Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (
More info?)
Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>Reggie Degger wrote:
>
>>>Lower revenues. They won't be able to bill normally for those minutes.
>>
>>
>> Well, the knowledge that Sprint PCS is bringing in a marginally smaller
>> amount of revenue on Thanksgiving Day would certainly make the turkey and
>> cranberry sauce taste like ashes in *my* mouth. <eyeroll>
>
>Actually, I'm not convinced that revenue is the problem... it probably
>won't change very much at all.
Very good. That was precisely my point, or one of them.
> The big problem is intercarrier access
>costs. Sprint PCS still has to play ball with the LECs in local markets
>to connects its lines, and those costs, unlike your plan, don't change
>depending on whether you call on a holiday or not.
Nor do those costs change depending on whether I call at 6:59 P.M., 7:59
P.M., 8:59 P.M., or 9:01 P.M. Yet Sprint, like every other carrier on the
market, sees fit to adjust its peak/off-peak charges to customers based on
factors *other* than LEC connecting costs. The constant cost (to Sprint) of
connection does not deter them from changing off-peak starting times to win
or retain customers. Why on earth, then, would it deter them from making
changes one way or the other when it comes to holidays?
> People making more
>long distance calls costs them money, even if that's not reflected
>directly in your bill. And guess when people make more calls? When
>it's "free," of course.
Of course. Which is exactly why no wireless carrier would ever be so
reckless as to encourage widespread "free" calling by customers by offering
them, say, "free" nights and weekends...oh, wait, what's that? They all do?
There goes that argument.
>Higher costs mean, obviously, that rates could rise. So yes, you could
>have your free holidays, but might expect to pay say, a dollar or two
>more per month to subsidize the cost. Knowing how much you bitch about
>holidays, I'm sure you'll just *love* higher rates.
I've never in my life bitched about holidays. Perhaps in your general
confusion you've also managed to confuse me with somebody else?
> In fact, I bet
>you're not with Verizon because their rates are higher and because you
>get nickle-and-dimed for things like data access.
I'm not with Verizon because they provide zero signal in my neighborhood.
Please do yourself a favor and stay away from racetracks, as your "bets"
don't seem to be paying off as of late.
> They do that
>because... stay with me now... their costs are higher, BECAUSE they do
>things (or at least used to, not sure if they still do) like free
>unlimited holidays.
You commit the fallacy of _petitio principii_, my man. You assert what
ought to be proved, namely that Verizon's higher rates are substantially due
to free holiday minutes rather than investments in infrastructure, labor
costs, advertising, phone subsidies....
> > I'm a consumer of Sprint's services, not an
>> investor in the company. Their "revenues" are of no more concern to me than
>> my personal income is to them, except insofar as it would be slightly
>> inconvenient for one of us to find a new provider/client should the other go
>> belly-up.
>
>Is this a diplomatic way of saying your credit is bad?
No. It was an explanation, in very plain English, of the basic business
fact that if A does business with B, A does not care a whit whether the deal
is beneficial to B except to the extent that if B is so adversely affected
by the terms of the deal that B goes out of business, A is mildly and
temporarily inconvenienced--and vice versa.
My FICO scores are in the high 700s, by the way; thanks for asking.
>>>Sure, it's a selling point. The question is whether it's a big enough selling
>>>point to justify doing it.
>>
>>
>> And if it is a big enough selling (or retention) point, they will.
>
>Not if it isn't cost effective.
Yes; that was implicit in my very next sentence, and I quote: "And if it
isn't, they won't."
> If you gave someone a choice between
>holidays with unlimited minutes that they wouldn't otherwise use, or
>lower rates, I bet people would pick the latter.
You finally win a bet. On the other hand, if you offer somebody a choice
between unlimited holiday minutes at $X, and no holiday minutes at $X, they
will certainly pick the former. What you don't seem to understand is that
such a choice is entirely feasible. Markets and pricing are a bit more
complex than you seem to think they are; offering more of a given good or
service for the same price does not necessarily translate immediately to
lower revenues, nor does offering more of a good or service while maintainig
revenue at a fixed level necessarily require increasing the price.
>> And if
>> it isn't, they won't. Either way, there is no earthly reason for us not to
>> request it of them.
>
>I agree. So, maybe you should write a letter to Sprint instead of
>whining here about it.
Not only have I not "whined" about it here, I haven't even expressed an
opinion on whether Sprint should offer free holiday minutes. That you think
otherwise betokens a certain sloppiness in your thinking and/or your
reading. My argument was with Mr. Veldhouse's contention that folks who
want holiday minutes shouldn't do anything about it.
> Maybe if enough people express their opinions,
>they'll perceive it as worth the increased costs.
Yes, that's precisely what I have been saying all along. Congratulations on
finally comprehending that.