Fair & Flexible

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Robert M. <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote:

> Sorry Steve:
>
> As is commonly the case with the lying Sprint reps, you were lied to so
> they could make a sale.

You're inferring things. Not to say you're wrong, but you can't determine
either way from the information quoted. All it covers is the first three
months.

>
> =============
>
> From: Bob Smith (usirsclt@earthlink.net)
> Subject: Re: New pricing Plan revealed: How fair??
> Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
> Date: 2004-05-04 08:04:26 PST
>
>
> ...
>
> From SPCS's PR -
>
> "Sprint PCS Right Plan Promise - Within the first three months of
> signing a Sprint PCS Advantage Agreement, new and existing customers can
> change their service plan to a plan with an equal term without incurring
> any fees or having to extend or renew the agreement. "
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> ===========================

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Oh, for 6 months into a 1 year Advantage Agreement instead of 3
months into a 2 year Advantage Agreement, that would be even shorter,
totaling only 1 year and 6 months, again not very long, especially for
long time customers already.


Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Even it it did, at the end it would total only 2 years and 3
>>months. Not a long time really. Especially for someone like you and me
>>who have been with them for years already.
>
>
> If I was halfway into my contract would it not extend it another 12 months?
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Oh, for 6 months into a 1 year Advantage Agreement instead of 3
> months into a 2 year Advantage Agreement, that would be even shorter,
> totaling only 1 year and 6 months, again not very long, especially for
> long time customers already.

It's a matter of opinion there... and simple plan changes that don't
involve taking promotions should NOT extend your contract, IMHO.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <2XwHc.9902$R36.7383@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Oh, for 6 months into a 1 year Advantage Agreement instead of 3
> months into a 2 year Advantage Agreement, that would be even shorter,
> totaling only 1 year and 6 months, again not very long, especially for
> long time customers already.
>
>
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
> > Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Even it it did, at the end it would total only 2 years and 3
> >>months. Not a long time really. Especially for someone like you and me
> >>who have been with them for years already.
> >
> >
> > If I was halfway into my contract would it not extend it another 12 months?
> >

Depends on the Plan change. Some features (7 PM Nights for instance)
require 2 year contracts.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 15:16:58 GMT, dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com (Daniel
Tso) wrote:

>So who thinks that F&F is or will be a successful offering to compete with
>RollOver ? Does anyone think that F&F is as desireable as RollOver ?

Not me. I've done the math based on my calling pattern over the last
year, and figure that the RollOver plan will cost me considerably less
over a 12 month period.

>
>To me these two don't even address the same market: F&F as pointed out
>here, only makes sense for the low-volume user, whereas RollOver is a feature
>only offered for the higher volume plans from Cingular and indeed is
>an incentive to switch to a more costly plan. My own read of the market is
>that RollOver is much more appealing to the customer (regardless of
>whether is actually makes any difference in the end), and that F&F
>doesn't even begin to offer any market competition to RollOver, contrary
>to the originally rumored premise.
>
>In article <2kg8thF22bv4U1@uni-berlin.de>, Sharon <me7@privacy.net> wrote:
>>That's true if the usage stays pretty low volume. However, if I go with
>>the 500 minutes, which I am also considering, and used almost all of
>>those 500 minutes it would cost me $15 more on the Fair & Flexible Plan.
>>
>
>>> Duh ??? It makes no sense to go with the 300 minute Free and Clear. If
>>> you go over your 300 minutes, its 40 cents per min, talk 10 min = $4. Fair
>>> and Flexible costs you $2.50 for 25 min. If you go over by 50 min on F&C,
>>> costs you $20.00 vs $5.00 for F&F. A no brainer.

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

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 14:17:54 GMT, dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com (Daniel
Tso) wrote:

>>> Whereas a Rollover option would allow all of these people to simply choose a
>>> monthly plan roughly equal to their mean usage.
>>
>>So you mean Cingular's plans are more reasonable for most people?
>
>This discussion was NOT about Sprint vs Cingular. It was about whether F&F is

In effect, it is, since Cingular is the only provider that offers
RollOver minutes.

>an effective competitive response to Rollover and meets the goals of offering
>an attractive option for those customers that need a plan that is "fair and
>flexible", i.e. won't gouge you if your usage pattern is highly variable from
>month to month. My contention is that F&F fails on these counts, that, as
>implemented, it only makes sense for a very small group, roughly those who
>mean usage is around 350min with a variance of around 50-100, and the original
>expectation, that F&F would be BETTER than Rollover is simply not met.

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

ddm46@att.net wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 15:16:58 GMT, dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com (Daniel
> Tso) wrote:
>
>>So who thinks that F&F is or will be a successful offering to compete with
>>RollOver ? Does anyone think that F&F is as desireable as RollOver ?
>
> Not me. I've done the math based on my calling pattern over the last
> year, and figure that the RollOver plan will cost me considerably less
> over a 12 month period.

The fact is that Rollover makes more sense. F&F is cool, but it won't work
for most people, and may end up costing them more. What Sprint *should* have
done is just implemented a rollover program and called it F&F, since
RollOver is a Cingular trademark.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

On the other hand, why make a change to improve your plan, if you
don't intend to stay with them for a while?


Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, for 6 months into a 1 year Advantage Agreement instead of 3
>>months into a 2 year Advantage Agreement, that would be even shorter,
>>totaling only 1 year and 6 months, again not very long, especially for
>>long time customers already.
>
>
> It's a matter of opinion there... and simple plan changes that don't
> involve taking promotions should NOT extend your contract, IMHO.
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On the other hand, why make a change to improve your plan, if you
> don't intend to stay with them for a while?

I do, but I don't want to be locked into a contract. I never thought I'd
leave Verizon, and then I moved out here and had problems. I'm stuck with
them until the end of August if I don't want to pay an ETF, which I don't
because I don't have an extra $175 lying around right now.

We were just offered 8pm nights and weekends and 350 minutes and unlimited
PCS to PCS for $35, which gives us 8pm instead of 9pm and 50 more peak minutes
than we are currently getting on my wife's plan, for exactly the same price.
We didn't take it because we try to avoid being under a carrier's thumb, no
matter which carrier it is.

I ignored my own guidelines by signing a two-year agreement with Sprint this
month. It's the first time in years that I've done that with anyone...

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Just a couple of days ago I went from 400 to 500 minutes for $40
with still the 8pm. It required a 1 yr. AA, but only on the primary
phone not on Add-A-Phone. I'm still debating the PCS-to-PCS, but we
were not using more than the 400 as it was so???


Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, why make a change to improve your plan, if you
>>don't intend to stay with them for a while?
>
>
> I do, but I don't want to be locked into a contract. I never thought I'd
> leave Verizon, and then I moved out here and had problems. I'm stuck with
> them until the end of August if I don't want to pay an ETF, which I don't
> because I don't have an extra $175 lying around right now.
>
> We were just offered 8pm nights and weekends and 350 minutes and unlimited
> PCS to PCS for $35, which gives us 8pm instead of 9pm and 50 more peak minutes
> than we are currently getting on my wife's plan, for exactly the same price.
> We didn't take it because we try to avoid being under a carrier's thumb, no
> matter which carrier it is.
>
> I ignored my own guidelines by signing a two-year agreement with Sprint this
> month. It's the first time in years that I've done that with anyone...
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Just a couple of days ago I went from 400 to 500 minutes for $40
> with still the 8pm. It required a 1 yr. AA, but only on the primary
> phone not on Add-A-Phone. I'm still debating the PCS-to-PCS, but we
> were not using more than the 400 as it was so???

So making a simple plan change that doesn't require taking a promotion
*does* extend your contract?

(I'm still trying to get a conclusive answer on this. Although $45/1000
is a nice deal, if I'll just have to change plans again next time I travel,
I'll stick with $50/700. $45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)

(Another note: Our phones are separate. We intentionally avoided getting
a shared-minute plan.)

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Did you get the e-mail I sent you on 11 Jul?


Steven J Sobol wrote:

> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Just a couple of days ago I went from 400 to 500 minutes for $40
>>with still the 8pm. It required a 1 yr. AA, but only on the primary
>>phone not on Add-A-Phone. I'm still debating the PCS-to-PCS, but we
>>were not using more than the 400 as it was so???
>
>
> So making a simple plan change that doesn't require taking a promotion
> *does* extend your contract?
>
> (I'm still trying to get a conclusive answer on this. Although $45/1000
> is a nice deal, if I'll just have to change plans again next time I travel,
> I'll stick with $50/700. $45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)
>
> (Another note: Our phones are separate. We intentionally avoided getting
> a shared-minute plan.)
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Did you get the e-mail I sent you on 11 Jul?

Yup - just read it. About 8:10am Pacific

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Rod <cellular-dude@sprintpcs.com> wrote:
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
> $45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)
>
> No, but $40/750 thru retentions is.

Yes, that'll go over well. I just signed up for a two-year agreement and
now I'm calling Retention? And I can't use the excuse that I'm going to
cancel if I ask them about a plan on a *second* line that I'm about to
activate, so it wouldn't have worked before buying the phone either. :)

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Rod <cellular-dude@sprintpcs.com> wrote:
>> Steven J Sobol wrote:
>> $45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)
>>
>> No, but $40/750 thru retentions is.
>
> Yes, that'll go over well. I just signed up for a two-year agreement
> and now I'm calling Retention? And I can't use the excuse that I'm
> going to cancel if I ask them about a plan on a *second* line that
> I'm about to activate, so it wouldn't have worked before buying the
> phone either. :)

You would be surprised what you can get just for asking. I got 2500/$100 on
a new account in May.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <IqUGc.13690$yd5.8407@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com says...
> Okay, let's take your above statement as the intended market and benefit of
> F&F.
>
> Person A uses an annual mean of 1000 min/month, with a std dev of 500
> min/month (computed annually). Person B uses a mean of 500min/month,
> with a std dev of 300min/month, and Person C uses a mean of 2000min/month
> with a std dev of 1000min/month.
>
> My contention is that F&F is not financially beneficial for any of these
> scenerios when compared with the standard F&C plans EVEN THOUGH these
> people would have to choose a F&C that has monthly minutes equal to their
> (mean + std dev) usage (or more, perhaps even (mean + 2*stddev).
>
> Whereas a Rollover option would allow all of these people to simply choose a
> monthly plan roughly equal to their mean usage.
>

That's an easy contention to make if you're not willing to do the
math behind it. First, Fair & Flexible vs Free & Clear:

Let's just take an imagined 5 months. Someone uses 600 normally, and
that pretty much is the norm for 3 months. But, on two of the
months, they have something, and their usage doubles. 1200 minutes
twice in that time.

First, Fair & Flexible. That's $75 for each of three months, and
$107.50 twice. $440 over 5 months.

Free & Clear we need two alternatives: cover the minutes, or cover
the norm.

Norm: A 700 minute plan at $50/month, for $250 total, but two months
each with 600 minutes in overage. At $0.40/minute, that's $240,
twice. $250+$240+$240. $730.

Total: 1400 minute plan. $80/month. $400. Cheaper, eh?

But that's $80 every single month, and you're using less than half of
what you're paying for every month. And with F&F you don't have to
worry about those minutes eventually disappearing.

Cingular: The only plan that would cover that kind of usage is the
1250 minute plan. Same $400, basically. Anything lower won't cover
the minutes. I can't find out what overage costs with Cingular once
those rollover minutes are gone, but I'd wager it very rapidly eats
up the cost "advantage" involved.

The difference is not nearly so large as you allege, AND the rollover
plan that would cover this level of usage doesn't allow for 7PM night
hours (just to use one example).

No, I think your contention is far more arguable than you claim.

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

In article <MPG.1b5bdd8b481dd5369899e6@free.teranews.com>, O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
>In article <IqUGc.13690$yd5.8407@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,=20
>dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com says...

>> My contention is that F&F is not financially beneficial for any of these
>> scenerios when compared with the standard F&C plans EVEN THOUGH these
>> people would have to choose a F&C that has monthly minutes equal to their
>> (mean + std dev) usage (or more, perhaps even (mean + 2*stddev).
>>
>> Whereas a Rollover option would allow all of these people to simply choose a
>> monthly plan roughly equal to their mean usage.
>>
>
>That's an easy contention to make if you're not willing to do the
>math behind it. First, Fair & Flexible vs Free & Clear:
>
>Let's just take an imagined 5 months. Someone uses 600 normally, and
>that pretty much is the norm for 3 months. But, on two of the
>months, they have something, and their usage doubles. 1200 minutes
>twice in that time.
>
>First, Fair & Flexible. That's $75 for each of three months, and
>$107.50 twice. $440 over 5 months.
>
>Free & Clear we need two alternatives: cover the minutes, or cover
>the norm.
>
>Norm: A 700 minute plan at $50/month, for $250 total, but two months
>each with 600 minutes in overage. At $0.40/minute, that's $240,
>twice. $250+$240+$240. $730.
>
>Total: 1400 minute plan. $80/month. $400. Cheaper, eh?
>
>But that's $80 every single month, and you're using less than half of
>what you're paying for every month. And with F&F you don't have to
>worry about those minutes eventually disappearing.
>
>Cingular: The only plan that would cover that kind of usage is the
>1250 minute plan. Same $400, basically. Anything lower won't cover
>the minutes. I can't find out what overage costs with Cingular once
>those rollover minutes are gone, but I'd wager it very rapidly eats
>up the cost "advantage" involved.
>
>The difference is not nearly so large as you allege, AND the rollover
>plan that would cover this level of usage doesn't allow for 7PM night
>hours (just to use one example).

Well that's interesting. I guess its a "glass half-empty, half-full" scenerio.
I think your example is a little extreme, jumping from 600min to 1200min
on a couple of months, but OK, let's take ALL of what you say above.

You are basically saying that F&F under those conditions didn't fair so
bad compared with the F&C "overbuy" nor the Cingular Rollover plans,
coming in at "only" 10% higher than either ($440 vs 400 vs 400).

Fair enough (...not...) but the way I see it is that under these extreme
conditions you have in fact shown that F&F is in fact worse than these
two other, admittedly outrageous strategies, i.e. if I norm at 600 min, I
still am better off buying 1400min or 1250min/month at $80 than going
with F&F. I personally don't think that makes F&F look very good. As I've
said, F&F is the worse of all the options out there. Its all
right here in your most telling statement:

"But that's $80 every single month, and you're using less than half of
what you're paying for every month. And with F&F you don't have to
worry about those minutes eventually disappearing."

In this statement you are giving negative spin to the "overbuying F&C"
strategy saying that $80/month is too much to pay and seem to be implying
that buying 1400min when you only use 600min norm is a waste. Then you
seem to be refering to the RollOver option and "worrying about minutes
disappearing".

But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see that
$75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as far
as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad about,
not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one sheet.
The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is that
with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.

And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
back to me in the first place is simply laughable.

If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've over-bought
(i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of the
F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Daniel Tso" <dantsodelete@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4spJc.68161$bp1.42491@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
<snipped>

> But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see that
> $75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as far
> as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
> points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
> even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
> The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad
about,
> not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one sheet.
> The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
> structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is that
> with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
> for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.

Your whole discussion, which you started a while ago, is trying to compare F
& F to the amount of minutes YOU normally use Daniel. This F & F plan
doesn't work for high minute users. It's designed for low end users ... who
might go over their 300 minutes a few times a year.

By the way, you've have also mentioned in the past several times that low
end minute users are a very small percentage of SPCS's customer base, and
for at least two times, I've asked you to back up your statement and haven't
seen a reply of how you developed that %.
>
> And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
> having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
> back to me in the first place is simply laughable.
>
> If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
> you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
> to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've
over-bought
> (i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
> feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of
the
> F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
> at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.

Who knows? They might be considering that. Then again, they might not, after
looking at the actual use of monthly minutes for that bracket of customers
and whether they normally exceed 700 AT minutes in a month's time.

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

In article <PruJc.3457$mL5.643@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Daniel Tso" <dantsodelete@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4spJc.68161$bp1.42491@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
><snipped>
>
>> But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see that
>> $75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as far
>> as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
>> points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
>> even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
>> The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad
>about,
>> not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one sheet.
>> The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
>> structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is that
>> with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
>> for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.
>
>Your whole discussion, which you started a while ago, is trying to compare F
>& F to the amount of minutes YOU normally use Daniel. This F & F plan
>doesn't work for high minute users. It's designed for low end users ... who
>might go over their 300 minutes a few times a year.

Nope, sorry. This discussion start, at least my part, when I was reminded that
it was rumored here that F&F was developed as a competitive response to
RollOver. In fact it was touted as being *better* than RollOver. I have
present here why I think that F&F is not better at all and not an effective
competitive response to RollOver. This discussion never had anything to
do with *me*. I have never said what my usage is and you have no idea
about it.

Yes, in my postings I have said that F&F only makes (some) sense for
low minutes users. I offered up the range of 300-350 +- 50-100min. So in
that I *agree* with you that F&F might help those customers. However,
O/Siris countered saying that he thought F&F also make sense for higher
usage customers. The example of 600min/month with 2 months at 1200min
is HIS example, not mine. He shows that F&F is "only" 10% more costly
than overbuying F&C. I think this very example shows exactly that F&F
isn't attractive at all when a customer can instead save money (albeit 10%)
by buying 1400min/month.

>By the way, you've have also mentioned in the past several times that low
>end minute users are a very small percentage of SPCS's customer base, and
>for at least two times, I've asked you to back up your statement and haven't
>seen a reply of how you developed that %.

Nope again, I have *never* said that low-end min users are a very small
percentage. Never said that, sorry. I never would. What I did say, is exactly
as above, and in agreement with you, that F&F only might help a narrow
range of customers, that is those customers whose usage is around 300-350
with variability in the 50-100min range. I mean it to say narrow in the sense
of the possible spectrum of usage, not necessarily in the total distribution
of the population.

Now I can't tell, given your postings whether you think F&F is actually
better than RollOver or even just over-buying F&C or not. That is the
discussion here, not my usage. I would have liked to have seen Sprint
actually offer RollOver, as was originally rumored here, as I think I
would benefit from it, but alas...

>> And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
>> having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
>> back to me in the first place is simply laughable.
>>
>> If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
>> you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
>> to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've
>over-bought
>> (i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
>> feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of
>the
>> F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
>> at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.
>
>Who knows? They might be considering that. Then again, they might not, after
>looking at the actual use of monthly minutes for that bracket of customers
>and whether they normally exceed 700 AT minutes in a month's time.
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

And a lot of people will change to save 3 percent, some for 1
percent.


Daniel Tso wrote:

> In article <PruJc.3457$mL5.643@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"Daniel Tso" <dantsodelete@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:4spJc.68161$bp1.42491@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>><snipped>
>>
>>>But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see that
>>>$75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as far
>>>as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
>>>points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
>>>even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
>>>The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad
>>
>>about,
>>
>>>not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one sheet.
>>>The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
>>>structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is that
>>>with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
>>>for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.
>>
>>Your whole discussion, which you started a while ago, is trying to compare F
>>& F to the amount of minutes YOU normally use Daniel. This F & F plan
>>doesn't work for high minute users. It's designed for low end users ... who
>>might go over their 300 minutes a few times a year.
>
>
> Nope, sorry. This discussion start, at least my part, when I was reminded that
> it was rumored here that F&F was developed as a competitive response to
> RollOver. In fact it was touted as being *better* than RollOver. I have
> present here why I think that F&F is not better at all and not an effective
> competitive response to RollOver. This discussion never had anything to
> do with *me*. I have never said what my usage is and you have no idea
> about it.
>
> Yes, in my postings I have said that F&F only makes (some) sense for
> low minutes users. I offered up the range of 300-350 +- 50-100min. So in
> that I *agree* with you that F&F might help those customers. However,
> O/Siris countered saying that he thought F&F also make sense for higher
> usage customers. The example of 600min/month with 2 months at 1200min
> is HIS example, not mine. He shows that F&F is "only" 10% more costly
> than overbuying F&C. I think this very example shows exactly that F&F
> isn't attractive at all when a customer can instead save money (albeit 10%)
> by buying 1400min/month.
>
>
>>By the way, you've have also mentioned in the past several times that low
>>end minute users are a very small percentage of SPCS's customer base, and
>>for at least two times, I've asked you to back up your statement and haven't
>>seen a reply of how you developed that %.
>
>
> Nope again, I have *never* said that low-end min users are a very small
> percentage. Never said that, sorry. I never would. What I did say, is exactly
> as above, and in agreement with you, that F&F only might help a narrow
> range of customers, that is those customers whose usage is around 300-350
> with variability in the 50-100min range. I mean it to say narrow in the sense
> of the possible spectrum of usage, not necessarily in the total distribution
> of the population.
>
> Now I can't tell, given your postings whether you think F&F is actually
> better than RollOver or even just over-buying F&C or not. That is the
> discussion here, not my usage. I would have liked to have seen Sprint
> actually offer RollOver, as was originally rumored here, as I think I
> would benefit from it, but alas...
>
>
>>>And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
>>>having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
>>>back to me in the first place is simply laughable.
>>>
>>>If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
>>>you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
>>>to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've
>>
>>over-bought
>>
>>>(i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
>>>feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of
>>
>>the
>>
>>>F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
>>>at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.
>>
>>Who knows? They might be considering that. Then again, they might not, after
>>looking at the actual use of monthly minutes for that bracket of customers
>>and whether they normally exceed 700 AT minutes in a month's time.
>>
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Daniel Tso" <dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:_DxJc.44902$yd5.26909@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> In article <PruJc.3457$mL5.643@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Bob
Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel Tso" <dantsodelete@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:4spJc.68161$bp1.42491@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> ><snipped>
> >
> >> But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see
that
> >> $75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as
far
> >> as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
> >> points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
> >> even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
> >> The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad
> >about,
> >> not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one
sheet.
> >> The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
> >> structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is
that
> >> with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
> >> for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.
> >
> >Your whole discussion, which you started a while ago, is trying to
compare F
> >& F to the amount of minutes YOU normally use Daniel. This F & F plan
> >doesn't work for high minute users. It's designed for low end users ...
who
> >might go over their 300 minutes a few times a year.
>
> Nope, sorry. This discussion start, at least my part, when I was reminded
that
> it was rumored here that F&F was developed as a competitive response to
> RollOver. In fact it was touted as being *better* than RollOver. I have
> present here why I think that F&F is not better at all and not an
effective
> competitive response to RollOver. This discussion never had anything to
> do with *me*. I have never said what my usage is and you have no idea
> about it.

The only one here who brought up a Rollover rumor was you, in the 7-4-04
11:16AM EDT post. You said "In any case, when this F&F schemed was first
talked about, it was touted, at least by some, as Sprint's answer to
Cingular's RollOver feature -- indeed it was first rumored that Sprint had
decided to offer a rollover feature."

You were the one who brought it up ... What's more, before you made that
comment, that rumor you mention above, wasn't discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Yes, in my postings I have said that F&F only makes (some) sense for
> low minutes users. I offered up the range of 300-350 +- 50-100min. So in
> that I *agree* with you that F&F might help those customers. However,
> O/Siris countered saying that he thought F&F also make sense for higher
> usage customers. The example of 600min/month with 2 months at 1200min
> is HIS example, not mine. He shows that F&F is "only" 10% more costly
> than overbuying F&C. I think this very example shows exactly that F&F
> isn't attractive at all when a customer can instead save money (albeit
10%)
> by buying 1400min/month.
>
> >By the way, you've have also mentioned in the past several times that low
> >end minute users are a very small percentage of SPCS's customer base, and
> >for at least two times, I've asked you to back up your statement and
haven't
> >seen a reply of how you developed that %.
>
> Nope again, I have *never* said that low-end min users are a very small
> percentage. Never said that, sorry. I never would. What I did say, is
exactly
> as above, and in agreement with you, that F&F only might help a narrow
> range of customers, that is those customers whose usage is around 300-350
> with variability in the 50-100min range. I mean it to say narrow in the
sense
> of the possible spectrum of usage, not necessarily in the total
distribution
> of the population.

Yes ... you did ... in your 7-4-04 post, @ 11:16AM EDT. You said ... "Yah, I
still can't decide whether F&F is actually a useful plan offering that
*many* people will benefit from, or whether it is just another stupid
marketing gimmick that is of no real value. Certainly it seems to only
make to a narrow range of customers..."

Now, how do you define a narrow range? I define it as a small percentage and
questioned you on that twice ... and now a third time.

>
> Now I can't tell, given your postings whether you think F&F is actually
> better than RollOver or even just over-buying F&C or not. That is the
> discussion here, not my usage. I would have liked to have seen Sprint
> actually offer RollOver, as was originally rumored here, as I think I
> would benefit from it, but alas...

I've never discussed it, as it's never been mentioned ... or offered by
SPCS. I don't speculate on things not mentioned in terms of SPCS's wireless
service. I still don't see where it ... rollover, was mentioned as something
SPCS might offer prior to your comment. Lots of comments about Cingular's
rollover plans, but nothing on a rumor that SPCS would do something like
that.

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

In article <_DxJc.44902$yd5.26909@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com says...
> I offered up the range of 300-350 +- 50-100min. So in
> that I *agree* with you that F&F might help those customers. However,
> O/Siris countered saying that he thought F&F also make sense for higher
> usage customers.
>

No, that ignores something I've said from my very first post in this
thread: I don't know that works, or that it should.

Only that it was an interesting attempt to change the terms of the
discussion. And I think coming within 10% of Rollover as a first
response is clearly a good first shot.

Maybe F&F needs to get tweaked. Maybe quite a bit. I still stand by
my original assertion, though: I think it's a great first effort.

--
RØß
O/Siris
~+~
"A thing moderately good is not so good
as it ought to be. Moderation in temper
is always a virtue, but moderation in
principle is always a vice."
Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

R?? Vargas <robjvargas@comc?st.net> wrote:

> Maybe F&F needs to get tweaked. Maybe quite a bit. I still stand by
> my original assertion, though: I think it's a great first effort.

Certainly an interesting deal and worth looking at in certain situations,
but I still just think SPCS should offer rollover under a different name. :)

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
 
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I do not think that rollover is a good option. However having
free and clear with the overages billed at free and flexible rates
instead of by each minute would be interesting.


Steven J Sobol wrote:
> R?? Vargas <robjvargas@comc?st.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe F&F needs to get tweaked. Maybe quite a bit. I still stand by
>>my original assertion, though: I think it's a great first effort.
>
>
> Certainly an interesting deal and worth looking at in certain situations,
> but I still just think SPCS should offer rollover under a different name. :)
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom