Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why AT&T Wireless self-destructed

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 18, 2004 7:21:35 AM

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

http://www.cio.com/archive/041504/wireless.html

Interesting analysis as why AT&T Wireless self-destructed.
Note the comment that SprintPCS has the highest CSR cost
per customer.

--

John Richards

More about : wireless destructed

Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 18, 2004 7:21:36 AM

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

John Richards wrote:

> http://www.cio.com/archive/041504/wireless.html
>
> Interesting analysis as why AT&T Wireless self-destructed.
> Note the comment that SprintPCS has the highest CSR cost
> per customer.

Interesting. But *why* does SprintPCS have the highest CSR cost per
customer? T-mobile reputably has about the best customer service of the
cell telcos -- why does theirs not cost more?

(This being Usenet, I realize the signal to noise ratio in the "answers"
will be highly weighted in favor of the noise -- in the form of
speculation and snide comments -- but hope springs eternal, and maybe
some folks here really do know the answer... :) 


--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 18, 2004 3:33:50 PM

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

In article <3vmgc.95$xY4.60@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> http://www.cio.com/archive/041504/wireless.html



" AT&T Wireless's CRM upgrade was hamstrung from almost the very
beginning by rumors of outsourcing deals and future layoffs. These
rumors generated pervasive morale problems that hurt the productivity of
project staff. "

Sounds very familiar to our favorite carrier. Indeed both are happening
now at SprintPCS. Outsourcing and continued layoffs.


>
> Interesting analysis as why AT&T Wireless self-destructed.
> Note the comment that SprintPCS has the highest CSR cost
> per customer.




Not surprising given all the stories posted here of folks having to call
many times due to getting conflicting information or not getting
problems solved, many of which are created by the problematic Convergys
software. Add to that the very high turnover rate of CSRs, and it's all
understandable if one wants to understand it.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 18, 2004 3:35:38 PM

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

In article <8uqdnWx_gcEDnx_dRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
"Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

> John Richards wrote:
>
> > http://www.cio.com/archive/041504/wireless.html
> >
> > Interesting analysis as why AT&T Wireless self-destructed.
> > Note the comment that SprintPCS has the highest CSR cost
> > per customer.
>
> Interesting. But *why* does SprintPCS have the highest CSR cost per
> customer? T-mobile reputably has about the best customer service of the
> cell telcos -- why does theirs not cost more?
>
> (This being Usenet, I realize the signal to noise ratio in the "answers"
> will be highly weighted in favor of the noise -- in the form of
> speculation and snide comments -- but hope springs eternal, and maybe
> some folks here really do know the answer... :) 

If CSRs are well trained and have a high frequency of solving problems
the first time. SprintPCS CSRs were given a policy of "One and Done",
but then its not followed up on.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 19, 2004 1:24:16 AM

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

"Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:8uqdnWx_gcEDnx_dRVn-ug@comcast.com...

> Interesting. But *why* does SprintPCS have the highest CSR cost per
> customer? T-mobile reputably has about the best customer service of the
> cell telcos -- why does theirs not cost more?

I don't know, but as a former call center worker I can tell you that a
CSR's productivity depends a lot on the tools he's given to work with.
If you have to call up 13 different slow screens in order to research a
customer's question, that tends to make you less productive.

--

John Richards
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 19, 2004 1:50:47 AM

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

In article <4mCgc.861$DD4.445@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:8uqdnWx_gcEDnx_dRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>
> > Interesting. But *why* does SprintPCS have the highest CSR cost per
> > customer? T-mobile reputably has about the best customer service of the
> > cell telcos -- why does theirs not cost more?
>
> I don't know, but as a former call center worker I can tell you that a
> CSR's productivity depends a lot on the tools he's given to work with.
> If you have to call up 13 different slow screens in order to research a
> customer's question, that tends to make you less productive.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again sounds like SprintPCS

In article <7e761144.0402281909.62eb2fa5@posting.google.com>,
pcsguy@bellsouth.net (TechGeek) wrote:

> Most of the people in the company have access to 2 or 3 of the billing
> systems, so a blanket statement such as





From: Stromm Sarnac (strommsarnac@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: HOW MESSED UP IS SPRINT PCS BILLING
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Date: 2004-02-29 09:50:58 PST

In article <7e761144.0402290725.1b570b98@posting.google.com>,
pcsguy@bellsouth.net says...
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-3F4B07.05354829022004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...
> > > Most of the people in the company have access to 2 or 3 of the billing
> > > systems
> >
> > is what a Sprint PCS employee posted today. Conceptually this fully
> > explains to me why Sprint PCS billing gets so messed up. WHY WOULD THEY
> > HAVE OR NEED MULTIPLE SYSTEMS?? Just provides opportunities for
> > information not to pass from one system to another and have things gets
> > messed up ! ! !
>
> Hi!
>
> I guess you failed comprehension.
>
> There is ONE DATABASE for all billing, but there are a few programs
> out there that access that ONE DATABASE.
>
> If I use program A to access that database, any changes I make will
> show up, within seconds, when any of the other programs access that
> database.
>
Sadly, I don't believe you. No offense. If there was only one
database, then my web info would not show 3 different figures and those
all different from 4 people I've talked to within minutes on the phone.

A week later and they still conflict with each other.

Logic dictates that this is because of different data. Also, knowing
a few people in their billing department help. They truely do have
multiple databases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 19, 2004 1:50:48 AM

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

Robert M. wrote:

> Again sounds like SprintPCS

Which call center did you work at?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 19, 2004 5:18:01 AM

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

In article <maudnXAXG-hQuh7dRVn-sQ@giganews.com>,
norelpref <norelpref@fake.inv> wrote:

> Robert M. wrote:
>
> > Again sounds like SprintPCS
>
> Which call center did you work at?

Don't have to, just have to read the news, and reports from employees
and former employees that get posted here, and have any sort of memory
at all.

And how come you failed to post the postings I recalled and easily found
through Google that document SprintPCS having the same problems AT&TWS
had. And they both use Convergys software.

From: Stromm Sarnac (strommsarnac@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: HOW MESSED UP IS SPRINT PCS BILLING
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Date: 2004-02-29 09:50:58 PST

In article <7e761144.0402290725.1b570b98@posting.google.com>,
pcsguy@bellsouth.net says...
> "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rmarkoff-3F4B07.05354829022004@news6.west.earthlink.net>...
> > > Most of the people in the company have access to 2 or 3 of the billing
> > > systems
> >
> > is what a Sprint PCS employee posted today. Conceptually this fully
> > explains to me why Sprint PCS billing gets so messed up. WHY WOULD THEY
> > HAVE OR NEED MULTIPLE SYSTEMS?? Just provides opportunities for
> > information not to pass from one system to another and have things gets
> > messed up ! ! !
>
> Hi!
>
> I guess you failed comprehension.
>
> There is ONE DATABASE for all billing, but there are a few programs
> out there that access that ONE DATABASE.
>
> If I use program A to access that database, any changes I make will
> show up, within seconds, when any of the other programs access that
> database.
>
Sadly, I don't believe you. No offense. If there was only one
database, then my web info would not show 3 different figures and those
all different from 4 people I've talked to within minutes on the phone.

A week later and they still conflict with each other.

Logic dictates that this is because of different data. Also, knowing
a few people in their billing department help. They truely do have
multiple databases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 19, 2004 5:18:02 AM

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

Robert M. wrote:

I've you take your own past objections and arguments out, you are left
with this simple comparison:

Statement 1 from a Sprint Employee:

>>>>Most of the people in the company have access to 2 or 3 of the billing
>>>>systems

Statement 2 referring to ATT:

>If you have to call up 13 different slow screens in order to research a
> customer's question.

You are pointing to a very limited set of figures or facts (only 2
actually) and attempting to compare the entire operation of two
different companies systems. This is an election year, you will see the
same thing day in and out in an attempt to sway public opinion in 30
seconds.

I draw the conclusion that there is more then one system at each
location. One system and fast response would seem to be the ideal thing
for anyone. Based only on the posted comparison, I do not know what
each system does or when each needs to be accessed but neither do you.
Is there one for business and one for non business? Is it one for old
plans and one for new? Is it one for long time customers that were not
switched to a new system? Is one web based, one terminal, and one a
teleprompter? Is there one for plan maintenance and one for contracts?
Is it one for each day of the week? How about one for each month in
the year? Do you know when you call Sprintpcs or ATT when they are
switching to a different system to access something? Do you really know
when a CS person says "the system is slow today" it really is? Sprint
and ATT could have 40 systems and have to manually swap monitor and KB
cables to get between them for all I know. IMHO, the limited
comparisons above between the two companies gives NO indication that the
processes are the same either.

Dont be surprised if I do not reply back. I've seen your posting history.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 19, 2004 12:18:00 PM

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

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:24:16 GMT, John Richards <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"Donkey Agony" <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message news:8uqdnWx_gcEDnx_dRVn-ug@comcast.com...

>> Interesting. But *why* does SprintPCS have the highest CSR cost per
>> customer? T-mobile reputably has about the best customer service of the
>> cell telcos -- why does theirs not cost more?

>I don't know, but as a former call center worker I can tell you that a
>CSR's productivity depends a lot on the tools he's given to work with.
>If you have to call up 13 different slow screens in order to research a
>customer's question, that tends to make you less productive.

In any case, sprint is proof that CS isn't what wins or keeps customers;
it's the quality of the network that counts. Even before I signed up with
sprint, I was warned about the horrible CS.

But, I'll take sprint over at&t wireless any time. When I had at&t wireless,
I had to keep a second analog phone in my car for the frequent times when there
was no digital coverage and at&t was too cheap and or stupid to permit analog
calls.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 19, 2004 6:46:50 PM

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

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

TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
>
> In any case, sprint is proof that CS isn't what wins or keeps customers;
> it's the quality of the network that counts. Even before I signed up with
> sprint, I was warned about the horrible CS.
>
> But, I'll take sprint over at&t wireless any time. When I had at&t wireless,
> I had to keep a second analog phone in my car for the frequent times when there
> was no digital coverage and at&t was too cheap and or stupid to permit analog
> calls.

I find this rather amazing considering that in most markets that AT&T
Wireless has digital coverage, they also have significant assets in the
cellular AMPS. It would be a rather rare case to be in an area like
this ... you are indeed an unlucky individual ;) 

- --

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

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

iD8DBQFAg+ZV1p0e3NXsrtERAqzAAJ0Zg9d20HyYYmb50xcN0SpvcbJpXQCgtZAK
sXdHSGdMMwpR6cKJe5dxRB4=
=g5tS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 19, 2004 6:46:51 PM

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

On 19 Apr 2004 14:46:50 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1

>TCS <The-Central-Scrutinizer@p.o.b.o.x.com> wrote:
>>
>> In any case, sprint is proof that CS isn't what wins or keeps customers;
>> it's the quality of the network that counts. Even before I signed up with
>> sprint, I was warned about the horrible CS.
>>
>> But, I'll take sprint over at&t wireless any time. When I had at&t wireless,
>> I had to keep a second analog phone in my car for the frequent times when there
>> was no digital coverage and at&t was too cheap and or stupid to permit analog
>> calls.

>I find this rather amazing considering that in most markets that AT&T
>Wireless has digital coverage, they also have significant assets in the
>cellular AMPS. It would be a rather rare case to be in an area like
>this ... you are indeed an unlucky individual ;) 

The area was denver, by the way. There was no analog service anywhere in
the metro area and lots of places where digital coverage was too weak to be
useable.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 19, 2004 7:16:38 PM

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

norelpref wrote:


> Dont be surprised if I do not reply back. I've seen your posting history.

Phil,
You really are a sick guy.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 26, 2004 7:52:56 PM

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

In article <2uWdnfcSFK9v2h7dRVn-jA@giganews.com>, norelpref@fake.inv
says...
> I draw the conclusion that there is more then one system at each
> location. One system and fast response would seem to be the ideal thing
> for anyone. Based only on the posted comparison, I do not know what
> each system does or when each needs to be accessed but neither do you.
> Is there one for business and one for non business? Is it one for old
> plans and one for new? Is it one for long time customers that were not
> switched to a new system? Is one web based, one terminal, and one a
> teleprompter? Is there one for plan maintenance and one for contracts?
> Is it one for each day of the week? How about one for each month in
> the year? Do you know when you call Sprintpcs or ATT when they are
> switching to a different system to access something? Do you really know
> when a CS person says "the system is slow today" it really is? Sprint
> and ATT could have 40 systems and have to manually swap monitor and KB
> cables to get between them for all I know. IMHO, the limited
> comparisons above between the two companies gives NO indication that the
> processes are the same either.
>

FWIW, I remind everyone that SPCS took a huge charge last year, $300
million I think it was, abandoning an upgrade effort. It wasn't
working out as needed. Unlike AT&T, we took the hint and decided to
keep what worked, even as it is.

I haven't heard anything, but I would expect that's one of the things
IBM is going to tackle.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
April 26, 2004 8:13:02 PM

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

In article <5cd666da0b7672fcf9730412ce8fe903@news.teranews.com>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <2uWdnfcSFK9v2h7dRVn-jA@giganews.com>, norelpref@fake.inv
> says...
> > I draw the conclusion that there is more then one system at each
> > location. One system and fast response would seem to be the ideal thing
> > for anyone. Based only on the posted comparison, I do not know what
> > each system does or when each needs to be accessed but neither do you.
> > Is there one for business and one for non business? Is it one for old
> > plans and one for new? Is it one for long time customers that were not
> > switched to a new system? Is one web based, one terminal, and one a
> > teleprompter? Is there one for plan maintenance and one for contracts?
> > Is it one for each day of the week? How about one for each month in
> > the year? Do you know when you call Sprintpcs or ATT when they are
> > switching to a different system to access something? Do you really know
> > when a CS person says "the system is slow today" it really is? Sprint
> > and ATT could have 40 systems and have to manually swap monitor and KB
> > cables to get between them for all I know. IMHO, the limited
> > comparisons above between the two companies gives NO indication that the
> > processes are the same either.
> >
>
> FWIW, I remind everyone that SPCS took a huge charge last year, $300
> million I think it was, abandoning an upgrade effort. It wasn't
> working out as needed. Unlike AT&T, we took the hint and decided to
> keep what worked, even as it is.

And then renewed the contract with Convergys
!