Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fair & Flexible

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
June 29, 2004 5:02:55 PM

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

Has anyone tried the new Sprint Fair & Flexible plan? I've heard that
it can end up being more expensive than the regular plan. I am a low
volume user.

Sharon

More about : fair flexible

Anonymous
June 30, 2004 12:11:49 AM

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

"Sharon" <me7@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2ke064F18l77U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Has anyone tried the new Sprint Fair & Flexible plan? I've heard that
> it can end up being more expensive than the regular plan. I am a low
> volume user.
>
> Sharon

If you are a low end user, it should be cheaper for you when you go over
your minutes a touch.

It can be more expensive than a regular plan, but in saying that, if one
continually goes over their F & F minutes, they are on the wrong plan to
begin with ...

Bob
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 2:22:31 AM

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

I've heard that it can end up being more expensive than the regular plan. I
am a low
> volume user.
>
> Sharon

If you are a low volume user, 300/$35f&c, then perhaps the flex plan will
allow you to go over the 300 minutes and only pay an extra 11 or 12 cents
per minute. The lowest flex plan is 300/$35, so you won't save any more if
you have a light volume month and only use 100 minutes.
For medium users (500min/$40f&c) the flex plan allows you to save a bit if
your usage fluctuates more than 35%, since the flex plan for 500min is $55.
If your usage doesn't wildly fluctuate, then it's probably not worth the
hassle of worrying about the cumulative minutes you are using during the
month.
For example, if you are using a maximum of 700 minutes for $50 now(f&c), and
switch to a flex plan, that same 700 minutes will cost you $72, $22 more
than the old $50 plan. You would have to only use 300-400 minutes for the
next couple of months to recoup the extra $22.
Related resources
June 30, 2004 2:22:32 AM

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

Floyd I Johnson wrote:
> I've heard that it can end up being more expensive than the regular plan. I
> am a low
>
>>volume user.
>>
>>Sharon
>
>
> If you are a low volume user, 300/$35f&c, then perhaps the flex plan will
> allow you to go over the 300 minutes and only pay an extra 11 or 12 cents
> per minute. The lowest flex plan is 300/$35, so you won't save any more if
> you have a light volume month and only use 100 minutes.
> For medium users (500min/$40f&c) the flex plan allows you to save a bit if
> your usage fluctuates more than 35%, since the flex plan for 500min is $55.
> If your usage doesn't wildly fluctuate, then it's probably not worth the
> hassle of worrying about the cumulative minutes you are using during the
> month.
> For example, if you are using a maximum of 700 minutes for $50 now(f&c), and
> switch to a flex plan, that same 700 minutes will cost you $72, $22 more
> than the old $50 plan. You would have to only use 300-400 minutes for the
> next couple of months to recoup the extra $22.
>
>

Thanks for the info. I'm buying a new cell phone and switching to
Sprint, and wasn't sure which plan would be the best for me. I don't
think that I will go over 300 minutes so I'll probably go with the Free
and Clear.

Sharon
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 10:09:00 PM

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

"Sharon" <me7@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kg8thF22bv4U1@uni-berlin.de...
> That's true if the usage stays pretty low volume. However, if I go with
> the 500 minutes, which I am also considering, and used almost all of
> those 500 minutes it would cost me $15 more on the Fair & Flexible Plan.
>
> Sharon

Lot of ifs in that paragraph. You said in your prior post you would be going
with the 300 F & C plan. You also said that you are a low end user. If you
are a low end user, then the F & F plan will save you money, even if you do
go over 300 minutes a month a few times during the year, it's still cheaper
than a 500 minute user, especially if you will be calling to other SPCS
phones and adding PCS to PCS to your plan.

Bob
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 8:18:28 PM

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

In article <QrVEc.1247$R36.1108@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
jeromez1@earthlink.net says...
> If you have never had a wireless phone before, then starting out
> with the flexible plan for a few months would let you gauge your usage.
> Based on that usage you can determine if your monthly usage is stable
> or varies frequently. If it is stable, then the corresponding F & C
> plan would be good. If is is quite variable, then the flexible would be
> better. It all boils down to what type of plan fits what you find your
> calling patterns to be.
> Someone who already has a wireless phone, probably knows by now
> what his usage volumes are and can switch to Sprint PCS and start with
> the Sprint PCS plan that is right for him from the beginning.
>
>

Remember, too, that SPCS now has the "Right Plan Promise." Which
means that you can sign up for a plan and change it to another within
90 days with a guarantee that there will be no additional commitment.

Unless, of course, the plan has a different requirement. And since
the rebates on our phones require a two-year commitment, and no plan
has more than a 2 year requirement, you should simply be able to swap
plans.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
Anonymous
July 4, 2004 7:16:58 PM

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

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...

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. Then
it was stated that Sprint had come up with something BETTER.

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

To me these two don't even address the same market: F&F as pointed out
here, only makes sense for the low-volume user, whereas RollOver is a feature
only offered for the higher volume plans from Cingular and indeed is
an incentive to switch to a more costly plan. My own read of the market is
that RollOver is much more appealing to the customer (regardless of
whether is actually makes any difference in the end), and that F&F
doesn't even begin to offer any market competition to RollOver, contrary
to the originally rumored premise.

In article <2kg8thF22bv4U1@uni-berlin.de>, Sharon <me7@privacy.net> wrote:
>That's true if the usage stays pretty low volume. However, if I go with
>the 500 minutes, which I am also considering, and used almost all of
>those 500 minutes it would cost me $15 more on the Fair & Flexible Plan.
>

>> Duh ??? It makes no sense to go with the 300 minute Free and Clear. If
>> you go over your 300 minutes, its 40 cents per min, talk 10 min = $4. Fair
>> and Flexible costs you $2.50 for 25 min. If you go over by 50 min on F&C,
>> costs you $20.00 vs $5.00 for F&F. A no brainer.
Anonymous
July 5, 2004 7:56:43 AM

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

In article <KbVFc.20510$iJ4.4672@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com says...
> So who thinks that F&F is or will be a successful offering to compete with
> RollOver ? Does anyone think that F&F is as desireable as RollOver ?
>
> To me these two don't even address the same market: F&F as pointed out
> here, only makes sense for the low-volume user, whereas RollOver is a feature
> only offered for the higher volume plans from Cingular and indeed is
> an incentive to switch to a more costly plan. My own read of the market is
> that RollOver is much more appealing to the customer (regardless of
> whether is actually makes any difference in the end), and that F&F
> doesn't even begin to offer any market competition to RollOver, contrary
> to the originally rumored premise.
>

I think it's got potential. It may fail, and I certainly am in no
position to determine that. I think it's more than just low-volume
appeal. There has to be a two-pronged "attack", so to speak.

If you're on a plan that rolls over month after month after month,
you're on too big a plan. And if you're having to "squeeze" into the
minutes available each month, then you're on too small a plan. Now,
instead of having to guess how many minutes you'll need each month,
here's a plan that gives you an option.

Now, maybe that option isn't the right answer. But I will defend it
as, at least, an attempt to answer that need, and I think it's an
interesting one.

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 7:13:44 PM

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

In article <5e0c76b36e1e0bc1a5d16d4d77739156@news.teranews.com>, O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
>In article <KbVFc.20510$iJ4.4672@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,=20
>dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com says...
>> So who thinks that F&F is or will be a successful offering to compete wit=
>h
>> RollOver ? Does anyone think that F&F is as desireable as RollOver ?
>>=20
>> To me these two don't even address the same market: F&F as pointed out
>> here, only makes sense for the low-volume user, whereas RollOver is a fea=
>ture
>> only offered for the higher volume plans from Cingular and indeed is=20
>> an incentive to switch to a more costly plan. My own read of the market i=
>s
>> that RollOver is much more appealing to the customer (regardless of
>> whether is actually makes any difference in the end), and that F&F
>> doesn't even begin to offer any market competition to RollOver, contrary
>> to the originally rumored premise.
>>=20
>
>I think it's got potential. It may fail, and I certainly am in no=20
>position to determine that. I think it's more than just low-volume=20
>appeal. There has to be a two-pronged "attack", so to speak.
>
>If you're on a plan that rolls over month after month after month,=20
>you're on too big a plan. And if you're having to "squeeze" into the=20
>minutes available each month, then you're on too small a plan. Now,=20
>instead of having to guess how many minutes you'll need each month,=20
>here's a plan that gives you an option.

Okay, let's take your above statement as the intended market and benefit of
F&F.

Person A uses an annual mean of 1000 min/month, with a std dev of 500
min/month (computed annually). Person B uses a mean of 500min/month,
with a std dev of 300min/month, and Person C uses a mean of 2000min/month
with a std dev of 1000min/month.

My contention is that F&F is not financially beneficial for any of these
scenerios when compared with the standard F&C plans EVEN THOUGH these
people would have to choose a F&C that has monthly minutes equal to their
(mean + std dev) usage (or more, perhaps even (mean + 2*stddev).

Whereas a Rollover option would allow all of these people to simply choose a
monthly plan roughly equal to their mean usage.
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 9:04:29 PM

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

In article <IqUGc.13690$yd5.8407@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com (Daniel Tso) wrote:

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

So you mean Cingular's plans are more reasonable for most people?
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 9:37:45 PM

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

"R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote:
>
> So you mean Cingular's plans are more reasonable for most people?

So be it ... but F&FA is not the only plan a user can choose. Further,
even if I wanted too ... I could not choose a Cingular plan, as they
don't currently own towers in Minnesota [until the buyout of AT&T WS is
complete].

--

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 3:28:17 PM

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

I think most people do not have that high a variable in monthly
usage. And I think that most people starting wireless service do not
know what there usage will be, so starting with the flexible plan for
2-3 months can be helpful. One does not have to wait until the end of
the Advantage Agreement to change plans.


Daniel Tso wrote:

> In article <5e0c76b36e1e0bc1a5d16d4d77739156@news.teranews.com>, O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <KbVFc.20510$iJ4.4672@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,=20
>>dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com says...
>>
>>>So who thinks that F&F is or will be a successful offering to compete wit=
>>
>>h
>>
>>>RollOver ? Does anyone think that F&F is as desireable as RollOver ?
>>>=20
>>>To me these two don't even address the same market: F&F as pointed out
>>>here, only makes sense for the low-volume user, whereas RollOver is a fea=
>>
>>ture
>>
>>>only offered for the higher volume plans from Cingular and indeed is=20
>>>an incentive to switch to a more costly plan. My own read of the market i=
>>
>>s
>>
>>>that RollOver is much more appealing to the customer (regardless of
>>>whether is actually makes any difference in the end), and that F&F
>>>doesn't even begin to offer any market competition to RollOver, contrary
>>>to the originally rumored premise.
>>>=20
>>
>>I think it's got potential. It may fail, and I certainly am in no=20
>>position to determine that. I think it's more than just low-volume=20
>>appeal. There has to be a two-pronged "attack", so to speak.
>>
>>If you're on a plan that rolls over month after month after month,=20
>>you're on too big a plan. And if you're having to "squeeze" into the=20
>>minutes available each month, then you're on too small a plan. Now,=20
>>instead of having to guess how many minutes you'll need each month,=20
>>here's a plan that gives you an option.
>
>
> Okay, let's take your above statement as the intended market and benefit of
> F&F.
>
> Person A uses an annual mean of 1000 min/month, with a std dev of 500
> min/month (computed annually). Person B uses a mean of 500min/month,
> with a std dev of 300min/month, and Person C uses a mean of 2000min/month
> with a std dev of 1000min/month.
>
> My contention is that F&F is not financially beneficial for any of these
> scenerios when compared with the standard F&C plans EVEN THOUGH these
> people would have to choose a F&C that has monthly minutes equal to their
> (mean + std dev) usage (or more, perhaps even (mean + 2*stddev).
>
> Whereas a Rollover option would allow all of these people to simply choose a
> monthly plan roughly equal to their mean usage.
>
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 4:58:14 PM

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

In article <ldaHc.9278$oD3.34@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I think most people do not have that high a variable in monthly
> usage. And I think that most people starting wireless service do not
> know what there usage will be, so starting with the flexible plan for
> 2-3 months can be helpful. One does not have to wait until the end of
> the Advantage Agreement to change plans.

But after 3 months with SprintPCS new policies, any plan change requires
a new 2 year agreement.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 4:58:15 PM

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

"R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote:

>> I think most people do not have that high a variable in monthly
>> usage. And I think that most people starting wireless service do not
>> know what there usage will be, so starting with the flexible plan for
>> 2-3 months can be helpful. One does not have to wait until the end of
>> the Advantage Agreement to change plans.
>
> But after 3 months with SprintPCS new policies, any plan change requires
> a new 2 year agreement.

I actually thought this was the case, but I've been told no - I
*specifically* asked when activating my new phone, because I may do a
local plan to save money, and then flip to F&C when I get ready to travel.

--
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.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 6:17:54 PM

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

In article <rmarkoff-3DB9BF.12042907072004@news03.east.earthlink.net>, "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:
>In article <IqUGc.13690$yd5.8407@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com (Daniel Tso) wrote:
>
>> Okay, let's take your above statement as the intended market and benefit of
>> F&F.
>>
>> Person A uses an annual mean of 1000 min/month, with a std dev of 500
>> min/month (computed annually). Person B uses a mean of 500min/month,
>> with a std dev of 300min/month, and Person C uses a mean of 2000min/month
>> with a std dev of 1000min/month.
>>
>> My contention is that F&F is not financially beneficial for any of these
>> scenerios when compared with the standard F&C plans EVEN THOUGH these
>> people would have to choose a F&C that has monthly minutes equal to their
>> (mean + std dev) usage (or more, perhaps even (mean + 2*stddev).
>>
>> Whereas a Rollover option would allow all of these people to simply choose a
>> monthly plan roughly equal to their mean usage.
>
>So you mean Cingular's plans are more reasonable for most people?

This discussion was NOT about Sprint vs Cingular. It was about whether F&F is
an effective competitive response to Rollover and meets the goals of offering
an attractive option for those customers that need a plan that is "fair and
flexible", i.e. won't gouge you if your usage pattern is highly variable from
month to month. My contention is that F&F fails on these counts, that, as
implemented, it only makes sense for a very small group, roughly those who
mean usage is around 350min with a variance of around 50-100, and the original
expectation, that F&F would be BETTER than Rollover is simply not met.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 6:31:07 PM

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

In article <ldaHc.9278$oD3.34@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think most people do not have that high a variable in monthly
>usage.

If this is true and Sprint were really sincere about eliminating the penalty
for customers not being able to correctly guess their monthly as their current
advertising suggests, then:
1) implementing Rollover would not hurt them at all and would help those
customers (few as you suggest) that DO have highly variabe usage,
2) they should eliminate the $0.40 overage charges and simply treat the
plans as "minimum usage commitments" rather than buckets of minutes.
That is, if I buy into 500min at $40 (8 cents/min), and I go over 500min,
I continue to be charged at 8 cents/min for the overage, not $0.40.

> And I think that most people starting wireless service do not
>know what there usage will be, so starting with the flexible plan for
>2-3 months can be helpful.

That point would be valid if F&F scales reasonably for higher usage, but it
does not. A new customer who doesn't know what his usage will be, but it
will be somewhere between 1000-1500 mins, is TOTALLY not served by
F&F. Only customers "who don't know" in the 300-500 range would find
F&F even only as a starter plan.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 6:45:21 PM

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

In article <mIcHc.17683$yd5.775@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com (Daniel Tso) wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-3DB9BF.12042907072004@news03.east.earthlink.net>,
> "Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote:
> >In article <IqUGc.13690$yd5.8407@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> > dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com (Daniel Tso) wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, let's take your above statement as the intended market and benefit
> >> of
> >> F&F.
> >>
> >> Person A uses an annual mean of 1000 min/month, with a std dev of 500
> >> min/month (computed annually). Person B uses a mean of 500min/month,
> >> with a std dev of 300min/month, and Person C uses a mean of 2000min/month
> >> with a std dev of 1000min/month.
> >>
> >> My contention is that F&F is not financially beneficial for any of these
> >> scenerios when compared with the standard F&C plans EVEN THOUGH these
> >> people would have to choose a F&C that has monthly minutes equal to their
> >> (mean + std dev) usage (or more, perhaps even (mean + 2*stddev).
> >>
> >> Whereas a Rollover option would allow all of these people to simply choose
> >> a
> >> monthly plan roughly equal to their mean usage.
> >
> >So you mean Cingular's plans are more reasonable for most people?
>
> This discussion was NOT about Sprint vs Cingular. It was about whether F&F is
> an effective competitive response to Rollover and meets the goals of offering
> an attractive option for those customers that need a plan that is "fair and
> flexible", i.e. won't gouge you if your usage pattern is highly variable from
> month to month. My contention is that F&F fails on these counts, that, as
> implemented, it only makes sense for a very small group, roughly those who
> mean usage is around 350min with a variance of around 50-100, and the
> original
> expectation, that F&F would be BETTER than Rollover is simply not met.

So again, if F&F fails, and Rollover is better, then you must be saying
Cingular's plans are better than Sprint's especially since Rollover is
available at any base rate plan, where as F&F you must start at 300
minutes.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 7:14:28 PM

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

"Daniel Tso" <dantsoREMOVE@yahooREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:mIcHc.17683$yd5.775@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
<snipped>

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

I've noticed that you've posted a few times the comment about those who
would benefit by using the F & F plan is a very small group. My question to
you is ... how do you know?

Do you have the statistical breakout on how many folks who subscribe to SPCS
as to their monthly usage? I haven't seen any numbers announced by SPCS,
save for those numbers on what the average subscription cost of $60/mo. are,
and that figure includes corporate accounts as well.

IMHO and without any stats or figures to back me up, the 300 min/mo. crowd
is a lot larger than what you are stating. Why else would SPCS add this plan
to their service?

Bob
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 10:56:25 PM

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

1) Implementing rollover for so few people would cost more than it
is worth.
2) $1., 80 cents, 40 cents per minute overage fees would be fine
for the lower level $35, $40, $50 plans, and lower proportionately for
the higher level plans.
3) I don't think a customer new to wireless would already know
that his usage would be anywhere near 1000 minutes, much less 1500
minutes. Unless someone is starting out whole hog and getting a second
phone for the wife and a third for a teenager.


Daniel Tso wrote:
> In article <ldaHc.9278$oD3.34@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I think most people do not have that high a variable in monthly
>>usage.
>
>
> If this is true and Sprint were really sincere about eliminating the penalty
> for customers not being able to correctly guess their monthly as their current
> advertising suggests, then:
> 1) implementing Rollover would not hurt them at all and would help those
> customers (few as you suggest) that DO have highly variabe usage,
> 2) they should eliminate the $0.40 overage charges and simply treat the
> plans as "minimum usage commitments" rather than buckets of minutes.
> That is, if I buy into 500min at $40 (8 cents/min), and I go over 500min,
> I continue to be charged at 8 cents/min for the overage, not $0.40.
>
>
>> And I think that most people starting wireless service do not
>>know what there usage will be, so starting with the flexible plan for
>>2-3 months can be helpful.
>
>
> That point would be valid if F&F scales reasonably for higher usage, but it
> does not. A new customer who doesn't know what his usage will be, but it
> will be somewhere between 1000-1500 mins, is TOTALLY not served by
> F&F. Only customers "who don't know" in the 300-500 range would find
> F&F even only as a starter plan.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 11:03:10 PM

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

Even it it did, at the end it would total only 2 years and 3
months. Not a long time really. Especially for someone like you and me
who have been with them for years already.


Steven J Sobol wrote:

> "R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote:
>
>
>>> I think most people do not have that high a variable in monthly
>>>usage. And I think that most people starting wireless service do not
>>>know what there usage will be, so starting with the flexible plan for
>>>2-3 months can be helpful. One does not have to wait until the end of
>>>the Advantage Agreement to change plans.
>>
>>But after 3 months with SprintPCS new policies, any plan change requires
>>a new 2 year agreement.
>
>
> I actually thought this was the case, but I've been told no - I
> *specifically* asked when activating my new phone, because I may do a
> local plan to save money, and then flip to F&C when I get ready to travel.
>
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 11:03:11 PM

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

Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Even it it did, at the end it would total only 2 years and 3
> months. Not a long time really. Especially for someone like you and me
> who have been with them for years already.

If I was halfway into my contract would it not extend it another 12 months?

--
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.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 11:52:54 PM

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

In article <tNgHc.9228$R36.2120@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 1) Implementing rollover for so few people would cost more than it
> is worth.
> 2) $1., 80 cents, 40 cents per minute overage fees would be fine
> for the lower level $35, $40, $50 plans, and lower proportionately for
> the higher level plans.
> 3) I don't think a customer new to wireless would already know
> that his usage would be anywhere near 1000 minutes, much less 1500
> minutes. Unless someone is starting out whole hog and getting a second
> phone for the wife and a third for a teenager.

Thats exactly why the whole pricing structure of cellular carriers is
unreasonable.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 11:52:55 PM

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

"Robert M." <rmarkoff@faq.cIty> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-8A628E.14525408072004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <tNgHc.9228$R36.2120@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > 1) Implementing rollover for so few people would cost more than it
> > is worth.
> > 2) $1., 80 cents, 40 cents per minute overage fees would be fine
> > for the lower level $35, $40, $50 plans, and lower proportionately for
> > the higher level plans.
> > 3) I don't think a customer new to wireless would already know
> > that his usage would be anywhere near 1000 minutes, much less 1500
> > minutes. Unless someone is starting out whole hog and getting a second
> > phone for the wife and a third for a teenager.
>
> Thats exactly why the whole pricing structure of cellular carriers is
> unreasonable.

And I haven't seen anybody holding a gun to your head to have one. If you
don't like the pricing structure (which is not unreasonable), don't use one.
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 11:52:56 PM

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

Scott Stephenson <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

> And I haven't seen anybody holding a gun to your head to have one. If you
> don't like the pricing structure (which is not unreasonable), don't use one.

Can't speak for other carriers, but Sprint and Verizon both allow you to
check your balance online, or on the phone (#MIN for Verizon, *4 for Sprint)
and the usage records are usually accurate to within 24 hours.

I *always* keep tabs on my usage.

--
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.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 12:50:13 AM

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

> Steven J Sobol wrote:
>
> > "R?bert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> I think most people do not have that high a variable in monthly
> >>>usage. And I think that most people starting wireless service do not
> >>>know what there usage will be, so starting with the flexible plan for
> >>>2-3 months can be helpful. One does not have to wait until the end of
> >>>the Advantage Agreement to change plans.
> >>
> >>But after 3 months with SprintPCS new policies, any plan change requires
> >>a new 2 year agreement.
> >
> >
> > I actually thought this was the case, but I've been told no - I
> > *specifically* asked when activating my new phone, because I may do a
> > local plan to save money, and then flip to F&C when I get ready to travel.
> >

Sorry Steve:

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


=============

From: Bob Smith (usirsclt@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: New pricing Plan revealed: How fair??
Original FormatNewsgroups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Date: 2004-05-04 08:04:26 PST


....

From SPCS's PR -

"Sprint PCS Right Plan Promise - Within the first three months of
signing a Sprint PCS Advantage Agreement, new and existing customers can
change their service plan to a plan with an equal term without incurring
any fees or having to extend or renew the agreement. "


Bob


===========================
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 12:50:14 AM

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

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

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

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

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

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 5:18:54 PM

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

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


Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Even it it did, at the end it would total only 2 years and 3
>>months. Not a long time really. Especially for someone like you and me
>>who have been with them for years already.
>
>
> If I was halfway into my contract would it not extend it another 12 months?
>
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 5:18:55 PM

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

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

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

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 9, 2004 5:38:16 PM

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

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

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

Depends on the Plan change. Some features (7 PM Nights for instance)
require 2 year contracts.
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 5:24:29 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Deb
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 5:26:35 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Deb
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 6:17:07 PM

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

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

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

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 6:25:30 PM

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

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


Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, for 6 months into a 1 year Advantage Agreement instead of 3
>>months into a 2 year Advantage Agreement, that would be even shorter,
>>totaling only 1 year and 6 months, again not very long, especially for
>>long time customers already.
>
>
> It's a matter of opinion there... and simple plan changes that don't
> involve taking promotions should NOT extend your contract, IMHO.
>
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 6:25:31 PM

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

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

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

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

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

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 10:00:46 PM

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

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


Steven J Sobol wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, why make a change to improve your plan, if you
>>don't intend to stay with them for a while?
>
>
> I do, but I don't want to be locked into a contract. I never thought I'd
> leave Verizon, and then I moved out here and had problems. I'm stuck with
> them until the end of August if I don't want to pay an ETF, which I don't
> because I don't have an extra $175 lying around right now.
>
> We were just offered 8pm nights and weekends and 350 minutes and unlimited
> PCS to PCS for $35, which gives us 8pm instead of 9pm and 50 more peak minutes
> than we are currently getting on my wife's plan, for exactly the same price.
> We didn't take it because we try to avoid being under a carrier's thumb, no
> matter which carrier it is.
>
> I ignored my own guidelines by signing a two-year agreement with Sprint this
> month. It's the first time in years that I've done that with anyone...
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 10, 2004 10:00:47 PM

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

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

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

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

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

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 11, 2004 6:14:53 PM

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

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


Steven J Sobol wrote:

> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Just a couple of days ago I went from 400 to 500 minutes for $40
>>with still the 8pm. It required a 1 yr. AA, but only on the primary
>>phone not on Add-A-Phone. I'm still debating the PCS-to-PCS, but we
>>were not using more than the 400 as it was so???
>
>
> So making a simple plan change that doesn't require taking a promotion
> *does* extend your contract?
>
> (I'm still trying to get a conclusive answer on this. Although $45/1000
> is a nice deal, if I'll just have to change plans again next time I travel,
> I'll stick with $50/700. $45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)
>
> (Another note: Our phones are separate. We intentionally avoided getting
> a shared-minute plan.)
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2004 6:14:54 PM

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

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

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

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
July 12, 2004 12:28:45 AM

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

Steven J Sobol wrote:
$45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)

No, but $40/750 thru retentions is.
Anonymous
July 12, 2004 12:59:29 AM

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

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

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

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
July 12, 2004 2:15:11 AM

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

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

You would be surprised what you can get just for asking. I got 2500/$100 on
a new account in May.
Anonymous
July 12, 2004 4:30:04 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
RØß
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 10:26:08 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've over-bought
(i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of the
F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 4:07:11 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 7:44:58 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
>> having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
>> back to me in the first place is simply laughable.
>>
>> If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
>> you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
>> to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've
>over-bought
>> (i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
>> feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of
>the
>> F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
>> at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.
>
>Who knows? They might be considering that. Then again, they might not, after
>looking at the actual use of monthly minutes for that bracket of customers
>and whether they normally exceed 700 AT minutes in a month's time.
>
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 8:43:19 PM

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

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


Daniel Tso wrote:

> In article <PruJc.3457$mL5.643@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"Daniel Tso" <dantsodelete@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:4spJc.68161$bp1.42491@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>><snipped>
>>
>>>But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see that
>>>$75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as far
>>>as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
>>>points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
>>>even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
>>>The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad
>>
>>about,
>>
>>>not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one sheet.
>>>The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
>>>structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is that
>>>with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
>>>for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.
>>
>>Your whole discussion, which you started a while ago, is trying to compare F
>>& F to the amount of minutes YOU normally use Daniel. This F & F plan
>>doesn't work for high minute users. It's designed for low end users ... who
>>might go over their 300 minutes a few times a year.
>
>
> Nope, sorry. This discussion start, at least my part, when I was reminded that
> it was rumored here that F&F was developed as a competitive response to
> RollOver. In fact it was touted as being *better* than RollOver. I have
> present here why I think that F&F is not better at all and not an effective
> competitive response to RollOver. This discussion never had anything to
> do with *me*. I have never said what my usage is and you have no idea
> about it.
>
> Yes, in my postings I have said that F&F only makes (some) sense for
> low minutes users. I offered up the range of 300-350 +- 50-100min. So in
> that I *agree* with you that F&F might help those customers. However,
> O/Siris countered saying that he thought F&F also make sense for higher
> usage customers. The example of 600min/month with 2 months at 1200min
> is HIS example, not mine. He shows that F&F is "only" 10% more costly
> than overbuying F&C. I think this very example shows exactly that F&F
> isn't attractive at all when a customer can instead save money (albeit 10%)
> by buying 1400min/month.
>
>
>>By the way, you've have also mentioned in the past several times that low
>>end minute users are a very small percentage of SPCS's customer base, and
>>for at least two times, I've asked you to back up your statement and haven't
>>seen a reply of how you developed that %.
>
>
> Nope again, I have *never* said that low-end min users are a very small
> percentage. Never said that, sorry. I never would. What I did say, is exactly
> as above, and in agreement with you, that F&F only might help a narrow
> range of customers, that is those customers whose usage is around 300-350
> with variability in the 50-100min range. I mean it to say narrow in the sense
> of the possible spectrum of usage, not necessarily in the total distribution
> of the population.
>
> Now I can't tell, given your postings whether you think F&F is actually
> better than RollOver or even just over-buying F&C or not. That is the
> discussion here, not my usage. I would have liked to have seen Sprint
> actually offer RollOver, as was originally rumored here, as I think I
> would benefit from it, but alas...
>
>
>>>And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
>>>having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
>>>back to me in the first place is simply laughable.
>>>
>>>If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
>>>you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
>>>to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've
>>
>>over-bought
>>
>>>(i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
>>>feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of
>>
>>the
>>
>>>F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
>>>at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.
>>
>>Who knows? They might be considering that. Then again, they might not, after
>>looking at the actual use of monthly minutes for that bracket of customers
>>and whether they normally exceed 700 AT minutes in a month's time.
>>
Anonymous
July 15, 2004 10:52:37 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 8:32:11 AM

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

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

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

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

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

--
RØß
O/Siris
~+~
"A thing moderately good is not so good
as it ought to be. Moderation in temper
is always a virtue, but moderation in
principle is always a vice."
Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 8:32:12 AM

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

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

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

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

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
July 16, 2004 6:08:47 PM

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

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


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