Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sprint PCS Doesn't *Really* Want To Keep My Business

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 3:11:26 AM

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

I've been a Sprint PCS customer for some six years. In fact: I was
an "early adopter" of SPCS in the Metro-Detroit area. Paid full-boat
for that first phone, too. (That neat Motorola thing with the
flip-down boom mic, it was. I loved that phone.) Fast-forward to
present day...

My current phone, my *third* phone in those six years, is dying.
(Unfortunately I did not know of Kyocera's lousy reputation before
buying my last phone.) So I wait for the next SPCS sale on
equipment. Along it comes. Up to 85% off. But *not*, it turns out,
for long-time SPCS customers that are on sub-$35/mo., non-contract
service. The Customer Retention department tried to help--offering
me a service credit if I bought a new phone. (Getting even *that*
concession involved 25 minutes on the phone today!) Not good enough,
I'm afraid. I would still, as a long-time, loyal SPCS customer, pay
$50 more than new customers. Nearly $200 for a cellphone, given my
experience with their longevity (or lack thereof), is not a winning
proposition in *my* eyes. (I take very good care of my possessions,
btw.)

So this afternoon I started cutting the cord, so to speak. I had
SPCS turn off my voicemail. I turned off my phone and put it away.
That's right: No more cellphone. I'm going to give it a month. I
think I'm going to find, at the end of that month, that yes: Not
having a cellphone will be mildly inconvenient, but it won't be
earth-shattering. At which point I'll cancel my SPCS service and
donate the phone to a local rape crisis center.

Not smart on Sprint's part, IMO. (They'll likely also lose my
land-line long-distance business, since my wife has been wanting to
change to AT&T for lower rates anyway.) Not smart, but so typical of
American-style bean-counter-driven business "management" mentality
these days.

Ah well...

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com

More about : sprint pcs business

Anonymous
August 4, 2004 3:11:27 AM

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

Howdy, stranger!

Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:

> My current phone, my *third* phone in those six years, is dying.
> (Unfortunately I did not know of Kyocera's lousy reputation before
> buying my last phone.) So I wait for the next SPCS sale on
> equipment. Along it comes. Up to 85% off. But *not*, it turns out,
> for long-time SPCS customers that are on sub-$35/mo., non-contract
> service.

Yup. $35 is the magic number for most carriers. Below that point, they're
not making a ton of money off you. Sprint no longer offers sub-$35 plans,
and neither does Verizon. I'd be surprised if you were even able to find
such a plan at the el-cheapo carriers (T-Mobile and Cingular).

I got a Samsung A660 for $29.99 last month, but that's because I activated
a new line of service. I was, however, able to convince Sprint to waive the
activation fee on the new line, which is replacing my existing Verizon service.
One of my arguments was that our original line is a $30/month plan that gives
us 300 minutes per month, and my wife has no interest in changing that plan
as she only goes over 300 minutes once every couple years (she uses about 500
PCS-to-PCS minutes per month) and with the addition of a second separate,
non-shared line, our Sprint PCS monthly bill will roughly triple - and
they'll actually start making money off us. :) 

You might try buying a used phone off eBay. My wife's current phone is an
eBay phone. Also try howardforums - I don't know if they have any for-sale
forums there, but it's worth a try.

> having a cellphone will be mildly inconvenient, but it won't be
> earth-shattering. At which point I'll cancel my SPCS service and
> donate the phone to a local rape crisis center.

Good for you!

> Not smart on Sprint's part, IMO. (They'll likely also lose my
> land-line long-distance business, since my wife has been wanting to
> change to AT&T for lower rates anyway.) Not smart, but so typical of
> American-style bean-counter-driven business "management" mentality
> these days.

In my opinion, they should offer SOME sort of carrot to the under-$35
crowd, with the caveat that people taking advantage of the discounts would
have to upgrade to at least a $35/month calling plan. That would be the best
way to handle the people who aren't paying anything for their service.

But I don't think any of the carriers see a lot of point in encouraging people
spending under $35/month to continue spending under $35/month. It costs a lot
of money to build and maintain a cellular network, run the billing
infrastructure, and employ the people needed to run everythiing.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 3:20:16 AM

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

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 18:11:26 -0500, Jim Seymour wrote
(in article <10h06su6711nc17@corp.supernews.com>):

> I've been a Sprint PCS customer for some six years. In fact: I was
> an "early adopter" of SPCS in the Metro-Detroit area. Paid full-boat
> for that first phone, too. (That neat Motorola thing with the
> flip-down boom mic, it was. I loved that phone.) Fast-forward to
> present day...
>
> My current phone, my *third* phone in those six years, is dying.
> (Unfortunately I did not know of Kyocera's lousy reputation before
> buying my last phone.) So I wait for the next SPCS sale on
> equipment. Along it comes. Up to 85% off. But *not*, it turns out,
> for long-time SPCS customers that are on sub-$35/mo., non-contract
> service. The Customer Retention department tried to help--offering
> me a service credit if I bought a new phone. (Getting even *that*
> concession involved 25 minutes on the phone today!) Not good enough,
> I'm afraid. I would still, as a long-time, loyal SPCS customer, pay
> $50 more than new customers. Nearly $200 for a cellphone, given my
> experience with their longevity (or lack thereof), is not a winning
> proposition in *my* eyes. (I take very good care of my possessions,
> btw.)
>
> So this afternoon I started cutting the cord, so to speak. I had
> SPCS turn off my voicemail. I turned off my phone and put it away.
> That's right: No more cellphone. I'm going to give it a month. I
> think I'm going to find, at the end of that month, that yes: Not
> having a cellphone will be mildly inconvenient, but it won't be
> earth-shattering. At which point I'll cancel my SPCS service and
> donate the phone to a local rape crisis center.
>
> Not smart on Sprint's part, IMO. (They'll likely also lose my
> land-line long-distance business, since my wife has been wanting to
> change to AT&T for lower rates anyway.) Not smart, but so typical of
> American-style bean-counter-driven business "management" mentality
> these days.
>
> Ah well...
>
>

Have you read the retention FAQ? In fairness though, the good deals given new
customers on phones, is ALWAYS with a 2 year contract. Buying a phone on Ebay
may be another option for you to consider.

If you leave Sprint, prepaid service may be for you as carriers are
continually bumping up the lowest price plan they offer.

Prepaid works out to be cheaper for folks that don't travel, and use their
phone very sparely during the workweek.

==============================================================
Posted with Hogwasher. Mac first, Mac only:
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.htm...
==============================================================
Related resources
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 3:56:35 AM

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

[Wow, that was quick!]

In article <Q4VPc.7917$cK.2018@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
FYI <fyi@yahoo.com> writes:
[snip]
> Have you read the retention FAQ?

No, I have not. Wasn't aware of its existence. (Wonder why the
Customer Retention rep. didn't mention it?)

> In fairness though, the good deals given new
> customers on phones, is ALWAYS with a 2 year contract.

Like I told SPCS: I don't *care* what they usually do. They're not
meeting *my* requirements. And that's all that matters, you see?

Besides that... hmmm... let's play some "Jeopardy," shall we?

The category is "Cell Phones." The answer is:

A way for a cellular company to recoup what it "lost" on
deep-discounting an equipment sale.

<queue Final Jeopardy music...>

The question is:

What is "Locking the buyer into a minimum-length contract?"

Now: I'd *been* a customer for six years. I was looking to buy a
phone so that I could *remain* a customer. A phone I can't take
anywhere else. Odds were they would've recouped their "investment."
(Particularly since I pay for 300 mins./mo. and use, on average, less
than 200. Use *very* little VM. Never use call-forwarding or
three-way calling. Had text messaging turned straight off, due to
getting spammed.) Hell, having me as a customer was a bargain for
SPCS.

Yeah, I know: This isn't the way business works anymore--all
personalized and rational and all. I guess that's part of my point.
Why do I want to keep giving money to people who don't care about
me, as a customer?

> Buying a phone on Ebay
> may be another option for you to consider.

I've invested all the time I'm going to in trying to stay with
Sprint, I think. Between yesterday's phone time, today's phone
time, the wasted trip to Costco and the equally wasted check at
Radio Shack: Something on the order of two hours of my time.

But thanks for the suggestion. Really.

>
> If you leave Sprint, prepaid service may be for you as carriers are
> continually bumping up the lowest price plan they offer.
>
> Prepaid works out to be cheaper for folks that don't travel, and use their
> phone very sparely during the workweek.

I think you miss my point. Well, one of 'em, anyway. I'm planning,
at this point, to drop cellular service *entirely*. It occurred to
me today that I survived some (thinks about it...) 48 years w/o a
phone with me 24x7.

A short story is perhaps illustrative of my thinking, here.

One of the watch band anchor-points for my watch broke about a year
ago. This was a disaster. I've *always* had a watch on--for as long
as I can remember. I soon found out that obtaining a reasonably
inexpensive, relatively low-key, multi-function wristwatch like the
Casio I *had* was, well, impossible. They simply do not make a watch
with that feature set anymore. Trying to find a replacement became
more trouble than it was worth, so somehow I never got 'round to
replacing it. Oddly enough: After about a year I pretty much don't
notice its absence. Funny, that...

Only problem with this is that, in the absence of my watch, when I
needed to know what time it was I consulted my cellphone. Guess I'll
have to get a new watch, now ;) .

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 3:21:57 PM

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

Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:

> Given behaviour from the likes of Sprint PCS: Is there any question
> in your mind as to why that is? There isn't in mine.

There are people who will argue with me, and they have their right to their
opinion, but in MY opinion, a ton of things have improved since I signed on
as a Sprint customer in late '01. The service worked well where I used to
live (Lake County, Ohio, 30 miles east of downtown Cleveland), but they
had billing and customer service issues, as I found out after I signed up.
While they are still not in wonderful shape service-wise, I can now generally
get a CSR who (a) knows what they're talking about and (b) isn't going to try
to BS me if they don't, and hold times have gone down from an average of a
half-hour to a couple minutes. And I generally am able to get a rep in less
than a minute.

We think we were overbilled the first month, but we have no conclusive way to
prove that we were overbilled. I did make sure to have them turn on detailed
billing after that (shoulda done it before I left the store!) and we have not
had any issues since then.

> Ewww! Verizon. They're an ILEC. Ewww!

Jim, Jim, Jim. Sprint's an ILEC too. Like Alltel, they primarily serve
smaller/rural areas. The biggest market areas they serve as an ILEC are
Las Vegas and parts of Florida. If the name "Sprint" doesn't ring a bell
for you, how about "United Telephone?"

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 3:40:02 PM

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

In article <D4idnfUncbhoso3cRVn-uw@lmi.net>,
Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
> Howdy, stranger!

Howdy! :) 

>
> Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Yup. $35 is the magic number for most carriers. Below that point, they're
> not making a ton of money off you.
[snip]

So Sprint PCS doesn't value my business. *shrug* Fair enough. It's
my policy to avoid, where possible, giving my custom to those who do
not value my business. Since I don't *need* a cellphone--it's a
convenience--I can easily avoid doing so in this instance.

>
> You might try buying a used phone off eBay. My wife's current phone is an
> eBay phone. Also try howardforums - I don't know if they have any for-sale
> forums there, but it's worth a try.

Thanks for the suggestions.

>
>> having a cellphone will be mildly inconvenient, but it won't be
>> earth-shattering. At which point I'll cancel my SPCS service and
>> donate the phone to a local rape crisis center.
>
> Good for you!

*shrug* Part of the reason that vendors get away with treating their
customers poorly is that people keep buying their products and
services after they've been screwed. Perhaps multiple times. Oh
yes, American business has learned well from a certain shining
example.

>
>> Not smart on Sprint's part, IMO. (They'll likely also lose my
>> land-line long-distance business, since my wife has been wanting to
>> change to AT&T for lower rates anyway.) Not smart, but so typical of
>> American-style bean-counter-driven business "management" mentality
>> these days.
>
> In my opinion, they should offer SOME sort of carrot to the under-$35
> crowd, with the caveat that people taking advantage of the discounts would
> have to upgrade to at least a $35/month calling plan. That would be the best
> way to handle the people who aren't paying anything for their service.

Oh, they'd let me upgrade to a two-year $35/mo. contract to get the
equipment discount. That's the entire point of contention: I'm
unwilling to do that. Period. Non-negotiable. I have a $30/mo.
plan that's working fine for me. I'm not even using all that. It's
contract-less and I like it like that. That was one of the major
points that attracted me to SPCS in the first place.

> That would be the best
> way to handle the people who aren't paying anything for their service.

Maybe to you $360/year isn't "paying anything." To me that's a lot
of money.

>
> But I don't think any of the carriers see a lot of point in encouraging people
> spending under $35/month to continue spending under $35/month. It costs a lot
> of money to build and maintain a cellular network, run the billing
> infrastructure, and employ the people needed to run everythiing.

Uh huh. I understand that. Okay. Fine. They don't want my
business. I can appreciate that. It's not a problem. Really. Not
now that I understand how they feel about existing customers.

Let's see... There's at least two families and one individual I can
think of, off-hand, that went SprintPCS on my recommendation.
Another guy that renewed with SPCS after we discussed it. Like I
said: Sprint LD I currently have because I have SPCS. That's
probably history. Oh, and I'm the Senior Systems, Network and TelCom
Admin. at work. Sprint's trying to get our business there, too.

I no longer have quite the degree of good will I once had toward
Sprint, as a company. You do the math ;) .

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 3:40:03 PM

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

Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:

> Maybe to you $360/year isn't "paying anything." To me that's a lot
> of money.

It depends on how badly you need a cellphone. If you only use it as a
convenience item, yes, almost $400 per month is going to be a lot. For me,
having my toll-free business number route to my cell phone is useful, and I
talk a lot, and I find my plan is worth the money, especially now that I can
make extensive use of Sprint mobile-to-mobile airtime and cut down on peak
airtime usage.

My plan with Sprint costs $50, but I've spent as much as $110 per month on
cell phone plans in the past (my 700 minutes per month are about half of what
I used to use).

My point was that there is a price point below which the carriers have decided
they will not make enough of a profit to encourage people to stay at that
price point. For most of the carriers it is $35/month.

> Uh huh. I understand that. Okay. Fine. They don't want my
> business. I can appreciate that. It's not a problem. Really. Not
> now that I understand how they feel about existing customers.

It's not just Sprint. You'd probably have gotten the same answer from any
other carrier.

Would you have been willing to pay $35 per month if you could do it without
extending your contract?

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 4:15:46 PM

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

I thought the phone with the flip down boom mic was a sony. Don't
those charities deserve better than a lousy reputation phone that is
dying?


Jim Seymour wrote:
> I've been a Sprint PCS customer for some six years. In fact: I was
> an "early adopter" of SPCS in the Metro-Detroit area. Paid full-boat
> for that first phone, too. (That neat Motorola thing with the
> flip-down boom mic, it was. I loved that phone.) Fast-forward to
> present day...
>
> My current phone, my *third* phone in those six years, is dying.
> (Unfortunately I did not know of Kyocera's lousy reputation before
> buying my last phone.) So I wait for the next SPCS sale on
> equipment. Along it comes. Up to 85% off. But *not*, it turns out,
> for long-time SPCS customers that are on sub-$35/mo., non-contract
> service. The Customer Retention department tried to help--offering
> me a service credit if I bought a new phone. (Getting even *that*
> concession involved 25 minutes on the phone today!) Not good enough,
> I'm afraid. I would still, as a long-time, loyal SPCS customer, pay
> $50 more than new customers. Nearly $200 for a cellphone, given my
> experience with their longevity (or lack thereof), is not a winning
> proposition in *my* eyes. (I take very good care of my possessions,
> btw.)
>
> So this afternoon I started cutting the cord, so to speak. I had
> SPCS turn off my voicemail. I turned off my phone and put it away.
> That's right: No more cellphone. I'm going to give it a month. I
> think I'm going to find, at the end of that month, that yes: Not
> having a cellphone will be mildly inconvenient, but it won't be
> earth-shattering. At which point I'll cancel my SPCS service and
> donate the phone to a local rape crisis center.
>
> Not smart on Sprint's part, IMO. (They'll likely also lose my
> land-line long-distance business, since my wife has been wanting to
> change to AT&T for lower rates anyway.) Not smart, but so typical of
> American-style bean-counter-driven business "management" mentality
> these days.
>
> Ah well...
>
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 4:29:16 PM

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

Ah, the no contract thing. I have also been a Sprint PCS customer for
many years. Last month I went from no contract to first a one year for
100 more minutes, although we have never gone over before, and then to
two years to get free PCS to PCS. Even though PCS to PCS has never been
something that would have lowered our bill in the past and I don't know
if it will ever in the future. I added it "just in case".


Jim Seymour wrote:

> In article <D4idnfUncbhoso3cRVn-uw@lmi.net>,
> Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
>
>>Howdy, stranger!
>
>
> Howdy! :) 
>
>
>>Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>Yup. $35 is the magic number for most carriers. Below that point, they're
>>not making a ton of money off you.
>
> [snip]
>
> So Sprint PCS doesn't value my business. *shrug* Fair enough. It's
> my policy to avoid, where possible, giving my custom to those who do
> not value my business. Since I don't *need* a cellphone--it's a
> convenience--I can easily avoid doing so in this instance.
>
>
>>You might try buying a used phone off eBay. My wife's current phone is an
>>eBay phone. Also try howardforums - I don't know if they have any for-sale
>>forums there, but it's worth a try.
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
>
>>>having a cellphone will be mildly inconvenient, but it won't be
>>>earth-shattering. At which point I'll cancel my SPCS service and
>>>donate the phone to a local rape crisis center.
>>
>>Good for you!
>
>
> *shrug* Part of the reason that vendors get away with treating their
> customers poorly is that people keep buying their products and
> services after they've been screwed. Perhaps multiple times. Oh
> yes, American business has learned well from a certain shining
> example.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Not smart on Sprint's part, IMO. (They'll likely also lose my
>>>land-line long-distance business, since my wife has been wanting to
>>>change to AT&T for lower rates anyway.) Not smart, but so typical of
>>>American-style bean-counter-driven business "management" mentality
>>>these days.
>>
>>In my opinion, they should offer SOME sort of carrot to the under-$35
>>crowd, with the caveat that people taking advantage of the discounts would
>>have to upgrade to at least a $35/month calling plan. That would be the best
>>way to handle the people who aren't paying anything for their service.
>
>
> Oh, they'd let me upgrade to a two-year $35/mo. contract to get the
> equipment discount. That's the entire point of contention: I'm
> unwilling to do that. Period. Non-negotiable. I have a $30/mo.
> plan that's working fine for me. I'm not even using all that. It's
> contract-less and I like it like that. That was one of the major
> points that attracted me to SPCS in the first place.
>
>
>> That would be the best
>>way to handle the people who aren't paying anything for their service.
>
>
> Maybe to you $360/year isn't "paying anything." To me that's a lot
> of money.
>
>
>>But I don't think any of the carriers see a lot of point in encouraging people
>>spending under $35/month to continue spending under $35/month. It costs a lot
>>of money to build and maintain a cellular network, run the billing
>>infrastructure, and employ the people needed to run everythiing.
>
>
> Uh huh. I understand that. Okay. Fine. They don't want my
> business. I can appreciate that. It's not a problem. Really. Not
> now that I understand how they feel about existing customers.
>
> Let's see... There's at least two families and one individual I can
> think of, off-hand, that went SprintPCS on my recommendation.
> Another guy that renewed with SPCS after we discussed it. Like I
> said: Sprint LD I currently have because I have SPCS. That's
> probably history. Oh, and I'm the Senior Systems, Network and TelCom
> Admin. at work. Sprint's trying to get our business there, too.
>
> I no longer have quite the degree of good will I once had toward
> Sprint, as a company. You do the math ;) .
>
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 4:53:28 PM

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

In article <Sr4Qc.8525$cK.1840@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> writes:
> I thought the phone with the flip down boom mic was a sony.

It was. A CMZ-100, IIRC. (I still have the thing around somewhere.)

Even my wife, who's ever after me to get rid of stuff that's broken
or unused (I'm a bit of a pack-rat), doesn't blame me for wanting to
keep the ol 'Z around. Never met a person that didn't think that
was about the coolest phone they ever saw :) .

> Don't
> those charities deserve better than a lousy reputation phone that is
> dying?
[snip]

It's not the dying (and long out-of-service) Sony CMZ-100 I'll be
donating, it's the dying Kyocera 2255. What, you want I should buy a
new phone to donate to charity? Maybe you didn't read all my
comments, cuz I think maybe you missed a point or two?

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 4:53:29 PM

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

Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:

> It's not the dying (and long out-of-service) Sony CMZ-100 I'll be
> donating, it's the dying Kyocera 2255. What, you want I should buy a
> new phone to donate to charity? Maybe you didn't read all my
> comments, cuz I think maybe you missed a point or two?

Kyocera tends to have a varying quality control record depending on phone
model. My Verizon 2325 worked perfectly. My Verizon 3035 worked pretty well,
but they did have some known software issues which Verizon and Kyo fixed.
We had two Sprint 2255s, and the display died on both of them (we didn't
really care about the second, as it was a $30 refurb we bought from Rat
Shack, but it's a shame nonetheless, it was a good phone otherwise).

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 6:28:22 PM

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

It seemed to read that the kyocera was of lousy reputation and was
dying and was the one to be donated. Not that you should, but you might
be nice and do, buy a new phone to donate to charity. Whereas, donating
something that barely works and has no salvage value to charity is not
very charitable.


Jim Seymour wrote:

> In article <Sr4Qc.8525$cK.1840@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> I thought the phone with the flip down boom mic was a sony.
>
>
> It was. A CMZ-100, IIRC. (I still have the thing around somewhere.)
>
> Even my wife, who's ever after me to get rid of stuff that's broken
> or unused (I'm a bit of a pack-rat), doesn't blame me for wanting to
> keep the ol 'Z around. Never met a person that didn't think that
> was about the coolest phone they ever saw :) .
>
>
>> Don't
>>those charities deserve better than a lousy reputation phone that is
>>dying?
>
> [snip]
>
> It's not the dying (and long out-of-service) Sony CMZ-100 I'll be
> donating, it's the dying Kyocera 2255. What, you want I should buy a
> new phone to donate to charity? Maybe you didn't read all my
> comments, cuz I think maybe you missed a point or two?
>
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 6:54:58 PM

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

"Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
news:10h06su6711nc17@corp.supernews.com...
> I've been a Sprint PCS customer for some six years. In fact: I was
> an "early adopter" of SPCS in the Metro-Detroit area. Paid full-boat
> for that first phone, too. (That neat Motorola thing with the
> flip-down boom mic, it was. I loved that phone.) Fast-forward to
> present day...
>
> My current phone, my *third* phone in those six years, is dying.
> (Unfortunately I did not know of Kyocera's lousy reputation before
> buying my last phone.) So I wait for the next SPCS sale on
> equipment. Along it comes. Up to 85% off. But *not*, it turns out,
> for long-time SPCS customers that are on sub-$35/mo., non-contract
> service. The Customer Retention department tried to help--offering
> me a service credit if I bought a new phone. (Getting even *that*
> concession involved 25 minutes on the phone today!) Not good enough,
> I'm afraid. I would still, as a long-time, loyal SPCS customer, pay
> $50 more than new customers. Nearly $200 for a cellphone, given my
> experience with their longevity (or lack thereof), is not a winning
> proposition in *my* eyes. (I take very good care of my possessions,
> btw.)

Chris, I'm going to blunt with you here. You want a free lunch here, and you
don't qualify for a free lunch. It doesn't matter whether you have been with
SPCS for 6 years. You are on a plan where SPCS is not making much if any
revenue off you. SPCS has set certain parameters with regards to offering a
$150 or a $100 credit on the phone, and you don't fit those parameters, as
you don't want to change your plan to the minimum required, nor go with a 1
yr. or 2 yr. annual agreement.

You think you deserve a break on a new phone, but what you may not realize
is that SPCS subsidizes the cost of the phones offered, hoping to break even
on the cost of the phone with a higher paying plan. All it takes to qualify
for a new phone, is to sign up for a year, get the F & F or the F & C plan
for $35/mo. plus taxes and surcharges, and you qualify for a $100 credit.
You don't have to go with Vision, if you get a non Vision phone. If you do
get a Vision phone, then SPCS offers Vision for free for 2 months, in which
you can cancel that option before the two months expire and you still
qualify for the mail in rebate.

It's that simple ...

One more thing to consider is to go on eBay, and buy a used phone for a
reduced cost, and do an ESN change on your account.

Bob
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 6:57:13 PM

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

Jim, my apologies for calling you Chris. I was working another reply in
another newsgroup to Chris, and I just plugged in the wrong name in the
reply to your post.

Bob


"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6N6Qc.8637$cK.5933@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
> news:10h06su6711nc17@corp.supernews.com...
> > I've been a Sprint PCS customer for some six years. In fact: I was
> > an "early adopter" of SPCS in the Metro-Detroit area. Paid full-boat
> > for that first phone, too. (That neat Motorola thing with the
> > flip-down boom mic, it was. I loved that phone.) Fast-forward to
> > present day...
> >
> > My current phone, my *third* phone in those six years, is dying.
> > (Unfortunately I did not know of Kyocera's lousy reputation before
> > buying my last phone.) So I wait for the next SPCS sale on
> > equipment. Along it comes. Up to 85% off. But *not*, it turns out,
> > for long-time SPCS customers that are on sub-$35/mo., non-contract
> > service. The Customer Retention department tried to help--offering
> > me a service credit if I bought a new phone. (Getting even *that*
> > concession involved 25 minutes on the phone today!) Not good enough,
> > I'm afraid. I would still, as a long-time, loyal SPCS customer, pay
> > $50 more than new customers. Nearly $200 for a cellphone, given my
> > experience with their longevity (or lack thereof), is not a winning
> > proposition in *my* eyes. (I take very good care of my possessions,
> > btw.)
>
> Chris, I'm going to blunt with you here. You want a free lunch here, and
you
> don't qualify for a free lunch. It doesn't matter whether you have been
with
> SPCS for 6 years. You are on a plan where SPCS is not making much if any
> revenue off you. SPCS has set certain parameters with regards to offering
a
> $150 or a $100 credit on the phone, and you don't fit those parameters, as
> you don't want to change your plan to the minimum required, nor go with a
1
> yr. or 2 yr. annual agreement.
>
> You think you deserve a break on a new phone, but what you may not realize
> is that SPCS subsidizes the cost of the phones offered, hoping to break
even
> on the cost of the phone with a higher paying plan. All it takes to
qualify
> for a new phone, is to sign up for a year, get the F & F or the F & C plan
> for $35/mo. plus taxes and surcharges, and you qualify for a $100 credit.
> You don't have to go with Vision, if you get a non Vision phone. If you do
> get a Vision phone, then SPCS offers Vision for free for 2 months, in
which
> you can cancel that option before the two months expire and you still
> qualify for the mail in rebate.
>
> It's that simple ...
>
> One more thing to consider is to go on eBay, and buy a used phone for a
> reduced cost, and do an ESN change on your account.
>
> Bob
>
>
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 7:08:23 PM

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

In article <ao6Qc.8602$cK.5779@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Jerome Zelinske <jeromez1@earthlink.net> writes:
> It seemed to read that the kyocera was of lousy reputation and was
> dying and was the one to be donated.

Um, it still works. After my 30-day "no cellphone test" ends (well,
22-day, actually, as that's when my current billing cycle ends), I
*may* even retain my SPCS service until the phone up and dies. (Or I
get ticked at its erratic behaviour and toss it out the car window
some day--I've come close >< a couple times already.)

The idea of donating the phone to a rape crisis center was proposed
to me by a friend who felt it better than donating it to the
land-fill, as I originally intended. Should I choose the former
option: I certainly hope the donatee (is that a word?) finds it
useful. But if they don't, they'll certainly have lost nothing in
the process.

> Not that you should, but you might
> be nice and do, buy a new phone to donate to charity. Whereas, donating
> something that barely works and has no salvage value to charity is not
> very charitable.

Personally, I find the current-day attitude, that donating something
less than brand-shiny-new to charity is somehow uncharitable, to be
rather incomprehensible. Not-to-mention mildly offensive.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 7:08:24 PM

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

Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:

> Personally, I find the current-day attitude, that donating something
> less than brand-shiny-new to charity is somehow uncharitable, to be
> rather incomprehensible. Not-to-mention mildly offensive.

I think his point wasn't that it was not new, but rather that it is broken
or on its way to breaking, and I have to agree with him.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 8:22:35 PM

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

In article <6N6Qc.8637$cK.5933@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> writes:
[snip]
>
> [Jim], I'm going to blunt with you here. You want a free lunch here, and you
> don't qualify for a free lunch.
[snip]

"Free lunch?" I don't think of it as a "free lunch," but you're
welcome to your opinion.

>
> You think you deserve a break on a new phone,
[snip]

"Deserve?" No, I don't think I "deserve" anything. However, I
*require* that SPCS meets my requirements - or I stop doing business
with them.

>
> It's that simple ...
[snip]

Indeed!

Bob, I did some reviewing of your contributions here in ACS. You
seem to somewhat of a cellular industry "booster," and a SPCS
booster, in particular. That's all well and good. Every industry
and company should have one ;) . But don't let your fervor for
your... hobby? business? whatever, blind you to the fact that to
some people it's just a damn phone. And what they want out of their
provider is just that: A phone. With reliable service to match. All
for a reasonable price. Including that, if it's going to be treated
as disposable hardware by the sellers, it damn well ought to be sold
for disposable hardware prices.

I just figured-out that, by dumping SPCS and not over-paying for that
phone, I'll save at least US$606.20 in the following 12 months
alone. Nearly one-third of that in over-priced disposable hardware
costs.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 8:23:35 PM

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

In article <dP6Qc.8641$cK.6133@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> writes:
> Jim, my apologies for calling you Chris.
[snip]
>

No offense taken :) .

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 8:42:59 PM

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

In article <OuOdnT3szMK4kIzcRVn-hA@lmi.net>,
Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
> Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Given behaviour from the likes of Sprint PCS: Is there any question
>> in your mind as to why that is? There isn't in mine.
>
> There are people who will argue with me, and they have their right to their
> opinion, but in MY opinion, a ton of things have improved since I signed on
> as a Sprint customer in late '01.
[snip]

Lessee, been with 'em since '98. Had some coverage holes then. It
got a lot better. It's *way* better up north and to the west. But I
get more dropped calls and going in-/out-of-service on my home<->work
route than I did back in '98 with my old Sony CMZ-100. Maybe it's my
phone. Maybe I'll find out. Quite likely I won't.

I've always been "okay" with SPCS customer service. The occasional
long wait time, but that's about it.

>
>> Ewww! Verizon. They're an ILEC. Ewww!
>
> Jim, Jim, Jim. Sprint's an ILEC too.

Yeah, I knew that, but they're not Verizon, SBC, Qwest or BellSouth
;) . (I regard those ILECs as being the single greatest impediment to
the wide deployment of affordable residential and small business
broadband in the market. Thus my antipathy toward them.)

> Like Alltel, they primarily serve
> smaller/rural areas. The biggest market areas they serve as an ILEC are
> Las Vegas and parts of Florida. If the name "Sprint" doesn't ring a bell
> for you, how about "United Telephone?"

Nope. Never heard of 'em.

(First day with no cellphone. No withdrawal symptoms yet.)

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 9:09:04 PM

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

In article <OuOdnTzszMLNk4zcRVn-hA@lmi.net>,
Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
[snip]
>
> My point was that there is a price point below which the carriers have decided
> they will not make enough of a profit to encourage people to stay at that
> price point. For most of the carriers it is $35/month.

Ah, well, then it's good that, rather than planning to move to a new
carrier, I'd planned to drop wireless altogether. Because, you see,
$35/mo. (taxes and all) is as high as I'm willing to go.

I'm often, I dunno, amazed (?) by what people will pay for things
that simply aren't necessities. In fact, as with the case of cable
TV, aren't even good conveniences. <shakes head> No wonder American
are up to their ears in debt. (No, I don't have cable or satellite
TV, either. Surprised? I'm also not in debt up to my ears.)

>
[snip]
>
> Would you have been willing to pay $35 per month if you could do it without
> extending your contract?

I'm not on contract. I'm contract-less. Have been ever since Day
One. That was one of the things I found most attractive about SPCS,
at the time. Now that cell providers are apparently all the same,
with little-to-nothing to distinguish them from one another, I don't
suppose that matters anymore.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 9:09:05 PM

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

Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:

> Ah, well, then it's good that, rather than planning to move to a new
> carrier, I'd planned to drop wireless altogether. Because, you see,
> $35/mo. (taxes and all) is as high as I'm willing to go.

$35 is generally the minimum monthly fee you need to pay to qualify for
the promos. Point taken, though.

> I'm often, I dunno, amazed (?) by what people will pay for things
> that simply aren't necessities. In fact, as with the case of cable
> TV, aren't even good conveniences. <shakes head> No wonder American
> are up to their ears in debt. (No, I don't have cable or satellite
> TV, either. Surprised? I'm also not in debt up to my ears.)

Luddite! What are you doing on the Internet? :) 

<duck>

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 9:12:02 PM

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

In article <OuOdnT7szMKtkozcRVn-hA@lmi.net>,
Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
> Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I find the current-day attitude, that donating something
>> less than brand-shiny-new to charity is somehow uncharitable, to be
>> rather incomprehensible. Not-to-mention mildly offensive.
>
> I think his point wasn't that it was not new, but rather that it is broken
> or on its way to breaking, and I have to agree with him.

Well, the persons who suggested I donate it both think y'all are
crazy ;) .

(If it was thoroughly broken, I'd hardly be using it myself. And if
it's only on its way out, somebody can still get some free 911 use
out of it, no?)

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 9:21:02 PM

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

Jim Seymour wrote:
>
> In article <OuOdnT7szMKtkozcRVn-hA@lmi.net>,
> Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
> > Jim Seymour <jseymour@linxnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Personally, I find the current-day attitude, that donating something
> >> less than brand-shiny-new to charity is somehow uncharitable, to be
> >> rather incomprehensible. Not-to-mention mildly offensive.
> >
> > I think his point wasn't that it was not new, but rather that it is broken
> > or on its way to breaking, and I have to agree with him.
>
> Well, the persons who suggested I donate it both think y'all are
> crazy ;) .
>
> (If it was thoroughly broken, I'd hardly be using it myself. And if
> it's only on its way out, somebody can still get some free 911 use
> out of it, no?)

I recently tried to donate some math book to our local library, but was
told that they only accept *brand new* books.

Mind you, these weren't old, out-of-date books. They were fairly recent
math books, whose contents, I would imagine, haven't changed much over
the years.

Amazing.

Notan
August 4, 2004 9:55:29 PM

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

Bob Smith wrote in reply to Jim Seymour:

> I'm going to [be] blunt with you here. You want a free lunch here, and
> you don't qualify for a free lunch. It doesn't matter whether you have
> been with SPCS for 6 years. You are on a plan where SPCS is not making
> much if any revenue off you.

This assertion has been made by at least two posters in this thread. Out
of curiosity, does anyone have any concrete evidence to support this
claim? (I.e. $30/month does not qualify for a new phone rebate because
of the unprofitability to Sprint PCS?)

I would venture to guess that the *majority* of Sprint PCS customers
(although probably not the majority of readers in this newsgroup) have
monthly plans totaling $30 or less. I remember the enormous holiday
season promotion of a year and a half ago, which attempted to lure new
customers with the promise of 300 anytime plus unlimited N&W minutes for
"only" $30. The year before that, it was 3000 minutes (200 anytime plus
2800 N&W) for $29.95. That was before the advent of WLNP and 3G (Vision)
phones and two-year contracts, and Sprint PCS was begging for new
customers to sign up on those sub-$35 plans with just a one-year (or
zero-year) commitment. Today, with all those sub-$35/month one-year
contracts expired or expiring, I'm not so sure that Sprint's replacement
phone rebate requirements are simply a matter of minimum profitability.

Underqualified for a "free lunch" after six years? Perhaps. We all know
that TANSTAAFL, but consider two additional points regarding handset
replacement:

(1) In most cases, older Wireless Web (2G) phones will be replaced by
Vision (3G) phones. If I'm not mistaken, 3G data transmission saves
significant bandwidth (which translates into infrastructure cost
savings). So, there is an indirect benefit to Sprint PCS when existing
customers upgrade older phones.

(2) Although upgraders may choose to cancel Vision after the two-month
free trial period, a certain percentage may decide to keep the service,
thus adding an additional $20/month to Sprint's revenue stream for those
customers.

Personally, I have to sympathize with the OP's contention that Sprint
PCS is neglecting a large portion of its existing customer base who
might want to upgrade aging handsets. Unless someone can produce
evidence to the contrary, I'm not convinced a minimum price point of $30
would be much more detrimental to Sprint PCS than one of $35.
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 10:20:40 PM

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

"Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
news:10h23abq2ma5606@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <6N6Qc.8637$cK.5933@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> writes:
> [snip]
> >
> > [Jim], I'm going to blunt with you here. You want a free lunch here, and
you
> > don't qualify for a free lunch.
> [snip]
>
> "Free lunch?" I don't think of it as a "free lunch," but you're
> welcome to your opinion.
>
> >
> > You think you deserve a break on a new phone,
> [snip]
>
> "Deserve?" No, I don't think I "deserve" anything. However, I
> *require* that SPCS meets my requirements - or I stop doing business
> with them.

When you said you were a long term 6 year customer, you were building a
basis that because of that, you should get a credit on a new phone, even
though you didn't want to agree to the terms SPCS has set to get a credit on
a new phone. Otherwise, why bring it up?

>
> >
> > It's that simple ...
> [snip]
>
> Indeed!
>
> Bob, I did some reviewing of your contributions here in ACS. You
> seem to somewhat of a cellular industry "booster," and a SPCS
> booster, in particular. That's all well and good. Every industry
> and company should have one ;) .

Well, you have your opinion Jim, as well as I do. First off, I have never
promoted SPCS. I have been on this newsgroup as a long time user, and I try
to answer those posters here who might have problems with their phones,
misunderstand of plans, etc, with alternative suggestions, like with you to
get a used phone on eBay, or some other source, where you don't have to
change your plan.

> But don't let your fervor for
> your... hobby? business? whatever, blind you to the fact that to
> some people it's just a damn phone. And what they want out of their
> provider is just that: A phone. With reliable service to match. All
> for a reasonable price. Including that, if it's going to be treated
> as disposable hardware by the sellers, it damn well ought to be sold
> for disposable hardware prices.
>
> I just figured-out that, by dumping SPCS and not over-paying for that
> phone, I'll save at least US$606.20 in the following 12 months
> alone. Nearly one-third of that in over-priced disposable hardware
> costs.

Huhh? How did you get to that number? You didn't say what plan you were on,
save that it was under $30 a month, nor did you say how many minutes of
usage you average on a monthly basis. Let's say you get a $200 phone, and it
costs you $10 more a month in service charges. That still only comes to $320
extra for the first year. Just how do you come to the figure of $606.20?

Bob
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 10:45:57 PM

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

Jim Seymour wrote:


>>Have you read the retention FAQ?
>
>
> No, I have not. Wasn't aware of its existence. (Wonder why the
> Customer Retention rep. didn't mention it?)
>
>
>> In fairness though, the good deals given new
>>customers on phones, is ALWAYS with a 2 year contract.
>
>
> Like I told SPCS: I don't *care* what they usually do. They're not
> meeting *my* requirements.

*shrug* Then what do you expect them to do? If it's not within the
realm of what is reasonable to them long-term, then *your* requirements
simply can't be met. Sorry.

> Besides that... hmmm... let's play some "Jeopardy," shall we?
>
> The category is "Cell Phones." The answer is:
>
> A way for a cellular company to recoup what it "lost" on
> deep-discounting an equipment sale.
>
> <queue Final Jeopardy music...>
>
> The question is:
>
> What is "Locking the buyer into a minimum-length contract?"

I see you've answered your own question. So, if you want a reduced
price on a phone, and you expect Sprint - or any company for that matter
- to eat the cost, should it not be reasonable that they ask for a
commitment of a certain dollar plan for a certain length of time? Your
other option is to pay full price for the phone and then Sprint is not
exposed the financial risk of not recouping their loss on the phone subsidy.


> Now: I'd *been* a customer for six years. I was looking to buy a
> phone so that I could *remain* a customer. A phone I can't take
> anywhere else. Odds were they would've recouped their "investment."

Not necessarily true. At a minimum price plan, they're about breaking
even, really. So if they eat the cost of a phone, they'll continue to
operate at a loss on you unless you upgrade your plan.

> (Particularly since I pay for 300 mins./mo. and use, on average, less
> than 200. Use *very* little VM. Never use call-forwarding or
> three-way calling. Had text messaging turned straight off, due to
> getting spammed.)

This makes no difference, really. VM, call forwarding and three-way
calling cost nothing extra to implement. That's why they're free. They
cost no overhead if you use them, and they cost no overhead if you don't
use them. So the discount on those services are already factored into
the plan price, and Sprint makes no more money whether you use VM, CF
and 3W or not.

The fact remains that you're on a *base* plan with absolutely no premium
services. To Sprint, that's enough to balance the books, but when you
ask them to give you a steep discount on a phone having paid no
insurance for your old phone, AND you give them no assurance that you
won't up and leave later, you're basically asking them to lose money on
you. Loyalty is fine, but there's a fine line between loyalty and
freeloading.

> Hell, having me as a customer was a bargain for
> SPCS.

No, as I said, they're just about breaking even. Barely, if that.

> Yeah, I know: This isn't the way business works anymore--all
> personalized and rational and all. I guess that's part of my point.

What's not rational about this? Company stands to lose money on a
potential deal, so they pass on the deal. What's missing here?

> Why do I want to keep giving money to people who don't care about
> me, as a customer?

Under the terms you offer them, they'll be *losing* money.

>
>> Buying a phone on Ebay
>>may be another option for you to consider.
>
>
> I've invested all the time I'm going to in trying to stay with
> Sprint, I think.

Good for you! Bye now.


> Only problem with this is that, in the absence of my watch, when I
> needed to know what time it was I consulted my cellphone. Guess I'll
> have to get a new watch, now ;) .

Maybe you should ask Timex to give you a 75% discount on their top of
the line watch for being such a loyal customer, and see how far you'll
get with that. :) 



--
e-mail address fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address in order to reply.
Anonymous
August 4, 2004 10:56:23 PM

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

In article <YN9Qc.8741$cK.6468@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> "Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
> news:10h23abq2ma5606@corp.supernews.com...
[snip]
>>
>> "Deserve?" No, I don't think I "deserve" anything. However, I
>> *require* that SPCS meets my requirements - or I stop doing business
>> with them.
>
> When you said you were a long term 6 year customer, you were building a
> basis that because of that, you should get a credit on a new phone, even
> though you didn't want to agree to the terms SPCS has set to get a credit on
> a new phone. Otherwise, why bring it up?

"Credit?" No, no credit. Discount. The same discount they give new
customers. Anyway, I understand your point. I simply disagree with
it.

>
[snip]
>>
>> I just figured-out that, by dumping SPCS and not over-paying for that
>> phone, I'll save at least US$606.20 in the following 12 months
>> alone. Nearly one-third of that in over-priced disposable hardware
>> costs.
>
> Huhh? How did you get to that number? You didn't say what plan you were on,
> save that it was under $30 a month, nor did you say how many minutes of
> usage you average on a monthly basis. Let's say you get a $200 phone, and it
> costs you $10 more a month in service charges. That still only comes to $320
> extra for the first year. Just how do you come to the figure of $606.20?

I didn't say *extra*. I said that, by not buying the phone and by
dropping SPCS *entirely*, I'd save that. As follows:

My current plan is $29.95/mo. for 300 Anytime minutes. Plus taxes
and surcharges, it comes to about $35/mo.

12 x $35 = $420.00

SPCS Customer Retention offered me a $100 service credit if I bought
a new phone from an authorized SPCS dealer. Sales tax here in MI is
6%. The phone I identified as satisfactory was $270.

($270 * 1.06) - $100 = $186.20

$420.00 + $186.20 = $606.20

Okay, so let's say I agree to SPCS' extor^H^H^H^H^Hupgrade plan and
go with a minimum $35/mo., 2-yr. contract, thus getting me the phone
for $130. (Not really, btw, as we'll soon see.)

I'll have to ball-park the monthly charges, after taxes and
surcharges. I'll low-ball it to $40/mo.

24 x $40 = $960

The phone would *ostensibly* cost $130. Problem is: That's a mail-in
rebate of $140 applied *after* you buy the phone and pay the sales
tax. So it really comes out to...

($270 * 1.06) - $140 = $146.20

Since we're talkin' about a 2-yr. contract, we'll amortize the cost
of the phone over two years. (Praying the damn thing actually lives
that long.)

$960 + $146.20 = $1106.20 ($553.10/yr. for two years)

So by simply dropping SPCS entirely, I save over $1100 over two
years. Or over $550 a year, for two years running.

I gotta tell ya, Bob, the more I crunch these numbers, the less
attractive having a wireless phone looks... yeah, that thing's
*definitely* stayin' in the drawer for the next 22 days, at least.

Damn! I just realized I've been posting with the wrong .sig :( .

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
| http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
|
| http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 12:15:03 AM

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

In article <G5GdnYEiwpteqIzcRVn-pQ@lmi.net>,
Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> writes:
[snip]
>
> Luddite! What are you doing on the Internet? :) 

:) 

Funny you should ask, tho. Over the past three weeks I've been
spending increasingly *less* time on/with the 'net. Believe it or
not: I think I *may* finally be burning-out on it. I find myself
thinking thoughts like "I could dump this expensive business-class
DSL connection, sell the Sun box, get a cheap SBC ADSL connection,
let the wife use that for the 'net, and make my life *considerably*
simpler."

Hmmm...

Thing is: My ISP, unlike A Certain Cellular Company I could mention,
is a really terrific company ;) .

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 12:47:15 AM

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

"Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message news:10h09hjc3ig740e@corp.supernews.com...
> I think you miss my point. Well, one of 'em, anyway. I'm planning,
> at this point, to drop cellular service *entirely*. It occurred to
> me today that I survived some (thinks about it...) 48 years w/o a
> phone with me 24x7.

Today's world is a lot different than it was many years ago.
Would you want your wife/daughter/girlfriend walking late at night
through a bad part of town when her car dies unexpectedly?
I wouldn't want to be in that situation myself, and I'm a burly,
tough-looking guy.

--

John Richards
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 1:03:25 AM

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

"Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message news:10h1ioi9v0s1825@corp.supernews.com...
> Oh, they'd let me upgrade to a two-year $35/mo. contract to get the
> equipment discount. That's the entire point of contention: I'm
> unwilling to do that. Period. Non-negotiable. I have a $30/mo.
> plan that's working fine for me. I'm not even using all that.

A $5 increase for 24 months would cost you $120, so you'd
still be money ahead by qualifying for a $150 phone rebate
every two years, plus the advantage of having an up-to-date phone
with all the latest features, like SMS.

> Maybe to you $360/year isn't "paying anything." To me that's a lot
> of money.

The expression: "Penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.

--

John Richards
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 1:10:27 AM

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

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message news:41111AFE.1AF7C364@ddress.com...
> I recently tried to donate some math book to our local library, but was
> told that they only accept *brand new* books.
>
> Mind you, these weren't old, out-of-date books. They were fairly recent
> math books, whose contents, I would imagine, haven't changed much over
> the years.
>
> Amazing.

Yep. I recently tried to donate a bicycle to a local charity.
They refused to take it because it had a flat tire.
All the tire needed was some air.

--

John Richards
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 1:14:42 AM

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

"Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message news:10h23abq2ma5606@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I just figured-out that, by dumping SPCS and not over-paying for that
> phone, I'll save at least US$606.20 in the following 12 months
> alone. Nearly one-third of that in over-priced disposable hardware
> costs.

How far do you want to take that?
You can save a lot more by becoming homeless and sleeping
in your car.

--

John Richards
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 3:36:07 AM

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

In article <6lcQc.3501$uC7.1725@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> writes:
> "Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message news:10h23abq2ma5606@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> I just figured-out that, by dumping SPCS and not over-paying for that
>> phone, I'll save at least US$606.20 in the following 12 months
>> alone. Nearly one-third of that in over-priced disposable hardware
>> costs.
>
> How far do you want to take that?

I really couldn't say. I do know I find myself becoming increasingly
less interested in *things*, of late. My stuff is almost becoming a
burden. Particularly stuff that I don't really *need*. Maybe I'll
find I don't *need* that SPCS phone. We still have the Verizon
(originally AirTouch) phone that's on, believe-it-or-not, a
$12.95/mo., 25 cents-per-minute plan. That'll be fine for trips, I'm
thinkin'.

Here's an amusing side note: Colleague at work I was talking to about
this has an SPCS phone he doesn't use much, either. After I told him
my story and then my realization of how much I was spending a year on
a phone I maybe didn't even really *need*, he says "You know, I don't
really use mine, either. I should just cancel it." Oh ohhhh...

I'm reminded of...

"... just walk in say "Shrink, You can get anything you
want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if
one person, just one person does it they may think he's
really sick and they won't take him. And if two people,
two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both
faggots and they won't take either of them. And three
people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking
in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They
may think it's an organization. And can you, can you
imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day
walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking
out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement."

- Excerpt from "Alice's Restaurant," by Arlo Guthrie

:) 

> You can save a lot more by becoming homeless and sleeping
> in your car.

Have you ever heard the term "reductio ad absurdum?" ;) 

That would be uncomfortable. Besides: I'd rather keep the house and
lose the car. Don't like cars anymore. The car has become one of
those burdensome things. Unfortunately, living where I do, the car
is currently a necessity :/ .

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
| http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
|
| http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 3:40:16 AM

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

In article <xacQc.3496$uC7.2847@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> writes:
[snip]
>
> A $5 increase for 24 months would cost you $120, so you'd
> still be money ahead by qualifying for a $150 phone rebate
> every two years,

See my number-crunching, elsewhere, on what that would total. I
don't know about you, but to me $1100 is a lot of money.

> plus the advantage of having an up-to-date phone
> with all the latest features, like SMS.

Neither need nor want SMS.

>
>> Maybe to you $360/year isn't "paying anything." To me that's a lot
>> of money.
>
> The expression: "Penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.

That was a non sequitur.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 3:52:36 AM

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

In article <GGdQc.5$9d1.3@fe32.usenetserver.com>,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> writes:
> Jim Seymour wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Now: I'd *been* a customer for six years. I was looking to buy a
>> phone so that I could *remain* a customer. A phone I can't take
>> anywhere else. Odds were they would've recouped their "investment."
>
> Not necessarily true. At a minimum price plan, they're about breaking
> even, really. So if they eat the cost of a phone, they'll continue to
> operate at a loss on you unless you upgrade your plan.

You know this for a fact? This is not a challenge, but an honest
question. I've seen this assertion made before, but nothing to back
it up.

When all the below-cost xDSL providers were going under a couple
years ago or so, and the remaining providers were charging twice as
much as what some were used to paying, these people were going
ballistic over it. They were all angry that they couldn't get 192k
SDSL with all the trimmings for $50/mo. anymore. Ironically, I was
on the opposite side of the argument as I am now. Thing is: I had
facts and figures to prove that an xDSL provider was losing money at
$50/mo.

Do *you* know what SPCS pays for, say, a Sanyo RL7300?

>
[snip]
>
>> Only problem with this is that, in the absence of my watch, when I
>> needed to know what time it was I consulted my cellphone. Guess I'll
>> have to get a new watch, now ;) .
>
> Maybe you should ask Timex to give you a 75% discount on their top of
> the line watch for being such a loyal customer, and see how far you'll
> get with that. :) 

Well, I'm not a Timex customer, for starters. So I guess that won't
fly.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
| http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
|
| http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 3:52:37 AM

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

Jim Seymour wrote:

>>Not necessarily true. At a minimum price plan, they're about breaking
>>even, really. So if they eat the cost of a phone, they'll continue to
>>operate at a loss on you unless you upgrade your plan.
>
>
> You know this for a fact? This is not a challenge, but an honest
> question.

As a matter of fact, yes, countless Sprint employees who don't know each
other and through different time periods have all said the same thing.
In fact, I can also assert that even if you buy a phone at "full price,"
Sprint is STILL eating about $100 to $200 of the true cost of the phone,
and will not make *any* profit on a person buying a new phone until
about 3 months of billing receipts, based on a standard priced $200
phone and a person running a $50 monthly plan. This is why the phones
have a subsidy lock. If you think prices are absurd now, just imagine
what they would be like if phones were completely unsubsidized.

This is not a Sprint-only phenomenon. Nearly all U.S. wireless carriers
do this.

> When all the below-cost xDSL providers were going under a couple
> years ago or so, and the remaining providers were charging twice as
> much as what some were used to paying, these people were going
> ballistic over it. They were all angry that they couldn't get 192k
> SDSL with all the trimmings for $50/mo. anymore. Ironically, I was
> on the opposite side of the argument as I am now. Thing is: I had
> facts and figures to prove that an xDSL provider was losing money at
> $50/mo.
>
> Do *you* know what SPCS pays for, say, a Sanyo RL7300?

Probably around the $350 range. They *do Not* make a profit on the
phones, even without a discount. That's simply not the way the U.S.
mobile telephony business model works. U.S. consumers want cheap phones
and cheap service, and so the equipment must be sold at a lost.

Buy the same Sanyo phone in South Korea, or through KDDI in Japan, and
you'll be in for some sticker shock. Phones are not subsidized there.

--
e-mail address fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address in order to reply.
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 4:03:19 AM

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

RAF <raf12147@hotmail-remove.com> wrote:

> Personally, I have to sympathize with the OP's contention that Sprint
> PCS is neglecting a large portion of its existing customer base who
> might want to upgrade aging handsets. Unless someone can produce
> evidence to the contrary, I'm not convinced a minimum price point of $30
> would be much more detrimental to Sprint PCS than one of $35.

As I have posted before, I agree with the people who contend that at $30,
they can't be making much money off you. I'm one of them. However, I think
Sprint is missing a HUGE sales opportunity here. Require a more expensive
plan but don't lock people into a contract. (I know, it is never going to
happen.)


--
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.
August 5, 2004 10:30:58 AM

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

Steven J Sobol wrote:

> RAF wrote:
>
>> Personally, I have to sympathize with the OP's contention that
>> Sprint PCS is neglecting a large portion of its existing customer
>> base who might want to upgrade aging handsets. Unless someone can
>> produce evidence to the contrary, I'm not convinced a minimum price
>> point of $30 would be much more detrimental to Sprint PCS than one
>> of $35.
>
> As I have posted before, I agree with the people who contend that at
> $30, they can't be making much money off you. I'm one of them.

You (and others) have made that contention numerous times. Just agreeing
with others doesn't make it so. Do you really believe that all the $30
plans sold were nothing more than loss leaders?

Again I ask, can anyone cite proof?

> However, I think Sprint is missing a HUGE sales opportunity here.
> Require a more expensive plan but don't lock people into a contract.
> (I know, it is never going to happen.)

I'd like to see the reverse: Require a new contract but don't change the
current plan. I.e., offer the same benefit to $30 customers as to $35
customers.

It's the same subsidy cost to Sprint PCS; they reap the benefits of
converting phones from 2G to 3G and possibly increased Vision revenue;
and they'd have kept the OP's business. (Unless, perhaps, his subject
contention is true?)
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 3:26:06 PM

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

"RAF" <raf12147@hotmail-REMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:41115bbe$0$2841$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Bob Smith wrote in reply to Jim Seymour:
>
> > I'm going to [be] blunt with you here. You want a free lunch here, and
> > you don't qualify for a free lunch. It doesn't matter whether you have
> > been with SPCS for 6 years. You are on a plan where SPCS is not making
> > much if any revenue off you.
>
> This assertion has been made by at least two posters in this thread. Out
> of curiosity, does anyone have any concrete evidence to support this
> claim? (I.e. $30/month does not qualify for a new phone rebate because
> of the unprofitability to Sprint PCS?)

Here ya go ... http://pcshandsetupgrade.sprint.com/

Bob
>
> I would venture to guess that the *majority* of Sprint PCS customers
> (although probably not the majority of readers in this newsgroup) have
> monthly plans totaling $30 or less. I remember the enormous holiday
> season promotion of a year and a half ago, which attempted to lure new
> customers with the promise of 300 anytime plus unlimited N&W minutes for
> "only" $30. The year before that, it was 3000 minutes (200 anytime plus
> 2800 N&W) for $29.95. That was before the advent of WLNP and 3G (Vision)
> phones and two-year contracts, and Sprint PCS was begging for new
> customers to sign up on those sub-$35 plans with just a one-year (or
> zero-year) commitment. Today, with all those sub-$35/month one-year
> contracts expired or expiring, I'm not so sure that Sprint's replacement
> phone rebate requirements are simply a matter of minimum profitability.

It is ...

Bob
August 5, 2004 3:26:07 PM

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

Bob Smith wrote:

> RAF wrote...
>> This assertion has been made by at least two posters in this thread.
>> Out of curiosity, does anyone have any concrete evidence to support
>> this claim? (I.e. $30/month does not qualify for a new phone rebate
>> because of the unprofitability to Sprint PCS?)
>
> Here ya go ... http://pcshandsetupgrade.sprint.com/

Huh?

We know that SPCS requires a $35 minimum plan for rebates on handset
upgrades. That's the reason for this discussion. Let me rephrase the
question:

What evidence do you have to support your assertion that $30 plans earn
insufficient revenue for SPCS?

>> Today, with all those sub-$35/month one-year contracts expired or
>> expiring, I'm not so sure that Sprint's replacement phone rebate
>> requirements are simply a matter of minimum profitability.
>
> It is ...

Because ... ???
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 3:29:32 PM

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

In article <h6hQc.19499$pF.8603@fe35.usenetserver.com>,
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> writes:
> Jim Seymour wrote:
>
>>>Not necessarily true. At a minimum price plan, they're about breaking
>>>even, really. So if they eat the cost of a phone, they'll continue to
>>>operate at a loss on you unless you upgrade your plan.
>>
>>
>> You know this for a fact? This is not a challenge, but an honest
>> question.
>
> As a matter of fact, yes, countless Sprint employees who don't know each
> other and through different time periods have all said the same thing.
> In fact, I can also assert that even if you buy a phone at "full price,"
> Sprint is STILL eating about $100 to $200 of the true cost of the phone,
> and will not make *any* profit on a person buying a new phone until
> about 3 months of billing receipts, based on a standard priced $200
> phone and a person running a $50 monthly plan.
[remainder snipped]
>

Okay. Thanks for the info. *shrug* I can't justify the expense of
the higher contract prices. I neither need nor want Vision. I
neither need nor want many of the bells & whistles on these new
feature-rich phones. I certainly cannot justify the expense of a new
phone every two years. Oh well - I guess wireless just isn't for me
anymore.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 4:48:56 PM

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

In article <41120cd4$0$2817$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>,
"RAF" <raf12147@hotmail-REMOVE.com> writes:
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
>
>> RAF wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I have to sympathize with the OP's contention that
>>> Sprint PCS is neglecting a large portion of its existing customer
>>> base who might want to upgrade aging handsets. Unless someone can
>>> produce evidence to the contrary, I'm not convinced a minimum price
>>> point of $30 would be much more detrimental to Sprint PCS than one
>>> of $35.
>>
>> As I have posted before, I agree with the people who contend that at
>> $30, they can't be making much money off you. I'm one of them.
>
> You (and others) have made that contention numerous times. Just agreeing
> with others doesn't make it so. Do you really believe that all the $30
> plans sold were nothing more than loss leaders?
>
> Again I ask, can anyone cite proof?

I suppose it's possible. But what would that say about the even
cheaper ($19.95, IIRC) plans they used to sell? I dunno. Maybe they
were selling all these cheap plans to build up their customer base
and now feel they either can no longer afford to do so or they have
reached the point they no longer need to? Maybe they feel that
having a wireless phone has reached "just gotta have" status in
everybody's minds, so the market will bear the higher costs?

In my case, the equation is simple: A new phone, these days, costs a
minimum of about $150 (from a SPCS store, after rebate). You can
pretty-much bet that phone will last two years, at best. Even if you
don't abuse it. So look at the numbers I added-up elsewhere. Even
on a minimum plan, you're looking at about $1100 over a two year
period. Maybe some people *need* the constant connectivity that
wireless more-or-less provides. I do not. It's a convenience item,
for me. I'll miss having it, to be sure. But I don't *need* it. In
these economic times, smart people forgo "wants," and take care of
needs.

>
>> However, I think Sprint is missing a HUGE sales opportunity here.
>> Require a more expensive plan but don't lock people into a contract.
>> (I know, it is never going to happen.)
>
> I'd like to see the reverse: Require a new contract but don't change the
> current plan. I.e., offer the same benefit to $30 customers as to $35
> customers.

One of my original points was that they didn't *need* to lock me into
a contract. I wasn't going anywhere. I had been an SPCS customer
for six years. I was relatively happy with the service. I was going
to buy a phone, that I couldn't take with me to another carrier, so I
could *continue* being a customer. What would be the business case
for converting such a person from non-contract to contract at no
additional fee increase to the customer?

>
> It's the same subsidy cost to Sprint PCS; they reap the benefits of
> converting phones from 2G to 3G and possibly increased Vision revenue;
> and they'd have kept the OP's business. (Unless, perhaps, his subject
> contention is true?)

I don't know whether the contention in my subject line is really true
or not. Well, strictly speaking, it *has* to be true - it's just the
reason it's true we can debate at this point.

In any event: I'm now coming to the conclusion that I'm not sure I
can even justify keeping my current service, with the phone I have,
considering what it really costs. I've been making the same mistake
a lot of people do with a lot of purchases: "Oh, $30/mo.? That's not
so bad. I can handle that easily." Instead of adding that up and
figuring out what the true cost is. This whole event caused me to
add it up. Now I understand why the family CFO has been protesting
it.

So the current phone will stay where it is: Turned off and stashed
away. Maybe I'll put it back in service after the 21 days are up.
Maybe I'll cancel. I do know I'm *not* going to increase my monthly
recurring costs by over $5/mo. I do know I'm *not* going to pay
nearly $200 for a product with a 2-yr. lifetime. These things I
know. It's exceedingly unlikely I'm going to commit to even a 1-year
contract with SPCS, much-less a 2-year contract.

Btw: SPCS came this >< close to getting *all* of my family telephone
business at one point. We figured we could dump the wife's Verizon
phone, dump one of the land-lines, convert to a contract on SPCS, get
two new phones, and *about* break even. The show-stopper: SPCS'
long-distance rate to Europe, at the time (hold on to your seats):
$5.00 a *minute*! It gets "better": For $20/mo. (IIRC), we could
sign up for a package that would lower that to a "cuttin' their own
throats," "how *can* they sell it so low" rate of only $1.75/min.!
(Or maybe it was $1.75 and 75 cents a minute. No matter.) This when
we were paying Sprint LD 10 cents a minute for LD to Europe?

Um, I don't think so.

(I just called and asked. The rate's down to "only" $0.40/minute.
Whoopee. Only 4x the land-line rate from the same company.)

So here we are, a year or so down the road. Wifey still has her
inexpensive Verizon phone and plan. We're still using SBC
land-lines. And SPCS is now about this >< far from losing what
little of our business they have.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 7:28:15 PM

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

"RAF" <raf12147@hotmail-REMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:411222dc$0$2836$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
> > RAF wrote...
> >> This assertion has been made by at least two posters in this thread.
> >> Out of curiosity, does anyone have any concrete evidence to support
> >> this claim? (I.e. $30/month does not qualify for a new phone rebate
> >> because of the unprofitability to Sprint PCS?)
> >
> > Here ya go ... http://pcshandsetupgrade.sprint.com/
>
> Huh?
>
> We know that SPCS requires a $35 minimum plan for rebates on handset
> upgrades. That's the reason for this discussion. Let me rephrase the
> question:
>
> What evidence do you have to support your assertion that $30 plans earn
> insufficient revenue for SPCS?

Lots of prior comments made by SPCS employees in this newsgroup, Verizon
employees in their newsgroup. No, I can't point you to a specific URL, but
there is a fixed expense for each customer, in the cost of coverage, account
management, sending out bills, and customer service. IOW, the cost of doing
business.

>
> >> Today, with all those sub-$35/month one-year contracts expired or
> >> expiring, I'm not so sure that Sprint's replacement phone rebate
> >> requirements are simply a matter of minimum profitability.
> >
> > It is ...
>
> Because ... ???

Because of all the prior comments made by the industry in the past 6 years,
the cellular employees who post here and the other newsgroups ... I do
remember someone from SPCS doing a press release (don't remember the date,
but it was 3 or more years ago), where they specifically talk about the cost
of subsidizing phones. It was mentioned that the carrier's cost of acquiring
phones was getting a bit less expensive, as the price of chips were costing
less, but that they were still subsidizing the phones quite a bit.

A few years back, one company rep in the GSM or alt.cellular group mentioned
in one post, the price difference for a customer on a Moto phone. The phone
sold by the service, which is locked and tied to the carrier cost the
cellular customer $200 less than the same model unlocked ...

Bob

Bob
August 5, 2004 7:32:41 PM

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

Bob Smith wrote:

> RAF wrote...
>> What evidence do you have to support your assertion that $30 plans
>> earn insufficient revenue for SPCS?
>
> Lots of prior comments made by SPCS employees in this newsgroup,

I recall hearing from only (a very few) Customer Service and Tech
Support employees in this newsgroup, none of whom I would expect to have
access to the executive or marketing offices at Sprint PCS. Since you've
written with such conviction and seeming authority on these matters, I
thought perhaps you had some association with SPCS or the cellular
industry that surpasses simple hearsay. (Also, any info older than 2-3
years will have little relevance today. The industry changes too fast.)

> Verizon employees in their newsgroup.

I don't frequent any other alt.cellular.* groups, but I'm willing to
believe that all the wireless companies operate more or less the same
these days.

> No, I can't point you to a specific URL, but there is a fixed expense
> for each customer, in the cost of coverage, account management,
> sending out bills, and customer service. IOW, the cost of doing
> business.

Of course it costs money to do business. That's what phone subsidies and
upgrade rebates are all about: dollars and cents. The bean counters at
SPCS sit down and calculate how much they can afford to sacrifice with
such promotions in order to maximize revenues and market share.

However, I disagree with your view that lower-cost plans don't deserve a
"free lunch" just because they generate less income. I believe the vast
majority of SPCS customers have low-end plans ($30 or less in past
years). Not only are these customers profitable to SPCS, their numbers
alone guarantee a much greater revenue contribution than the minority of
customers with high-minute plans.

Simply put, it costs SPCS substantially less to offer rebates only to
the high-end minority. This saves them some face in light of the
preferential discounts offered to new customers (which is important
since SPCS no longer competes that well on plan price alone).

To return to the subject line of this thread: Does Sprint PCS *really*
want to keep the business of $30 customers? Of course they do, but
they'll risk losing some if it doesn't affect their bottom line. Just
let there be a mass desertion at the low end, and you'll see those
minimum upgrade requirements change in a hurry (IMHO).
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 8:05:17 PM

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

In article <5vKdnW1dnL4KIozcRVn-rA@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net says...
> As I have posted before, I agree with the people who contend that at $30,
> they can't be making much money off you. I'm one of them. However, I think
> Sprint is missing a HUGE sales opportunity here. Require a more expensive
> plan but don't lock people into a contract. (I know, it is never going to
> happen.)
>

Actually, it *does* happen already. We entice you into contracts with
phone rebates, and 7PM N&W minutes, or PCS2PCS at no charge. But there
is always the option not to have a contract, and then you pay an
additional $10/month for that.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
"A thing moderately good is not so good
as it ought to be. Moderation in temper
is always a virtue, but moderation in
principle is always a vice."

Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 8:07:07 PM

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

In article <411222dc$0$2836$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, raf12147@hotmail-
REMOVE.com says...
> What evidence do you have to support your assertion that $30 plans earn
> insufficient revenue for SPCS?
>

For an average customer, SPCS spends approximately $33/month just in
basic maintenance, activation costs, stuff like that. A customer who
calls in for support: more expensive. And so on.

This was all based off internal accounting and presented to us in new
hire training.

--
RØß
O/Siris
-+-
"A thing moderately good is not so good
as it ought to be. Moderation in temper
is always a virtue, but moderation in
principle is always a vice."

Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 9:44:54 PM

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

In article <lcsQc.9579$cK.14@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> "Jim Seymour" <jseymour@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
> news:10h4b5oa2bo7h80@corp.supernews.com...
[snip]
>>
>> In my case, the equation is simple: A new phone, these days, costs a
>> minimum of about $150 (from a SPCS store, after rebate).
>
> Uhhh, no ... that's incorrect. In viewing
> http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/PhonesAccessories/All... . With the
> mail in rebate, your final cost on a phone could be $0 to $30 for 3 models,
> 2 @ $50, with the rest of the phones, excluding the PDAs up to $150 to $200.

Okay. I was going by what was in the SPCS store I visited *and* what
I regarded as an acceptable phone. My fault for leaving those bits
out.

"Acceptable phone" is one that's received favourable comments
on-line, made by a manufacturer that historically receives mostly
positive comment, and where the store personnel recommend it based on
my criteria. IOW: Not any old phone that's cheap and looks pretty,
like I did last time. In this instance: That boiled-down to the
Sanyo RL7300.

So, I chose a phone and found that the only way I could get the
promotional price is to be locked-in to a contract that would raise
my rate. It has since been explained to me, and I have no reason
to doubt it, that, even then, SPCS would lose money on me. Fair
enough: SPCS and I can no longer do business.

>
>> You can
>> pretty-much bet that phone will last two years, at best. Even if you
>> don't abuse it.
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. Phones can last longer than 2 years.
[snip]

*shrug* Three phones in six years. And I take *very* good care of my
stuff. Yeah, they *can* last longer. Witness my wife's Nokia (I
think it is). Then again: She rarely uses it.

>
> Obviously, you don't want the expense of an additional $5 / mo, nor to sign
> an AA, so you've already made your mind up and that's OK.

More like $6/mo. after taxes and surcharges. So: $144 over 24
months. Discount on the phone was $150. After that (assuming the
phone lasted more than two years): I'd be losing money. So no: Not a
good deal for me. Actually, for my purposes, I would have been
better-off keeping my current plan and taking the $100 credit CR
offered me. Compared to taking the $150 rebate and going on contract
for another $6/mo., I would've broke-even at nine months and been
ahead afterward.

> Short sighted
> maybe, for that one time you need to use it, but that's just yours truly
> talking.

I understand your position. Please understand mine: I simply do not
need a wireless phone badly enough to justify a $550/year expense.

>
> Bob::My last reply to you in this thread::

Fair enough :) . I think this entire set of threads has about run its
course anyway.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 1:12:51 AM

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

"the option not to have a contract, and then you pay an additional
$10/month for that."
Yup... I pay $130 for unlimited minutes and $10 per month to drop at any
time.

O/Siris wrote:

> In article <5vKdnW1dnL4KIozcRVn-rA@lmi.net>, sjsobol@JustThe.net says...
>
>>As I have posted before, I agree with the people who contend that at $30,
>>they can't be making much money off you. I'm one of them. However, I think
>>Sprint is missing a HUGE sales opportunity here. Require a more expensive
>>plan but don't lock people into a contract. (I know, it is never going to
>>happen.)
>>
>
>
> Actually, it *does* happen already. We entice you into contracts with
> phone rebates, and 7PM N&W minutes, or PCS2PCS at no charge. But there
> is always the option not to have a contract, and then you pay an
> additional $10/month for that.
>
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 1:36:35 AM

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

In article <41128bc9$0$5898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>,
"RAF" <raf12147@hotmail-REMOVE.com> writes:
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
>> RAF wrote...
>>> What evidence do you have to support your assertion that $30 plans
>>> earn insufficient revenue for SPCS?
>>
>> Lots of prior comments made by SPCS employees in this newsgroup,
>
> I recall hearing from only (a very few) Customer Service and Tech
> Support employees in this newsgroup, none of whom I would expect to have
> access to the executive or marketing offices at Sprint PCS. Since you've
> written with such conviction and seeming authority on these matters, I
> thought perhaps you had some association with SPCS or the cellular
> industry that surpasses simple hearsay. (Also, any info older than 2-3
> years will have little relevance today. The industry changes too fast.)

Those were my thoughts, in reaction to both Bob's and Isaiah's
comments, as well. I decided to take their assertions at face value,
for two reasons: 1. I haven't the faintest bit of evidence on which
to base contrary assertions. 2. The information may be marginally
interesting but, in the final analysis, it doesn't really matter,
vis-a-vis my decision.

>
[snip]
>
> To return to the subject line of this thread: Does Sprint PCS *really*
> want to keep the business of $30 customers? Of course they do,

I don't think they do.

> but
> they'll risk losing some if it doesn't affect their bottom line. Just
> let there be a mass desertion at the low end, and you'll see those
> minimum upgrade requirements change in a hurry (IMHO).

Yes, but by then it'll be too late, won't it? Those people will have
other plans, with other carriers. Or, like I might, they'll have
decided they really didn't need a wireless service all that much,
after all.

Hopefully, for SPCS' future, the bean-counters running the show there
know what they're about. (Confidence is low. American bean-counter
style "management" seems most often to lead to mediocrity.)

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jseymour@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 1:43:20 AM

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

"RAF" <raf12147@hotmail-REMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:41128bc9$0$5898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Bob Smith wrote:
>
> > RAF wrote...
> >> What evidence do you have to support your assertion that $30 plans
> >> earn insufficient revenue for SPCS?
> >
> > Lots of prior comments made by SPCS employees in this newsgroup,
>
> I recall hearing from only (a very few) Customer Service and Tech
> Support employees in this newsgroup, none of whom I would expect to have
> access to the executive or marketing offices at Sprint PCS. Since you've
> written with such conviction and seeming authority on these matters, I
> thought perhaps you had some association with SPCS or the cellular
> industry that surpasses simple hearsay. (Also, any info older than 2-3
> years will have little relevance today. The industry changes too fast.)

I have no clue how long you've been lurking on this newsgroup. Your oldest
post under the ID of RAF is dated 6-13-04. I've been on this newsgroup since
late 98 ... and have seen more that enough comments on subsidies. I've read
the press releases from SPCS and the other wireless carriers when it's been
mentioned.

Sure the industry changes. Phones are cheaper now, yes ... but not as cheap
as you think.

>
> > Verizon employees in their newsgroup.
>
> I don't frequent any other alt.cellular.* groups, but I'm willing to
> believe that all the wireless companies operate more or less the same
> these days.

Yes they do ... They subsidize phones to all their subscribers.
>
> > No, I can't point you to a specific URL, but there is a fixed expense
> > for each customer, in the cost of coverage, account management,
> > sending out bills, and customer service. IOW, the cost of doing
> > business.
>
> Of course it costs money to do business. That's what phone subsidies and
> upgrade rebates are all about: dollars and cents. The bean counters at
> SPCS sit down and calculate how much they can afford to sacrifice with
> such promotions in order to maximize revenues and market share.
>
You just made my point.

> However, I disagree with your view that lower-cost plans don't deserve a
> "free lunch" just because they generate less income. I believe the vast
> majority of SPCS customers have low-end plans ($30 or less in past
> years). Not only are these customers profitable to SPCS, their numbers
> alone guarantee a much greater revenue contribution than the minority of
> customers with high-minute plans.

Ok, you've asked me for sources ... Now I'm asking you for some to back up
your opinions on why you think the majority of users are low end / low cost
users. SPCS reports in their latest 10Q that the average account brings in
$62 / month in revenue -
http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/2q04pres.pdf - Page 11. Just how does
your opinion fit with that number?

You want articles on phone susidies? Do a google search on - phone
subsidize "Sprint PCS" and just see how many articles, etc show up.

>
> Simply put, it costs SPCS substantially less to offer rebates only to
> the high-end minority. This saves them some face in light of the
> preferential discounts offered to new customers (which is important
> since SPCS no longer competes that well on plan price alone).

High-end minority? Time to back up your opinion one more time on this.
High-End would be those accounts that spend $100+ or more a month. Again,
the average account is paying $60+ a month.

> To return to the subject line of this thread: Does Sprint PCS *really*
> want to keep the business of $30 customers? Of course they do, but
> they'll risk losing some if it doesn't affect their bottom line. Just
> let there be a mass desertion at the low end, and you'll see those
> minimum upgrade requirements change in a hurry (IMHO).

I doubt it ... I'm betting that they will increase revenues on those low end
customers. Especially with this new F & F plan which encourages more talking
with better pricing when users go over the 300 AT minute threshold.

Bob
!