No Rebate $30/300 Minutes

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

So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.
13 answers Last reply
More about rebate minutes
  1. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "Frank Graves" <fmgtech@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:140620041731441699%fmgtech@cox.net...
    > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
    > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
    > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
    > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.

    No, you don't matter.. I pay $155/mo before taxes
    for the last 4 years and I don't matter either.. :o
  2. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "Frank Graves" <fmgtech@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:140620041731441699%fmgtech@cox.net...
    > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
    > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
    > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
    > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.


    SPCS is already subsidizing some of the cost of the phones, before any
    rebate, so they lose money when a phone is sold for list price. Add the
    rebate, and they are further in the hole. You are not generating much if any
    revenue for the company, as it takes a lot of time to recap the subsidy on
    the phone and rebate on the monthly service fees, if it's taken.

    If you want a $150 rebate, boost your plan by $5, & go with the F & F plan.
    You will have to sign up for two more years, but if the service works well
    for you, then it's no big deal, and you will still be up $30 after two
    years.

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

    "TheDoc" <TheDoc@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:10csg2a1pn1vv8e@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > "Frank Graves" <fmgtech@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:140620041731441699%fmgtech@cox.net...
    > > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
    > > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
    > > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
    > > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.
    >
    > No, you don't matter.. I pay $155/mo before taxes
    > for the last 4 years and I don't matter either.. :o

    How old is your phone Doc? Has the same phone number been on that phone for
    18 months or more?

    http://pcshandsetupgrade.sprint.com/

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

    Frank Graves wrote:
    > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
    > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
    > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
    > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.

    It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on you. We
    provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and step up a few
    times from there. Added service options, more minutes, stuff like that.
    We're certainly not to going to take it away from you. But we're also
    certain to use the upgrade program as an enticement to utilize more of our
    services.

    Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really the
    truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar restrictions.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    You have a great deal. I was paying $40 for 300 min. Now I am
    paying $40 for 400, but we did not need when I changed and do not need
    now the extra 100 minutes. I just thought it would be best to take it
    when it was offered. Currently we could get $40 for 500 minutes, but it
    would entail a contract on both the primary phone and the Add-A-Phone.
    Since in the near future we have the possibility of not needing the
    Add-A-Phone, it would be better to wait.

    Frank Graves wrote:
    > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
    > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
    > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
    > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <FRIzc.1500$w07.738@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

    > You have a great deal. I was paying $40 for 300 min. Now I am
    > paying $40 for 400, but we did not need when I changed and do not need
    > now the extra 100 minutes. I just thought it would be best to take it
    > when it was offered. Currently we could get $40 for 500 minutes, but it
    > would entail a contract on both the primary phone and the Add-A-Phone.
    > Since in the near future we have the possibility of not needing the
    > Add-A-Phone, it would be better to wait.
    >
    > Frank Graves wrote:
    > > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
    > > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
    > > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
    > > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.

    Retention is giving the $40 / 750 Minute plan.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
    > Frank Graves wrote:
    > > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
    > > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
    > > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
    > > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.
    >
    > It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on you. We
    > provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and step up a few
    > times from there. Added service options, more minutes, stuff like that.
    > We're certainly not to going to take it away from you. But we're also
    > certain to use the upgrade program as an enticement to utilize more of our
    > services.
    >
    > Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really the
    > truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar restrictions.

    No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
    some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
    fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
    ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
    can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
    v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
    loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
    these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
    should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
    *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
    scheme which initiated the $30 plan---

    If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
    to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
    customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
    that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
    virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
    providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
    computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
    is virtually nothing.

    As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
    even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
    customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
    $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
    of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
    not be accurate to do.

    And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
    cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
    mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
    hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
    in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
    their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
    bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
    include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans
  8. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
    SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
    It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
    average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.

    If you expense in network improvements, R&D on new phones, added services,
    etc, that number goes even higher (although I have no figures on how high).

    Later, after that, you state, "If the $30/300 was/is a
    loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of these
    customers, then the additional profit from these customers should offset
    some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't grow; this logically
    should have been a part of the orginal grand scheme which initiated the $30
    plan---"

    That's not necessarily a contradiction, but I *do* think it's an
    incompatible attitude. No company treats a customer as part of a group when
    it suits the customer, and as an individual when it suits the customer. We
    deal with them as a group, or we deal with each as an individual. That's
    not just Sprint. Or Cellular Industry. That's true across virtually every
    company out there.

    Except for corporate-paid services, we deal individually with each customer
    (albeit sometimes badly, I admit). And this program is an individual
    offering that I'm not ashamed to admit carries with it a prerequisite that
    wants to make you even more of a customer of SPCS. It doesn't matter that
    customer B,C,D, and X offset the loss from Customer L. Customer L is still
    not in a profitable relationship with us. If he/she is willing to establish
    that profitable relationship, then by gum we've got some terrific options
    for him/her.

    Personally, I have to wonder what kind of customer that can't or won't
    afford another $5/month can or will afford $200 up front for a new phone.
    Irrelevant to this topic, but I wonder nonetheless.


    plane wrote:
    > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
    > news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
    >> Frank Graves wrote:
    >>> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a
    >>> rebate just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was
    >>> sufficient for my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on
    >>> 16 months but I guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a
    >>> company.
    >>
    >> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on
    >> you. We provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and
    >> step up a few times from there. Added service options, more
    >> minutes, stuff like that. We're certainly not to going to take it
    >> away from you. But we're also certain to use the upgrade program as
    >> an enticement to utilize more of our services.
    >>
    >> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really
    >> the truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar
    >> restrictions.
    >
    > No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
    > some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
    > fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
    > ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
    > can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
    > v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
    > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
    > these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
    > should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
    > *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
    > scheme which initiated the $30 plan---
    >
    > If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
    > to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
    > customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
    > that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
    > virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
    > providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
    > computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
    > is virtually nothing.
    >
    > As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
    > even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
    > customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
    > $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
    > of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
    > not be accurate to do.
    >
    > And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
    > cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
    > mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
    > hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
    > in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
    > their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
    > bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
    > include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans
  9. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
    > You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
    > SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
    > It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
    > average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.
    >
    > If you expense in network improvements, R&D on new phones, added services,
    > etc, that number goes even higher (although I have no figures on how high).
    >
    > Later, after that, you state, "If the $30/300 was/is a
    > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of these
    > customers, then the additional profit from these customers should offset
    > some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't grow; this logically
    > should have been a part of the orginal grand scheme which initiated the $30
    > plan---"
    >
    > That's not necessarily a contradiction, but I *do* think it's an
    > incompatible attitude. No company treats a customer as part of a group when
    > it suits the customer, and as an individual when it suits the customer. We
    > deal with them as a group, or we deal with each as an individual. That's
    > not just Sprint. Or Cellular Industry. That's true across virtually every
    > company out there.
    >
    > Except for corporate-paid services, we deal individually with each customer
    > (albeit sometimes badly, I admit). And this program is an individual
    > offering that I'm not ashamed to admit carries with it a prerequisite that
    > wants to make you even more of a customer of SPCS. It doesn't matter that
    > customer B,C,D, and X offset the loss from Customer L. Customer L is still
    > not in a profitable relationship with us. If he/she is willing to establish
    > that profitable relationship, then by gum we've got some terrific options
    > for him/her.
    >
    > Personally, I have to wonder what kind of customer that can't or won't
    > afford another $5/month can or will afford $200 up front for a new phone.
    > Irrelevant to this topic, but I wonder nonetheless.
    >
    > Good points.

    thanks
    > plane wrote:
    > > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
    > > news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
    > >> Frank Graves wrote:
    > >>> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a
    > >>> rebate just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was
    > >>> sufficient for my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on
    > >>> 16 months but I guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a
    > >>> company.
    > >>
    > >> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on
    > >> you. We provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and
    > >> step up a few times from there. Added service options, more
    > >> minutes, stuff like that. We're certainly not to going to take it
    > >> away from you. But we're also certain to use the upgrade program as
    > >> an enticement to utilize more of our services.
    > >>
    > >> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really
    > >> the truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar
    > >> restrictions.
    > >
    > > No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
    > > some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
    > > fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
    > > ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
    > > can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
    > > v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
    > > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
    > > these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
    > > should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
    > > *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
    > > scheme which initiated the $30 plan---
    > >
    > > If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
    > > to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
    > > customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
    > > that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
    > > virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
    > > providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
    > > computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
    > > is virtually nothing.
    > >
    > > As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
    > > even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
    > > customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
    > > $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
    > > of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
    > > not be accurate to do.
    > >
    > > And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
    > > cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
    > > mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
    > > hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
    > > in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
    > > their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
    > > bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
    > > include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans
  10. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
    > You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
    > SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
    > It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
    > average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.
    >
    > If you expense in network improvements, R&D on new phones, added services,
    > etc, that number goes even higher (although I have no figures on how high).
    >
    > Later, after that, you state, "If the $30/300 was/is a
    > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of these
    > customers, then the additional profit from these customers should offset
    > some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't grow; this logically
    > should have been a part of the orginal grand scheme which initiated the $30
    > plan---"
    >
    > That's not necessarily a contradiction, but I *do* think it's an
    > incompatible attitude. No company treats a customer as part of a group when
    > it suits the customer, and as an individual when it suits the customer. We
    > deal with them as a group, or we deal with each as an individual. That's
    > not just Sprint. Or Cellular Industry. That's true across virtually every
    > company out there.
    >
    > Except for corporate-paid services, we deal individually with each customer
    > (albeit sometimes badly, I admit). And this program is an individual
    > offering that I'm not ashamed to admit carries with it a prerequisite that
    > wants to make you even more of a customer of SPCS. It doesn't matter that
    > customer B,C,D, and X offset the loss from Customer L. Customer L is still
    > not in a profitable relationship with us. If he/she is willing to establish
    > that profitable relationship, then by gum we've got some terrific options
    > for him/her.
    >
    > Personally, I have to wonder what kind of customer that can't or won't
    > afford another $5/month can or will afford $200 up front for a new phone.
    > Irrelevant to this topic, but I wonder nonetheless.
    >
    > Good points.

    thanks
    > plane wrote:
    > > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
    > > news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
    > >> Frank Graves wrote:
    > >>> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a
    > >>> rebate just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was
    > >>> sufficient for my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on
    > >>> 16 months but I guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a
    > >>> company.
    > >>
    > >> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on
    > >> you. We provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and
    > >> step up a few times from there. Added service options, more
    > >> minutes, stuff like that. We're certainly not to going to take it
    > >> away from you. But we're also certain to use the upgrade program as
    > >> an enticement to utilize more of our services.
    > >>
    > >> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really
    > >> the truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar
    > >> restrictions.
    > >
    > > No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
    > > some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
    > > fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
    > > ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
    > > can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
    > > v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
    > > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
    > > these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
    > > should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
    > > *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
    > > scheme which initiated the $30 plan---
    > >
    > > If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
    > > to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
    > > customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
    > > that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
    > > virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
    > > providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
    > > computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
    > > is virtually nothing.
    > >
    > > As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
    > > even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
    > > customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
    > > $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
    > > of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
    > > not be accurate to do.
    > >
    > > And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
    > > cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
    > > mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
    > > hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
    > > in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
    > > their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
    > > bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
    > > include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans
  11. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    In article <68a9acb2.0406170752.5cb16b7a@posting.google.com>,
    plane@usa.com (plane) wrote:

    > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
    > news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
    > > You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
    > > SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
    > > It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
    > > average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.

    Average customer. There's the sticking point.


    > >
    > > If you expense in network improvements, R&D on new phones, added services,
    > > etc, that number goes even higher (although I have no figures on how high).
    > >
    > > Later, after that, you state, "If the $30/300 was/is a
    > > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of these
    > > customers, then the additional profit from these customers should offset
    > > some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't grow; this logically
    > > should have been a part of the orginal grand scheme which initiated the $30
    > > plan---"
    > >
    > > That's not necessarily a contradiction, but I *do* think it's an
    > > incompatible attitude. No company treats a customer as part of a group
    > > when
    > > it suits the customer, and as an individual when it suits the customer. We
    > > deal with them as a group, or we deal with each as an individual. That's
    > > not just Sprint. Or Cellular Industry. That's true across virtually every
    > > company out there.
    > >
    > > Except for corporate-paid services, we deal individually with each customer
    > > (albeit sometimes badly, I admit). And this program is an individual
    > > offering that I'm not ashamed to admit carries with it a prerequisite that
    > > wants to make you even more of a customer of SPCS. It doesn't matter that
    > > customer B,C,D, and X offset the loss from Customer L. Customer L is still
    > > not in a profitable relationship with us. If he/she is willing to
    > > establish
    > > that profitable relationship, then by gum we've got some terrific options
    > > for him/her.
    > >
    > > Personally, I have to wonder what kind of customer that can't or won't
    > > afford another $5/month can or will afford $200 up front for a new phone.
    > > Irrelevant to this topic, but I wonder nonetheless.
    > >
    > > Good points.
    >
    > thanks
    > > plane wrote:
    > > > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
    > > > news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
    > > >> Frank Graves wrote:
    > > >>> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a
    > > >>> rebate just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was
    > > >>> sufficient for my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on
    > > >>> 16 months but I guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a
    > > >>> company.
    > > >>
    > > >> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on
    > > >> you. We provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and
    > > >> step up a few times from there. Added service options, more
    > > >> minutes, stuff like that. We're certainly not to going to take it
    > > >> away from you. But we're also certain to use the upgrade program as
    > > >> an enticement to utilize more of our services.
    > > >>
    > > >> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really
    > > >> the truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar
    > > >> restrictions.
    > > >
    > > > No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
    > > > some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
    > > > fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
    > > > ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
    > > > can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
    > > > v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
    > > > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
    > > > these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
    > > > should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
    > > > *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
    > > > scheme which initiated the $30 plan---
    > > >
    > > > If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
    > > > to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
    > > > customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
    > > > that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
    > > > virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
    > > > providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
    > > > computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
    > > > is virtually nothing.
    > > >
    > > > As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
    > > > even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
    > > > customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
    > > > $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
    > > > of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
    > > > not be accurate to do.
    > > >
    > > > And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
    > > > cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
    > > > mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
    > > > hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
    > > > in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
    > > > their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
    > > > bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
    > > > include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans
  12. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

    "R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote:
    > In article <68a9acb2.0406170752.5cb16b7a@posting.google.com>,
    > plane@usa.com (plane) wrote:
    >
    >> "O/Siris" <0siris@spr?ntpcs.c?m> wrote in message
    >> news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
    >> > You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
    >> > SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
    >> > It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
    >> > average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.
    >
    > Average customer. There's the sticking point.

    <sarcasm>
    You're absolutely right. Sprint PCS has no right to make any money off
    their customers.
    </sarcasm>

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

    "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message
    news:rmarkoff-19729A.15410217062004@news01.east.earthlink.net...
    > In article <68a9acb2.0406170752.5cb16b7a@posting.google.com>,
    > plane@usa.com (plane) wrote:
    >
    > > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
    > > news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
    > > > You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege
    that
    > > > SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price
    level.
    > > > It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer
    Care,
    > > > average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.
    >
    > Average customer. There's the sticking point.

    Absolutely ... totally incorrect, again Phillipe! ... That's the bottom line
    phone plan ... and you say it's the average customer? Seems to yours truly
    that to be average, it has to be between the lowest and highest plan ...

    Bob
Ask a new question

Read More

Sprint PCS Internet Service Providers