Fair & Flexible

[sharon]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[sharon]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.
>

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.
>

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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


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