 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Sprint PCS / April 2004Sprint PCS sees strong subscriber growth
http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=17766 Philly, how are you going to distort this? Chris > http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=17766 > >how are you going to distort this? > > Chris That whole story is a SprintPCS spin/distortion. Comparing churn with a year ago, instead of last quarter is a deliberate obfuscation. Saying subscriber growth is strong is only telling half the story. Subscriber defections are also strong, as the churn numbers releqased yesterday demonstrates, having increased from the previous quarter. Apologists might try to blame it on WLNP, but interestingly SprintPCS did not state the comparative numbers of losses versus gains from WLNP. You know if they had a net gain there, that would be the lead story. As usual Philly, you won't post it as a response to my positive post, you post it new negatively. Then you say that it is only half the story. Who cares how many are wireless # portability changovers. There was an overall gain in subscribers- a troll like you just wants to cause trouble with your obfuscation and innuendo. > > http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=17766 > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > did not state the comparative numbers of losses versus gains from WLNP. > You know if they had a net gain there, that would be the lead story. > As usual Philly, you won't post it as a response to my positive post, > you post it new negatively. Then you say that it is only half the > story. Who cares how many are wireless # portability changovers. > There was an overall gain in subscribers- a troll like you just wants > to cause trouble with your obfuscation and innuendo. Posting the TRUTH of an April 20 press release on April 20 is not trolling. Posting a one sided spin of the story is Trolling. Sprint certainly did better than AT&T Wireless by having a net gain of customers. AT&T Wireless had a net loss. But we don't know how many new SprinPCS customers from WLNP and how many from "walkups". Sprint didn't publish total numbers from WLNP in its 10K filing to the SEC. So we donb't even know if WLNP was a net gain or a net loss for SprintPCS. Once again, it doesn't make a bit of difference where the customers came from-walk-ups or wlnp. Exactly what was the other half of the story from the RCR News story? I just looked at the Sprint corporate press release and there is nothing else there but what was in the RCR News story. Where there is no smoke, a troll like you comes to put out the fire. Chris > > As usual Philly, you won't post it as a response to my positive post, > > you post it new negatively. Then you say that it is only half the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > SEC. So we donb't even know if WLNP was a net gain or a net loss for > SprintPCS. > Once again, it doesn't make a bit of difference where the customers came > from-walk-ups or wlnp. Exactly what was the other half of the story from > the RCR News story The RCA story was verbatim from the SprintPCS press release, it was hardly news, it was simple cut and paste. What was not mentioned - The rest of the story. Some obvious, some unknown.... The increase in the churn rate, the failure to tell whether or not a net win or loss from WLNP, the failure to tell whether or not costs are increasing for new customer acquisition. This from the Sprint press release: Churn was 2.9% this quarter compared to 3.1% reported a year ago, and 2.7% in the 2003 fourth quarter Total first quarter operating expenses increased 13% compared to the year-ago period. The increase was driven by sales and distribution costs resulting from higher additions. This from the RCR News story: Bolstering Sprint PCS' stronger-than-expected customer growth was lower-than-expected customer churn of 2.9 percent during the quarter compared with estimates in the low 3-percent range and the 3.1 percent the carrier reported during the first quarter of 2003 It's still irrelevant whether the gain from walk-ups or wlnp. 2 out 3 ain't bad when the middle one is irrelevant. Chris > > Once again, it doesn't make a bit of difference where the customers came > > from-walk-ups or wlnp. Exactly what was the other half of the story from [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > win or loss from WLNP, the failure to tell whether or not costs are > increasing for new customer acquisition. > It's still irrelevant whether the gain from walk-ups or wlnp. 2 out 3 ain't > bad when the middle one is irrelevant. WLNP is very relevant, especially when lauer said Sprint would be a WLNP winner. Was it? If so, say so. By not saying, makes one wonder. Remember this was a Sprint Corporate Press Release, not just Sprint PCS. Especially when PCS is rolled back into FON, we may have to settle for this level of info. If you are so concerned about wlnp, send Lauer an email asking for the info. Chris > > It's still irrelevant whether the gain from walk-ups or wlnp. 2 out 3 ain't > > bad when the middle one is irrelevant. > > WLNP is very relevant, especially when lauer said Sprint would be a WLNP > winner. Was it? If so, say so. By not saying, makes one wonder. > Remember this was a Sprint Corporate Press Release, not just Sprint PCS. > Especially when PCS is rolled back into FON, we may have to settle for this > level of info. If you are so concerned about wlnp, send Lauer an email > asking for the info. I've already sent email through channels, and got double talk back, two days of emails now. They just refer me back to the press release which says nothing about WLNP numbers. I'm really beginning to suspect that SprintPCS a big time WLNP loser, or they'd be bragging to the contrary. > WLNP is very relevant, especially when lauer said Sprint would be a WLNP > winner. Was it? If so, say so. By not saying, makes one wonder. The article was not about WLNP. It was not referenced even once. It was about Sprint PCS and subscriber numbers. That is it. The article doesn't say how many subscribers purchased Nokia phones either, but that doesn't make it a distorted article. You are a MORON and a TROLL. - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > The RCA story was verbatim from the SprintPCS press release, it was > hardly news, it was simple cut and paste. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > win or loss from WLNP, the failure to tell whether or not costs are > increasing for new customer acquisition. You cite increase in churn rate, but indeed, churn dropped from the same period one year ago (which is THE STANDARD method of comparison). You know as well as I that comparing such numbers to the previous quarter is NOT the standard practice ... and I cited the retail example in an earlier post which clearly shows why. - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > > Once again, it doesn't make a bit of difference where the customers came > > from-walk-ups or wlnp. Exactly what was the other half of the story from > > the RCR News story > > The RCA story was verbatim from the SprintPCS press release, it was > hardly news, it was simple cut and paste. Wait a minute- last week you quoting directly from Sprint, and trying to discredit posts from the media. Are you now saying that Sprint is not a reliable source of information? Which is it? > What was not mentioned - The rest of the story. Some obvious, some > unknown.... > > The increase in the churn rate, the failure to tell whether or not a net > win or loss from WLNP, the failure to tell whether or not costs are > increasing for new customer acquisition. Subsciber numbers and costs were all included in the numbers you saw last week. Nextel (the churn leader) did not report WNLP numbers, either- and they made money. They also showed the same increase in churn, and made money. See a pattern here? The numbers that you are obssessing over are not an indicator of profitability or company performance. Once again, Wall Street analysts, industry analysts and Phil are miles apart. > Subsciber numbers and costs were all included in the numbers you saw last > week. Nextel (the churn leader) did not report WNLP numbers, either- and > they made money. They also showed the same increase in churn, and made > money. See a pattern here? The numbers that you are obssessing over are > not an indicator of profitability or company performance. Once again, Wall > Street analysts, industry analysts and Phil are miles apart. And then there are people like me that influence churn, yet have a net effect of nothing. I left sprint and returned to sprint within 7 days during the same quarter, and yet the churn numbers will rise because of my activity. - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > during the same quarter, and yet the churn numbers will rise because of > my activity. Good point, Tom. And probably many more like you (like butt boy). And I wonder how many of them came back and ended up paying more for service to get back in the door (sorry, sir- that rate plan is no longer available)? Hey, Phil- using your twisted logic, I've determined that WNLP actually ended up in a Net Revenue Gain of about $250,000 for the quarter. This number reflects the rise in ARPU for those subscribers that came back, and is probably very conservative when you take into account all previous Sprint churn customers that have come back as a result of WNLP. In article <rmarkoff-8F0FEB.15444921042004 @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says... > But we don't know how many new SprinPCS customers from WLNP and how many > from "walkups". OK, Phillie, enlighten us. Start with the extreme. Let's say it was all one or the other. How does that alter the picture?  SignatureRØß O/Siris I work for Sprint PCS I *don't* speak for them > In article <rmarkoff-8F0FEB.15444921042004 > @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > OK, enlighten us. Start with the extreme. Let's say it was > all one or the other. How does that alter the picture? Very simple. Lauer claimed in December that SprintPCS was winning in WLNP. **SO WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS ** How many folks came to SprintPCS, How many Left via WLNP ?? SPRINTPCS refuses to say. Must be VERY bad news. rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote: <<Very simple. Lauer claimed in December that SprintPCS was winning in WLNP. **SO WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS ** How many folks came to SprintPCS, How many Left via WLNP ?? SPRINTPCS refuses to say. Must be VERY bad news. >> So? What is so wrong about Lauer trying to be positive and put on a "game face" when the WLNP left so much uncertainty in Nov/Dec? If Sprint reports an overall customer gain for the quarter, why does it matter to know a gain/loss percentage because of WLNP? I would say any kind of gain would be good news... not bad. What makes their numbers any of your business? Robert M. wrote: > Very simple. Lauer claimed in December that SprintPCS was winning in > WLNP. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Must be VERY bad news. Logical Fallacy. Lack of proof is not proof. It may be very bad, very good or neither. How about, "I guess it is VERY bad news." -mike > Robert M. wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > good or neither. How about, "I guess it is VERY bad news." > -mike BE REAL. We both know that if Sprint was WLNP winner they would be widely bragging about it. Robert M. wrote: >>Logical Fallacy. Lack of proof is not proof. It may be very bad, very >>good or neither. How about, "I guess it is VERY bad news." >>-mike > > BE REAL. We both know that if Sprint was WLNP winner they would be > widely bragging about it. You asked for it, you got it. http://tinyurl.com/3ge6u -mike > Robert M. wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/3ge6u HA HA. Now where are the WLNP numbers? > > Robert M. wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > HA HA. Now where are the WLNP numbers? You still haven't answered the question- what difference does it make? They showed a net gain, churn increased by the same percentage as the industry leader in churn (Nextel), and they showed solid growth in their financials. > BE REAL. We both know that if Sprint was WLNP winner they would be > widely bragging about it. Pose this scenario. What if they were a big WLNP loser in Q4 and a big WLNP winner in Q104? How about if they are WLNP neutral, maybe during both quarters. There are not enough stats to say anything meaningful about WLNP unless you are a constant winner or a constant loser. These numbers could be very volitile and in that case, I would not report on them either ... because they would be pretty much meaningless over a term of less than 6 months. - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 In article <rmarkoff-D35362.05545823042004 @news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says... > > In article <rmarkoff-8F0FEB.15444921042004 > > @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Must be VERY bad news. I asked you a very simple question, Phillie. You still haven't answered it. How does this make SPCS' situation worse *or* better? SignatureRØß O/Siris I work for Sprint PCS I *don't* speak for them > In article <rmarkoff-D35362.05545823042004 > @news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I asked you a very simple question, Phillie. You still haven't > answered it. How does this make SPCS' situation worse *or* better? .2% increase in churn adds up to $27 Million dollars lost revenue on recurring charges alone on an annual basis. Meanwhile why did SprintPCS omit the WLNP numbers from its 10K filing? rmarkoff@msn.com (Robert M.) wrote: <<Meanwhile why did SprintPCS omit the WLNP numbers from its 10K filing? Who cares? Why does it matter to you? What business is it of yours? Go back to blowing your whistles and maybe Jesus will reward you for not using obscene language. <snipped> > > I asked you a very simple question, Phillie. You still haven't > > answered it. How does this make SPCS' situation worse *or* better? > > .2% increase in churn adds up to $27 Million dollars lost revenue on > recurring charges alone on an annual basis. Nope, it doesn't, as I've previously explained. The math you used would earn you an "F" ... in 3rd grade math. > Meanwhile why did SprintPCS omit the WLNP numbers from its 10K filing? Maybe because it wasn't required? Bob In article <rmarkoff-C5AB13.08160126042004 @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says... > > I asked you a very simple question, Phillie. You still haven't > > answered it. How does this make SPCS' situation worse *or* better? > > .2% increase in churn adds up to $27 Million dollars lost revenue on > recurring charges alone on an annual basis. You still didn't answer the question, Phill. You're avoiding it now. What is it about direct questions that scares you so much? SignatureRØß O/Siris I work for Sprint PCS I *don't* speak for them > In article <rmarkoff-C5AB13.08160126042004 > @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What is it about direct questions that scares you so much? The question you are avoiding is how is $27 Million "No Big Deal"??? In article <rmarkoff-F70653.16574229042004 @news04.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says... > > In article <rmarkoff-C5AB13.08160126042004 > > @news05.east.earthlink.net>, rmarkoff@msn.com says... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The question you are avoiding is how is $27 Million "No Big Deal"??? You still haven't answered the question, Phill. Still avoiding. How does SPCS' situation show as worse *or* better by showing the numbers you claim aren't there? SignatureRØß O/Siris I work for Sprint PCS I *don't* speak for them > You still haven't answered the question, Phill. Still avoiding. How > does SPCS' situation show as worse *or* better by showing the numbers > you claim aren't there? We know enough numbers. Churn increased .2% per month in the first quarter. You LIED and said thats "No Big Deal", but multiply by 12 months and $61/month per user, and 16.3 million users, and its $27 million in lost revenue. Then the other issue is Lauer promised SprintPCS would be a WLNP winner, and a SprintPCS apologist (Bob Smith) now claims he didn't, even though Smith posted about it last year; and likely SprintPCS was a loser in WLNP, i.e. more ported out than ported in. But strangely the exact numbers were not in the 10K filed for the SEC. And SprintPCS also omitted its figures for average cost of new Cusotmer Acquisition. Obviously embarressed to do that, since SprintPCS is still loosing money, and always had high numbers but now without a separate tracking stock, Sprint can hide more information. And for all that Lauer got a bonus of 30 times his annual salary. How big a bonus did SprintPCS give you Rob? > > You still haven't answered the question, Phill. Still avoiding. How > > does SPCS' situation show as worse *or* better by showing the numbers [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > money, and always had high numbers but now without a separate tracking > stock, Sprint can hide more information. And can you prove that the .2% increase in churn was a result of WNLP? >> OK, enlighten us. Start with the extreme. Let's say it was >> all one or the other. How does that alter the picture? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > **SO WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS ** Phillip ... get it through that rock you call a brain! This article has nothing to do with WLNP ... what makes them required to post numbers about WLNP in this article or press release? > Must be VERY bad news. You are an eternal pessimist. - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > > http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=17766 > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That whole story is a SprintPCS spin/distortion. Comparing churn with a > year ago, instead of last quarter is a deliberate obfuscation. Not really, Phil- its a good business practice. As much as a person wouldn't think, cellular certainly has a seasonal cycle, and a comparison from quarter to quarter is not always the best indicator. 3rd and 4th quarters are always the strongest sales periods (back to school and the holidays). And because more contracts are sold during these times, the churn cycle is going to reflect this. Year to year is going to be a more accurate reflection of the business cycle. > Saying subscriber growth is strong is only telling half the story. > > Subscriber defections are also strong, as the churn numbers releqased > yesterday demonstrates, having increased from the previous quarter. They're strong everywhere. If Verizon comes in at 2.5% a month for the whole year (which is a reasonable expectation), they will lose over 8 million customers in 2004. That's almost 2/3 of the entire subscriber base for the sixth largest domestic carrier (Nextel). If you look at the raw numbers, that's a whole lot worse than Sprint, and yet they are number one in CS in most surveys. My opinion on this is below. > Apologists might try to blame it on WLNP, but interestingly SprintPCS > did not state the comparative numbers of losses versus gains from WLNP. > You know if they had a net gain there, that would be the lead story. Its not WLNP, its the nature of the beast. A greater number of subscribers have met their contractual obligation with their carrier, and with all of the free phones and rate plan bonuses being offered, many are choosing to move out of economics, not hatred for the carrier. Look at that 8 million number for Verizon- they offer good coverage, good service (for cellular) and the only knock might be that they are pricey on their plans. Why would people leave a sitaution like that? Money. Bottom line- there are way too many players in the market for stability to occur. And, as you mention in one of your other posts, the water is about to get murkier with the addition of AT&T and MCI as brand name players. >> http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=17766 >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That whole story is a SprintPCS spin/distortion. Comparing churn with a > year ago, instead of last quarter is a deliberate obfuscation. You say so huh? And you claim you know anything about business. It is both normal and expected to compare financial numbers (including subscribers) to the same quarter in the trailing 12 months. > Saying subscriber growth is strong is only telling half the story. It is saying exactly what they said. They gave the numbers ... you can digest them how you will. > Subscriber defections are also strong, as the churn numbers releqased > yesterday demonstrates, having increased from the previous quarter. Sure, but you do have to compare apples to apples, which is why it is common to compare the quarterly results to the same period the year before. Ask a retailer to compare Q1 results with Q4 (Jan-Dec year) and you will almost always see a decline. > Apologists might try to blame it on WLNP, but interestingly SprintPCS > did not state the comparative numbers of losses versus gains from WLNP. > You know if they had a net gain there, that would be the lead story. You think so? Why? Why does it even matter where they are getting their subscribers from (or rather, if the new subscribers brought their number with them or not)? - -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 <<http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=17766 Philly, how are you going to distort this? >> Hey, that's great news. Things are starting to look up... slowly but surely. Although, the challenge to Phillipe was not really needed as it just fuels the fire. :) Eric This is no shock to me. My contract is up and I went out and bought a new phone. I didn't renew my contract because I have a better deal with my old plan. > <<http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=17766 > Philly, how are you going to distort this? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Eric |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.