Fair & Flexible

[Guest]

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

In article <VnAJc.3737$mL5.1706@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Daniel Tso" <dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com> wrote in message
>news:_DxJc.44902$yd5.26909@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>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.

The rumor was mentioned here many months ago, perhaps a month before
F&F was formally announced. But it really doesn't matter as it is reasonable
to compare F&F to RollOver and other similar options just on the face of it.

>> 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.

I explained what I meant be narrow range above, as narrow in the range
of possible usage patterns. If that was misleading I'm sorry. In this posting
of mine you quote, I am clearing *wondering* (still can't decide) how
*many* people *will* benefit and saying that it only *seems* to make
sense to a *narrow range*. I am definitely not asserting any hard facts
in these posting. Indeed I'm sure you know it would be very difficult to
figure out just exactly how many people would actually *benefit* from
F&F. "Benefit" is defined as paying less (or you may even wish to include
more subjective values, like "feeling freer or less encumbered") when on
F&F vs not. So simply coming up with the number or percentage of
customers that have a 300-500min/mon plan will not answer the question
of how many people will benefit from F&F.

So several issues are being mixed up here: how *many* people would
*benefit* from F&F (I am wondering...), vs does F&F *benefit* only a very
*narrow range* of usage patterns (which we have begun to analyze with
these usage examples). While it will be difficult to determine just how
many people would benefit from F&F, we can "do the math" and see
what the behavior of F&F would be over a broad range of usage patterns.

It is on this basis that I have stated that F&F doesn't do as well as RollOver
or a number of other reasonable possibilities such as shifting F&C plans
automatically, or allowing a F&F option starting from any F&C plan point, or
changing F&C to mean "minimum usage commitment" with overages being
charged at the same rate as the F&C within plan usage, or as someone else
here, charging overages at the F&F rate. Doing the math I think shows that
F&F ends up worse than all of these other possibilities.

And as far as being satisfied with F&F as a "first shot" effort that comes
within 10% of RollOver, well, as we've seen here, it takes 5 minutes to
"do the math" and surely Sprint did more than that in developing F&F an
could easily see what the performance/behavior of F&F would be compared
with other possibilities. So I'm not really ready to congratulate Sprint for a
fine first effort with F&F.

 

[Guest]

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

"Daniel Tso" <dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:eITJc.72565$bp1.42184@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> In article <VnAJc.3737$mL5.1706@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Bob
Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel Tso" <dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com> wrote in message
> >news:_DxJc.44902$yd5.26909@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >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.
>
> The rumor was mentioned here many months ago, perhaps a month before
> F&F was formally announced. But it really doesn't matter as it is
reasonable
> to compare F&F to RollOver and other similar options just on the face of
it.
>
> >> 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.
>
> I explained what I meant be narrow range above, as narrow in the range
> of possible usage patterns. If that was misleading I'm sorry. In this
posting
> of mine you quote, I am clearing *wondering* (still can't decide) how
> *many* people *will* benefit and saying that it only *seems* to make
> sense to a *narrow range*. I am definitely not asserting any hard facts
> in these posting. Indeed I'm sure you know it would be very difficult to
> figure out just exactly how many people would actually *benefit* from
> F&F. "Benefit" is defined as paying less (or you may even wish to include
> more subjective values, like "feeling freer or less encumbered") when on
> F&F vs not. So simply coming up with the number or percentage of
> customers that have a 300-500min/mon plan will not answer the question
> of how many people will benefit from F&F.

I believe it will. This plan was designed for the low end user ... and not
for anyone who regularily uses 500 or more minutes a month. For those folks
at 500 or more minutes a month, then they need to go with a higher F & C
plan.

Keep in mind that wireless plans change all the time, depending on what the
competition is doing. Look what SPCS did to compete with Verizon & ATTW when
they initiated the FCA option last year. Or in offering 7:00 PM N&W.

Who knows, maybe SPCS will market other higher minute F & F plans, once they
see the subscription numbers and usage on that new plan. Until they do
though, it's all conjecture.

>
> So several issues are being mixed up here: how *many* people would
> *benefit* from F&F (I am wondering...), vs does F&F *benefit* only a very
> *narrow range* of usage patterns (which we have begun to analyze with
> these usage examples). While it will be difficult to determine just how
> many people would benefit from F&F, we can "do the math" and see
> what the behavior of F&F would be over a broad range of usage patterns.
>
> It is on this basis that I have stated that F&F doesn't do as well as
RollOver
> or a number of other reasonable possibilities such as shifting F&C plans
> automatically, or allowing a F&F option starting from any F&C plan point,
or
> changing F&C to mean "minimum usage commitment" with overages being
> charged at the same rate as the F&C within plan usage, or as someone else
> here, charging overages at the F&F rate. Doing the math I think shows that
> F&F ends up worse than all of these other possibilities.
>
As you mentioned Rollover is another issue, another way to market plans for
subscribers. Seems like it's cumbersome for both the customer and the
company to keep track of, considering there is a 12 month limitation to use
those minutes. What's more, if there is a high number of rollover minutes,
then the customer is wasting his money on a higher plan, and should drop
down to the next bucket of minutes.

> And as far as being satisfied with F&F as a "first shot" effort that comes
> within 10% of RollOver, well, as we've seen here, it takes 5 minutes to
> "do the math" and surely Sprint did more than that in developing F&F an
> could easily see what the performance/behavior of F&F would be compared
> with other possibilities. So I'm not really ready to congratulate Sprint
for a
> fine first effort with F&F.

I am, as it's start towards ending expensive extra minutes used on a low end
plan.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

I do not think that the flexible plan is similar to rollover
except that they are both phone plans, but they are not really similar.


Daniel Tso wrote:
> In article <VnAJc.3737$mL5.1706@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"Daniel Tso" <dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com> wrote in message
>>news:_DxJc.44902$yd5.26909@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>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.
>
>
> The rumor was mentioned here many months ago, perhaps a month before
> F&F was formally announced. But it really doesn't matter as it is reasonable
> to compare F&F to RollOver and other similar options just on the face of it.
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> I explained what I meant be narrow range above, as narrow in the range
> of possible usage patterns. If that was misleading I'm sorry. In this posting
> of mine you quote, I am clearing *wondering* (still can't decide) how
> *many* people *will* benefit and saying that it only *seems* to make
> sense to a *narrow range*. I am definitely not asserting any hard facts
> in these posting. Indeed I'm sure you know it would be very difficult to
> figure out just exactly how many people would actually *benefit* from
> F&F. "Benefit" is defined as paying less (or you may even wish to include
> more subjective values, like "feeling freer or less encumbered") when on
> F&F vs not. So simply coming up with the number or percentage of
> customers that have a 300-500min/mon plan will not answer the question
> of how many people will benefit from F&F.
>
> So several issues are being mixed up here: how *many* people would
> *benefit* from F&F (I am wondering...), vs does F&F *benefit* only a very
> *narrow range* of usage patterns (which we have begun to analyze with
> these usage examples). While it will be difficult to determine just how
> many people would benefit from F&F, we can "do the math" and see
> what the behavior of F&F would be over a broad range of usage patterns.
>
> It is on this basis that I have stated that F&F doesn't do as well as RollOver
> or a number of other reasonable possibilities such as shifting F&C plans
> automatically, or allowing a F&F option starting from any F&C plan point, or
> changing F&C to mean "minimum usage commitment" with overages being
> charged at the same rate as the F&C within plan usage, or as someone else
> here, charging overages at the F&F rate. Doing the math I think shows that
> F&F ends up worse than all of these other possibilities.
>
> And as far as being satisfied with F&F as a "first shot" effort that comes
> within 10% of RollOver, well, as we've seen here, it takes 5 minutes to
> "do the math" and surely Sprint did more than that in developing F&F an
> could easily see what the performance/behavior of F&F would be compared
> with other possibilities. So I'm not really ready to congratulate Sprint for a
> fine first effort with F&F.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:30:04 -0500, O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com>
wrote:

I've been out of town for a week, so am coming in to this late,
but...your math and conclusions appears to be off a bit. In my
figures, I am also factoring in $5.00 per month unlimited pcs to pcs
calling (since the plan with Cingular includes that, and we would use
that in our house), and the $5.00 per month I pay to get "free
roaming", again included in Cingular's plan.

Also, in the Jacksonville, FL area, the 600 minutes (with no
additional options) would cost 65.00 per month vs the 75.00 it would
cost in Michigan., so my figures start at 65.00 plust the $10.00 per
month for the options I would need to match the Cingular offer.

>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?

Actually, factoring in the $10.00 extra to get the pcs to pcs and
"free roaming", it will cost 10.00 more for the 5 month period, under
a two month at 1200 minutes scenario.

However, each month over 2 that the use is more than 600 minutes and
including the 2 months you stipulate at 1200, and the window closes
rapidly and again, the plan is ultimately cheaper than F&F.

If with Sprint, and the choice is one of the two plans, yes, it would
make sense, under your scenario, to use the 1400 minute plan, since it
actually costs less, even with the unused minutes, if you are a user
who will consistenly use more than 600 minutes in a given month.

>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.

No, with F&F, the customer does not have to worry about the minutes
disappearing, but, each month more than 600 minutes are used, the
costs are greater than they would with the Free and Clear plan. Is
the point to not "waste" minutes or money? There is a difference in
the two.

>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

Incorrect, the 850 plan would cover it quite nicely. The overage
costs on the 850 plan are .35 per minute, on the 1250 plan they are
..30.

>those rollover minutes are gone, but I'd wager it very rapidly eats
>up the cost "advantage" involved.

Under your scenario, and even getting a bit more extreme, it still
costs less than either Sprint plan.

>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).

Neither do the Sprint plans, unless you pay an extra fee per month for
the 7PM N&W option, which must vary by region, since the website will
not quote the cost, instead instructs to call for pricing and
availability.

Using the 5 month period you mention, with month one as the first
month of service with no rollover minutes banked, and assumes that for
each month that the full 600 minutes of the normal use you describe
below is used.

The user has the 850/unlimited plan for 59.00 per month.

The bottom line came out that on the 850 plan, as long as there are
two consecutive months at 600 minutes, it would then take 5
consecutive months at 1200 minutes to use up the bank and accrue
enough overage charges to cost more than the F&F plan. That is if the
2 consecutive months start with no minutes banked at all, and banks
only the 250 per month that were unused. If the user started that two
months with banked minutes already, it would take longer to use up the
bank and accrue overage to cost more than F&F on an annuallized basis.

Start using anywhere between the 600 suggested here and the 850
minutes on the Cingular plan, and the F&F plan gets much more
expensive, very rapidly.


If the user uses 1200 minutes in the first month, with no minutes
banked, the bill for that month is $181.50 (based on the .35/minute
overage listed on the plan details) If the remaining 4 months of your
sample period use no more than the 600 minutes of use (or even the 850
for the plan) the bill for 5 months is a total of $417.50. Use 1200
minutes for each of the first two months of service, and the bill goes
to $540.00 for the 5 month period. $100.00 more for the 5 months, but
if no minutes over the rolled over minutes are used for the rest of
the 12 month period, still an annualized savings of about 10.00, AND
about 2,000 minutes in the bank to use for "over plan minutes" on
subsequent months.

If the usage is 1200 minutes the first month, 600 the second and 1200
the third, and 600 the remaining 2, the 5 month bill goes to 452.5,
since the 250 rollover minutes cover all but the last 100 minutes,
with again, an annualized savings and ending the 12 months with 2K
minutes in the bank.

First month usage at 1200 minutes and another 1200 minutes in any one
of the last 2 months of the 5 month period, and the 5 month bill comes
to 417.50. Now, not only cheaper than F&F, but banked minutes at the
end of the year.

The above numbers are, unless the user exceeds 850 minutes in more
than 2 of the 5 months, a worst case scenario. If the user exceeds
850 minutes in more than 2 of 5 months, well....probably a different
plan is needed.

If the usage in the first month is 600 minutes, the prices get much
cheaper for the 5 month period, unless months 2 and 3 both use 1200
minutes, when the bill would go to 487.50. If month 2 is at 1200
minues, and month 4 also, the bill would be 400.00 for the 5 months,
including overages.

Make it months 2 and 5, the bill drops to $330.00, since the bucketed
minutes take care of the entire overage for month 5. This is cheaper
than all of the Sprint plans you mention below.

Move the 1200 minutes to months 3 and 5, the bill is now 295.00

On the Cingular plan, I am paying 60.00 per month for 850 minutes, 250
minutes per month more than the Fair and Flexible plan's 600 minutes
that would cost 15.00 more per month.

I have a spreadsheet that supports the above, if anyone wants "proof".


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

Nope. F&F is not a deal for any user that consistently, or even
occasionaly uses more than 350 minutes a month that I've been able to
compute, using both Sprint PCS Free and Clear and Cingular plans to
compare with.

The point is to not waste money, if the plan costs less to use, what
does it matter if minutes are "unused" and lost, as with Sprint, or
rolled over to use for months to avoid overage charges with Cingular.



Deb

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 06:26:08 GMT, dantsodelete@yahoo.com (Daniel Tso)
wrote:

>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.

Correct. As part of the equation, you must factor in that unused
minutes do rollover and stay for 12 months before dropping off. So,
unless you are consistently going over your plan minutes, you are
always banking minutes for most months. As the "old" minutes drop
off, you are banking "new" minutes for the current period.

For most of us, we have a pretty good idea of what our "norm" is. Get
on a plan that covers that norm, and unless you go over that norm
several months in a row, you will always have enough minutes banked to
cover that overage, and so will not pay overage charges those months.

>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.

I have not been able to find any savings with the F&F plan for any
user that uses more than 300 minutes a month, and does not go over 350
minutes more than once or twice a year. On the contrary, F&F gets
fairly expensive for most users compared to other plans.


Deb

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:59:51 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>I believe it will. This plan was designed for the low end user ... and not
>for anyone who regularily uses 500 or more minutes a month. For those folks
>at 500 or more minutes a month, then they need to go with a higher F & C
>plan.

Actually, for Sprint customers, anyone who consistently uses over 350
minutes a month, since at that 350 minutes it is $40.00 per month, the
same as the 500 minute Free and Clear plan. Every minute over 350 at
that point makes the plan more expensive than the 500 minute plan.

>>
>As you mentioned Rollover is another issue, another way to market plans for
>subscribers. Seems like it's cumbersome for both the customer and the
>company to keep track of, considering there is a 12 month limitation to use
>those minutes. What's more, if there is a high number of rollover minutes,

But, as minutes drop off, new ones are bucketed.

>then the customer is wasting his money on a higher plan, and should drop
>down to the next bucket of minutes.

True. In my case, I'll probably go with the Nation 450 plan. That
will cover me with the ability to bucket about 100-250 minutes at
least for most of my months. Unless I'm out of the office at a
client's, I don't use the phone much during "anytime minutes",
averaging about 100-250 minutes per month. For the months that I do go
to extremes (about 3-4 months a year I hit the 700 - 800 mark), I'll
still be paying my $40.00 per month and using the bucketed minutes.

>I am, as it's start towards ending expensive extra minutes used on a low end
>plan.

Not really, unless you never go over 350 minutes a month.



Deb

 

[Guest]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

ddm46@att.net wrote:
>
> Actually, for Sprint customers, anyone who consistently uses over 350
> minutes a month, since at that 350 minutes it is $40.00 per month, the
> same as the 500 minute Free and Clear plan. Every minute over 350 at
> that point makes the plan more expensive than the 500 minute plan.
>

Consistent is the key word here. This plan was not designed for people
who consistently use more than 350 minutes per month. Rather, it was
not designed for people that consistantly use their minutes at all. It
is meant for people that are very inconsistant in their usage and would
likely have frequent overages or a huge number of unused minutes on a
fixed minute plan. Anybody else, need not apply.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFA+8Rq1p0e3NXsrtERAgYhAJ44wBPVvAXku0DBk1wuUf4ktheWkwCdFYLt
dr9PprqxeYdX9LMvTqbNIik=
=Dxk7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

On 19 Jul 2004 12:54:03 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> Actually, for Sprint customers, anyone who consistently uses over 350
>> minutes a month, since at that 350 minutes it is $40.00 per month, the
>> same as the 500 minute Free and Clear plan. Every minute over 350 at
>> that point makes the plan more expensive than the 500 minute plan.
>>
>
>Consistent is the key word here. This plan was not designed for people
>who consistently use more than 350 minutes per month. Rather, it was
>not designed for people that consistantly use their minutes at all. It
>is meant for people that are very inconsistant in their usage and would
>likely have frequent overages or a huge number of unused minutes on a
>fixed minute plan. Anybody else, need not apply.

Exactly. However, there are those in here that claim it is a good
plan for just about anyone.


--
Deb

 

[Guest]

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

<ddm46@att.net> wrote in message
news:b8pof0t302d6hbjqtm1b2peej21540gfji@4ax.com...
> On 19 Jul 2004 12:54:03 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >> Actually, for Sprint customers, anyone who consistently uses over 350
> >> minutes a month, since at that 350 minutes it is $40.00 per month, the
> >> same as the 500 minute Free and Clear plan. Every minute over 350 at
> >> that point makes the plan more expensive than the 500 minute plan.
> >>
> >
> >Consistent is the key word here. This plan was not designed for people
> >who consistently use more than 350 minutes per month. Rather, it was
> >not designed for people that consistantly use their minutes at all. It
> >is meant for people that are very inconsistant in their usage and would
> >likely have frequent overages or a huge number of unused minutes on a
> >fixed minute plan. Anybody else, need not apply.
>
> Exactly. However, there are those in here that claim it is a good
> plan for just about anyone.

Really? I don't recall anyone who said it was workable plan for everyone.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

ddm46@att.net wrote:
>
> Exactly. However, there are those in here that claim it is a good
> plan for just about anyone.
>

Who? I have not noticed this.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFA/RKi1p0e3NXsrtERAvClAJ0aR0n/ajeNncyH7nUxy+py0X3kLwCfdbJ9
vpB8ZM/93ekR7J4CBVdiBao=
=pIQz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

On 20 Jul 2004 12:40:03 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>ddm46@att.net wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. However, there are those in here that claim it is a good
>> plan for just about anyone.
>>
>
>Who? I have not noticed this.

Read O/Siris' post of the 12th.


--
Deb

 

[Guest]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

ddm46@att.net wrote:
>>Who? I have not noticed this.
>
> Read O/Siris' post of the 12th.
>

Rob has never claimed that this plan is good for almost anybody.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBBPuS1p0e3NXsrtERAiD9AJ9HfVVkcRuNnoiNOjgduYuJItoNLwCeOoBd
/1lROJo+M3PZHO6Vv5lGAQs=
=e3vw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

On 26 Jul 2004 12:39:48 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>ddm46@att.net wrote:
>>>Who? I have not noticed this.
>>
>> Read O/Siris' post of the 12th.
>>
>
>Rob has never claimed that this plan is good for almost anybody.

No, he did not use those exact words....however, the tone of his post,
and his actual statement, indicated that users were better off with
F&F, even if that actually cost a bit more than a F&CA plan, since it
did not "waste minutes".


--
Deb

 

[Guest]

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

<abuse.catcher@att.net> wrote in message
news:338bg0l432eopjdurttemva1lgsrrn84u1@4ax.com...
> On 26 Jul 2004 12:39:48 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >ddm46@att.net wrote:
> >>>Who? I have not noticed this.
> >>
> >> Read O/Siris' post of the 12th.
> >>
> >
> >Rob has never claimed that this plan is good for almost anybody.
>
> No, he did not use those exact words....however, the tone of his post,
> and his actual statement, indicated that users were better off with
> F&F, even if that actually cost a bit more than a F&CA plan, since it
> did not "waste minutes".

He said nothing of the sort, in any tone ...

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:44:05 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> >Rob has never claimed that this plan is good for almost anybody.
>>
>> No, he did not use those exact words....however, the tone of his post,
>> and his actual statement, indicated that users were better off with
>> F&F, even if that actually cost a bit more than a F&CA plan, since it
>> did not "waste minutes".
>
>He said nothing of the sort, in any tone ...

Reread the post, in its entire context.....discussing high usage
customers, a partial quote:

----
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.

-----

The tone of the post implies that he recommends F&F over any other
plan that could be cheaper, but would wind up "wasting minutes".


--
Deb

 

[Guest]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

abuse.catcher@att.net wrote:
>
> No, he did not use those exact words....however, the tone of his post,
> and his actual statement, indicated that users were better off with
> F&F, even if that actually cost a bit more than a F&CA plan, since it
> did not "waste minutes".
>

Deb, no offense intended, but you clearly have NOT read enough of his
posts.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBBcRn1p0e3NXsrtERAhLYAKCcxcq1gkZqXSV++hQhDK7IxJOKYACgk/DS
sLju8U3IeJ2xJRC4LiZAAdU=
=rBks
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

On 27 Jul 2004 02:56:40 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> F&F, even if that actually cost a bit more than a F&CA plan, since it
>> did not "waste minutes".
>>
>
>Deb, no offense intended, but you clearly have NOT read enough of his
>posts.

<shrug> I read what I read on the 12th....his post in response to
another poster's contention that the F&F plan was not a viable option
for users over 500 minutes per month. O/Siris disputed the claim,
with the "math" to prove it, and <unless I misread his conclusion>
recommended that the F&F plan was more beneficial to users even though
the other two plans he quoted were actually cheaper but "wasted
minutes".


--
Deb

 

[Guest]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

abuse.catcher@att.net wrote:
>
> Reread the post, in its entire context.....discussing high usage
> customers, a partial quote:
>
> ----
> 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.
>
> -----
>
> The tone of the post implies that he recommends F&F over any other
> plan that could be cheaper, but would wind up "wasting minutes".
>
>
> --

What you post as a quote indicates to me the description of a single
customer's usage. Do you disagree?

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBBdeT1p0e3NXsrtERAq4eAKCNmUP2sTtTAtZh9Atg9wJ1J2Li+QCeNSdW
yvn0hCPYjxTqMHOWD5ysjAk=
=Pacg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

abuse.catcher@att.net wrote:
>
> <shrug> I read what I read on the 12th....his post in response to
> another poster's contention that the F&F plan was not a viable option
> for users over 500 minutes per month. O/Siris disputed the claim,
> with the "math" to prove it, and <unless I misread his conclusion>
> recommended that the F&F plan was more beneficial to users even though
> the other two plans he quoted were actually cheaper but "wasted
> minutes".
>

As it turns out, F&F is not a good plan for anybody who uses their
minutes in a consistant manner [from month to month]. It seems to be a
good plan ONLY for those people that use minutes with a very large
standard deviation over a period of time. Perhaps a plan with teenagers
on them would be a case where F&F would be favorable. However, the
quote you supplied was clearly referring to one customer and not all
customers in general. You "appear" to be a USENET regular by your use
of "<shrug>" and the manner which you conduct yourself, so I have a hard
time believing you are so naive as to believe he was making such a
general comment.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBBdhV1p0e3NXsrtERAqXPAJ9thg5g3P0K0mX1s1jJrPdEfODx3ACfSxid
z61tjcD9w/miOV39mrwJ4WM=
=4dfR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

<abuse.catcher@att.net> wrote in message
news:v0ibg0djlclvi6o2c68k9tesqi1n4et8kc@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:44:05 GMT, "Bob Smith"
> <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Rob has never claimed that this plan is good for almost anybody.
> >>
> >> No, he did not use those exact words....however, the tone of his post,
> >> and his actual statement, indicated that users were better off with
> >> F&F, even if that actually cost a bit more than a F&CA plan, since it
> >> did not "waste minutes".
> >
> >He said nothing of the sort, in any tone ...
>
> Reread the post, in its entire context.....discussing high usage
> customers, a partial quote:
>
> ----
> 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.
>
> -----
>
> The tone of the post implies that he recommends F&F over any other
> plan that could be cheaper, but would wind up "wasting minutes".

I re-read that post, and what you conveniently left out, is that he was
doing a comparison of SPCS plans to Cingular's rollover plan, and a
comparison of F&F and F&C, not F&CA as you said. In addition, his numbers
and comparisons only work with those conditions and in a five month period,
not for a whole year.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

On 26 Jul 2004 12:39:48 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ddm46@att.net wrote:
>>> Who? I have not noticed this.
>>
>> Read O/Siris' post of the 12th.
>>
>
> Rob has never claimed that this plan is good for almost anybody.
>

Thanks, Tom. I hate being miquoted. Thanks for the backup. I said it
was an interesting plan.

--
-~-
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
-*-
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

[Guest]

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

On 27 Jul 2004 04:18:28 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> --
>
>What you post as a quote indicates to me the description of a single
>customer's usage. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. Taken in context to the entire conversation,
including the post he was responding to, it read to me as a defense
and recommendation for F&F over other plans, even if the plan was
actually cheaper that F&F would replace.

Others apparently interpreted it differently. I merely voiced my own.


--
Deb

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:19:58 GMT, "Bob Smith"
<usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:


>I re-read that post, and what you conveniently left out, is that he was
>doing a comparison of SPCS plans to Cingular's rollover plan, and a
>comparison of F&F and F&C, not F&CA as you said. In addition, his numbers
>and comparisons only work with those conditions and in a five month period,
>not for a whole year.

He compared three plans, and concluded that the F&F plan was "better",
even though it cost more.

Apparently your mileage varied.


--
Deb

 

[Guest]

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

On 27 Jul 2004 04:21:42 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>customers in general. You "appear" to be a USENET regular by your use
>of "<shrug>" and the manner which you conduct yourself, so I have a hard

I've been a usenet regular since about 1995 (or '96, when did Agent
first come out?)...and a bbs sysop and user for longer than that....

>time believing you are so naive as to believe he was making such a
>general comment.

Again, apparently my interpretation was different than that of others.


--
Deb

 

[Guest]

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

In article <h44eg0h8acl2pp8r10t6n4t0hp3sdvbkiq@4ax.com>,
abuse.catcher@att.netabuse.catcher@att.net says...
> He compared three plans, and concluded that the F&F plan was "better",
> even though it cost more.
>

No, I did *not*. I said they were comparable.

--
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-