it in four different threads within a couple of hours *is*
> like a broken record.
>
> --

Responding to the broken record of different apologists is what causes
that.

Lauer bragged that SprintPCS would be a WLNP winner, so where are the
results? Why is SprintPCS sitting on the numbers? No wonder CALPARS
recommends voteing against Sprint's Director.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-59A904.08050622042004@news04.east.earthlink.net>...
>
> Lauer bragged that SprintPCS would be a WLNP winner, so where are the
> results? Why is SprintPCS sitting on the numbers? No wonder CALPARS
> recommends voteing against Sprint's Director.

All the companies said that, and before you start with the "just
because they all did it, doesn't make it right", I don't see any
complaints from you about all the other carriers.

Now, he said that (like they all did) because it's their job to make
the company appear it's doing very well (like all corp big-wigs like
him). How good of a PR face would that have been if anyone has stood
up and said "Hey, we're going to lose most of our subscribers".

And acts like this are all over the place, how often do we hear GW
Bush say "The economy is getting better and better" which I still have
YET to see any improvement, I see the same jobs om Monster.com that I
have been for the past few years, comission only sales, work at home
etc.. I don't see it getting better.

Just after Sept 11th (I do apologize for bringing up a sore subject,
if it still is to anyone), top Wall Street analysts for CNN, MSNBC,
FOX etc. were all saying "We expect the markets to shoot up, we're
going to be buying like crazy" well, I don't need to remind us what
happened to the markets in the weeks that followed.

IN times of uncertainty, our leaders and figureheads try to put up an
act of optomism. Why? They don't want us to panic. If any of the
wireless CEOs or whatever said in mid-November 2003 that they expected
to lose a lot with WLNP, I guarantee you that would make them lose a
LOT more, the general public panic, and to prevent that, leaders put
up an act of optomism.