Sprint PCS sees strong subscriber growth

[Guest]

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

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

Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, enlighten us. Start with the extreme. Let's say it was
>> all one or the other. How does that alter the picture?
>
>
> Very simple. Lauer claimed in December that SprintPCS was winning in
> WLNP.
>
> **SO WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS **
>

Phillip ... get it through that rock you call a brain! This article has
nothing to do with WLNP ... what makes them required to post numbers
about WLNP in this article or press release?

>
> Must be VERY bad news.

You are an eternal pessimist.
- --

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

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

iD8DBQFAjQIE1p0e3NXsrtERAo2GAKCxpeWNc+Tkyq3ZuQBxCW+OKYa5vwCgtkyj
hsycPVtgWq8BHyH4FK2fl+k=
=Osgf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

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

Robert M. <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote:
>
> BE REAL. We both know that if Sprint was WLNP winner they would be
> widely bragging about it.

Pose this scenario. What if they were a big WLNP loser in Q4 and a big
WLNP winner in Q104? How about if they are WLNP neutral, maybe during
both quarters. There are not enough stats to say anything meaningful
about WLNP unless you are a constant winner or a constant loser. These
numbers could be very volitile and in that case, I would not report on
them either ... because they would be pretty much meaningless over a
term of less than 6 months.

- --

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

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

iD8DBQFAjQKr1p0e3NXsrtERAiIFAJ4m9Cjv79IQT1sO/z5mEOerAU4aawCcCrXu
gnObbItmjdLd7HG3sk/It9M=
=rtk3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

In article <21f0a2b0109a99129071353c4f1e796e@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-D35362.05545823042004
> @news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > In article <b3df539618301b065ad57ef2c6cea369@news.teranews.com>,
> > O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <rmarkoff-8F0FEB.15444921042004
> > > @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > > >
> > > > But we don't know how many new SprinPCS customers from WLNP and how
> > > > many
> > > > from "walkups".
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK, enlighten us. Start with the extreme. Let's say it was
> > > all one or the other. How does that alter the picture?
> >
> >
> > Very simple. Lauer claimed in December that SprintPCS was winning in
> > WLNP.
> >
> > **SO WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS **
> >
> > How many folks came to SprintPCS, How many Left via WLNP ??
> >
> > SPRINTPCS refuses to say.
> >
> > Must be VERY bad news.
> >
>
> I asked you a very simple question, Phillie. You still haven't
> answered it. How does this make SPCS' situation worse *or* better?

..2% increase in churn adds up to $27 Million dollars lost revenue on
recurring charges alone on an annual basis.


Meanwhile why did SprintPCS omit the WLNP numbers from its 10K filing?

 

[Eric]

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

rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote:
<<Meanwhile why did SprintPCS omit the WLNP numbers from its 10K filing?
>>

Who cares? Why does it matter to you? What business is it of yours?
Go back to blowing your whistles and maybe Jesus will reward you for not
using obscene language.

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-C5AB13.08160126042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <21f0a2b0109a99129071353c4f1e796e@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

<snipped>

> > I asked you a very simple question, Phillie. You still haven't
> > answered it. How does this make SPCS' situation worse *or* better?
>
> .2% increase in churn adds up to $27 Million dollars lost revenue on
> recurring charges alone on an annual basis.

Nope, it doesn't, as I've previously explained. The math you used would earn
you an "F" ... in 3rd grade math.
>
>
> Meanwhile why did SprintPCS omit the WLNP numbers from its 10K filing?

Maybe because it wasn't required?

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-8CA379.17351521042004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <VzChc.421$yE1.120@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Chris Russell" <noone@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
>
> > Once again, it doesn't make a bit of difference where the customers came
> > from-walk-ups or wlnp. Exactly what was the other half of the story
from
> > the RCR News story
>
> The RCA story was verbatim from the SprintPCS press release, it was
> hardly news, it was simple cut and paste.

Wait a minute- last week you quoting directly from Sprint, and trying to
discredit posts from the media. Are you now saying that Sprint is not a
reliable source of information? Which is it?

>
> What was not mentioned - The rest of the story. Some obvious, some
> unknown....
>
> The increase in the churn rate, the failure to tell whether or not a net
> win or loss from WLNP, the failure to tell whether or not costs are
> increasing for new customer acquisition.

Subsciber numbers and costs were all included in the numbers you saw last
week. Nextel (the churn leader) did not report WNLP numbers, either- and
they made money. They also showed the same increase in churn, and made
money. See a pattern here? The numbers that you are obssessing over are
not an indicator of profitability or company performance. Once again, Wall
Street analysts, industry analysts and Phil are miles apart.

 

[Guest]

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

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

Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Subsciber numbers and costs were all included in the numbers you saw last
> week. Nextel (the churn leader) did not report WNLP numbers, either- and
> they made money. They also showed the same increase in churn, and made
> money. See a pattern here? The numbers that you are obssessing over are
> not an indicator of profitability or company performance. Once again, Wall
> Street analysts, industry analysts and Phil are miles apart.
>

And then there are people like me that influence churn, yet have a net
effect of nothing. I left sprint and returned to sprint within 7 days
during the same quarter, and yet the churn numbers will rise because of
my activity.

- --

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

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

iD8DBQFAjbuk1p0e3NXsrtERAlUwAJ9fXN9qS7Yv9gGv+D/icGJEt6V/jgCeKpK1
I3yP9V8ZyMW7lZorxIWtghw=
=Izqj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:408dbba5$0$177$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> > Subsciber numbers and costs were all included in the numbers you saw
last
> > week. Nextel (the churn leader) did not report WNLP numbers, either-
and
> > they made money. They also showed the same increase in churn, and made
> > money. See a pattern here? The numbers that you are obssessing over
are
> > not an indicator of profitability or company performance. Once again,
Wall
> > Street analysts, industry analysts and Phil are miles apart.
> >
>
> And then there are people like me that influence churn, yet have a net
> effect of nothing. I left sprint and returned to sprint within 7 days
> during the same quarter, and yet the churn numbers will rise because of
> my activity.
>

Good point, Tom. And probably many more like you (like butt boy). And I
wonder how many of them came back and ended up paying more for service to
get back in the door (sorry, sir- that rate plan is no longer available)?

Hey, Phil- using your twisted logic, I've determined that WNLP actually
ended up in a Net Revenue Gain of about $250,000 for the quarter. This
number reflects the rise in ARPU for those subscribers that came back, and
is probably very conservative when you take into account all previous Sprint
churn customers that have come back as a result of WNLP.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <rmarkoff-C5AB13.08160126042004
@news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> >
> > I asked you a very simple question, Phillie. You still haven't
> > answered it. How does this make SPCS' situation worse *or* better?
>
> .2% increase in churn adds up to $27 Million dollars lost revenue on
> recurring charges alone on an annual basis.
>

You still didn't answer the question, Phill. You're avoiding it now.

What is it about direct questions that scares you so much?

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

 

[Guest]

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

In article <5cf360f3a44703fef592d4be1a66fe44@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-C5AB13.08160126042004
> @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > >
> > > I asked you a very simple question, Phillie. You still haven't
> > > answered it. How does this make SPCS' situation worse *or* better?
> >
> > .2% increase in churn adds up to $27 Million dollars lost revenue on
> > recurring charges alone on an annual basis.
> >
>
> You still didn't answer the question, Phill. You're avoiding it now.
>
> What is it about direct questions that scares you so much?

The question you are avoiding is how is $27 Million "No Big Deal"???

 

[Guest]

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

In article <rmarkoff-F70653.16574229042004
@news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> In article <5cf360f3a44703fef592d4be1a66fe44@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <rmarkoff-C5AB13.08160126042004
> > @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says...
> > > >
> > > > I asked you a very simple question, Phillie. You still haven't
> > > > answered it. How does this make SPCS' situation worse *or* better?
> > >
> > > .2% increase in churn adds up to $27 Million dollars lost revenue on
> > > recurring charges alone on an annual basis.
> > >
> >
> > You still didn't answer the question, Phill. You're avoiding it now.
> >
> > What is it about direct questions that scares you so much?
>
> The question you are avoiding is how is $27 Million "No Big Deal"???
>

You still haven't answered the question, Phill. Still avoiding. How
does SPCS' situation show as worse *or* better by showing the numbers
you claim aren't there?

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

 

[Guest]

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

In article <2b14f13d7e12b81bce3dda75697f2796@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:

>
> You still haven't answered the question, Phill. Still avoiding. How
> does SPCS' situation show as worse *or* better by showing the numbers
> you claim aren't there?

We know enough numbers. Churn increased .2% per month in the first
quarter. You LIED and said thats "No Big Deal", but multiply by 12
months and $61/month per user, and 16.3 million users, and its $27
million in lost revenue.


Then the other issue is Lauer promised SprintPCS would be a WLNP winner,
and a SprintPCS apologist (Bob Smith) now claims he didn't, even though
Smith posted about it last year; and likely SprintPCS was a loser in
WLNP, i.e. more ported out than ported in. But strangely the exact
numbers were not in the 10K filed for the SEC. And SprintPCS also
omitted its figures for average cost of new Cusotmer Acquisition.
Obviously embarressed to do that, since SprintPCS is still loosing
money, and always had high numbers but now without a separate tracking
stock, Sprint can hide more information.

And for all that Lauer got a bonus of 30 times his annual salary.

How big a bonus did SprintPCS give you Rob?

 

[Guest]

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-C71F12.04564830042004@news04.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <2b14f13d7e12b81bce3dda75697f2796@news.teranews.com>,
> O/Siris <osiris@sprintpcs.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > You still haven't answered the question, Phill. Still avoiding. How
> > does SPCS' situation show as worse *or* better by showing the numbers
> > you claim aren't there?
>
> We know enough numbers. Churn increased .2% per month in the first
> quarter. You LIED and said thats "No Big Deal", but multiply by 12
> months and $61/month per user, and 16.3 million users, and its $27
> million in lost revenue.
>
>
> Then the other issue is Lauer promised SprintPCS would be a WLNP winner,
> and a SprintPCS apologist (Bob Smith) now claims he didn't, even though
> Smith posted about it last year; and likely SprintPCS was a loser in
> WLNP, i.e. more ported out than ported in. But strangely the exact
> numbers were not in the 10K filed for the SEC. And SprintPCS also
> omitted its figures for average cost of new Cusotmer Acquisition.
> Obviously embarressed to do that, since SprintPCS is still loosing
> money, and always had high numbers but now without a separate tracking
> stock, Sprint can hide more information.
>


And can you prove that the .2% increase in churn was a result of WNLP?