Fair & Flexible

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
78 answers Last reply
More about fair flexible
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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
  11. 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.
    >
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
    >
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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


    ===========================
  25. 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.
  26. 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?
    >
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
    >
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.)
    >
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 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.
  43. 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
  44. 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.
    >
  45. 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.
    >>
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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. :)
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Sprint PCS Internet Service Providers