Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:01:11 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> the battle
>> between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
>> to most users.
>
>On a slightly different note on importance...
>
>I'm seeing customers in the rural WiFi market that choose aesthetics of the
>installation over price and speed.
>
>"I don't want anything with guy wires and will go with a company that can
>put a small antenna on the roof of my house" (never mind the cost or speed
>of the connection).

I've seen that too, particularly in higher-end neighborhoods. Likewise
when people are browsing in a retail store, not only the product, but
also the packaging. Esthetics can indeed be a powerful force. We geeks
tend to dismiss that as silliness, but average folks lack our expertise,
and have found that better products tend to have better esthetics,
making esthetics a useful albeit imperfect criterion.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> The law actually doesn't work that way -- it's actually hard to block
>> towers.
>
> I'll take it up a notch and say its more like damned impossible to block
> new towers.

LOL, I guess the people in my city are a real anomaly. It's actually not
hard to prevent towers from going in, but a lot depends on the
government of the city in question. You can't block a site based on
health concerns, but there is a plethora of issues to raise when
fighting a site.

Cingular and then T-Mobile tried for about eight years to put in a site
at a small shopping center about a mile from me. They were successfully
blocked at every turn. There were endless public hearings, and finally
they gave up trying. Then they tried a fake tree site across from the
shopping center, but that was also successfully blocked by NIMBYs.

I'm not saying that what the nearby residents did was a good thing, but
it's important to understand what the law actually says regarding cell
sites and refusing to allow them. You can stop them, just not for the
wrong reason.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:05:06 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> The law actually doesn't work that way -- it's actually hard to block
>> towers.
>
>I'll take it up a notch and say its more like damned impossible to block
>new towers.

Correct.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> Verizon is not the be-
>> all, end-all carrier. The fact is that nobody is. The quicker you
>> accept this fact, the easier it is to see the world in real terms.
>
> I have never stated that Verizon was the be-all, end-all, etc.
>
> However there is a reason why they are consistently rated as having
> the best coverage and quality by every major independent
> survey--surveys with huge sample sizes, with methodology beyond
> question. If you look at the carrier maps for the metro areas that
> these surveys cover, you'll find that they show coverage that is about
> equal among all the carriers, yet clearly the carriers are not equal
> in coverage, as the survey results show. Surely you're not going to
> pull a Navas and start making ridiculous statements about the surveys
> from CR, JDP, YG, etc.!

No, but you are treading dangerously close to the line yourself with this
very evident and blinding allegiance to Verizon that seems to consume your
posts. In one breath you try to talk it odewn and in the very next you are
pointing out every reason they are so great, you fail to admit their
weaknesses and flaws. It is getting as bad as dealing with Navas himself
and the only thing you have over him anymore is that you generally know
what you are talking about.

>
>> Verizon has coverage holes. Stones in glass houses, Steve.
>
> You said for every Sprint hole that there was a corresponding Verizon
> hole. If that were true, and the holes were of equal size, then Sprint
> would not be rated so poorly in comparison.
>

That would be true if not for the very lemming-like behavior of the
consumer base. It would also mean more if the Verizon scores in these
surveys were in the 90% plus range, instead of the low 70% satisfaction
score they typically receive. Being the best means nothing if you can pull
no better than a "C-" grade doing it.

And this doesn't mean that I question the integrity of the data- I believe
the data to be good. But being best in this case is no cause for
celebration.

Scott wrote:

> That would be true if not for the very lemming-like behavior of the
> consumer base. It would also mean more if the Verizon scores in these
> surveys were in the 90% plus range, instead of the low 70% satisfaction
> score they typically receive. Being the best means nothing if you can pull
> no better than a "C-" grade doing it.

Sure it does, because everything is on a curve.

Don't believe the poorer carrier's marketing that since no carrier
provides perfect coverage that all are equal at providing something less
than 100% coverage.

> And this doesn't mean that I question the integrity of the data- I believe
> the data to be good. But being best in this case is no cause for
> celebration.

It's not cause for celebration, but neither can you ignore the very
significant differences in some metropolitan markets.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> That would be true if not for the very lemming-like behavior of the
>> consumer base. It would also mean more if the Verizon scores in
>> these surveys were in the 90% plus range, instead of the low 70%
>> satisfaction score they typically receive. Being the best means
>> nothing if you can pull no better than a "C-" grade doing it.
>
> Sure it does, because everything is on a curve.

It has nothing to do with a curve. Until a carrier breaks 90% (as many
leaders in many other industries can claim), the number simply means that
they piss off fewer customers than the competition.


>
> Don't believe the poorer carrier's marketing


I don't rely on company marketing for any of my data

> that since no carrier
> provides perfect coverage that all are equal at providing something
> less than 100% coverage.

That's not even close to what I said.

>
>> And this doesn't mean that I question the integrity of the data- I
>> believe the data to be good. But being best in this case is no cause
>> for celebration.
>
> It's not cause for celebration, but neither can you ignore the very
> significant differences in some metropolitan markets.
>
>

And those differences simply seperate bad satisfaction from really bad
satisfaction. Saying that 7 out of 10 customers are satisfied is never a
good thing.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:31:34 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> That would be true if not for the very lemming-like behavior of the
>> consumer base. It would also mean more if the Verizon scores in these
>> surveys were in the 90% plus range, instead of the low 70% satisfaction
>> score they typically receive. Being the best means nothing if you can pull
>> no better than a "C-" grade doing it.
>
>Sure it does, because everything is on a curve.

Those are actually absolute percentages.

>Don't believe the poorer carrier's marketing that since no carrier
>provides perfect coverage that all are equal at providing something less
>than 100% coverage.

The real issue is that differences between carriers are relatively
small, on the order of the sampling error.

>> And this doesn't mean that I question the integrity of the data- I believe
>> the data to be good. But being best in this case is no cause for
>> celebration.
>
>It's not cause for celebration, but neither can you ignore the very
>significant differences in some metropolitan markets.

It's actually relatively insignificant.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:22:56 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>With wireless, you have the problem of expectations that are too high to
>begin with. It's essentially a two-way radio, yet many users use the
>quality of a landline as their basis for comparison, rather than perhaps
>the quality of a walkie-talkie.

With good reason -- cellular is _far_ more sophisticated than
walkie-talkie radio.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Scott wrote:

> And the carriers have nobody to blame but themselves for that perception-
> the Sprint pin-drop, Verizon's network claims, Cingular's tainted fewest
> dropped calls campaign... the list of marketing claims and tricks is
> lengthy. Maybe there is a point to made here- more realistic marketing
> might have a positive effect on customer perception, satisfaction and
> churn.

The value of the independent surveys is that the marketing claims and
tricks don't have an effect.

Everything is relative. The fact that wireless customer satisfaction
ratings are lower than customer satisfaction ratings in other industries
is meaningless. The expectations are set too high to begin with. Yet you
still can't ignore the very significant differences between carriers in
many metropolitan markets.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> And the carriers have nobody to blame but themselves for that
>> perception- the Sprint pin-drop, Verizon's network claims, Cingular's
>> tainted fewest dropped calls campaign... the list of marketing claims
>> and tricks is lengthy. Maybe there is a point to made here- more
>> realistic marketing might have a positive effect on customer
>> perception, satisfaction and churn.
>
> The value of the independent surveys is that the marketing claims and
> tricks don't have an effect.

But they do have effect- see below.

>
> Everything is relative. The fact that wireless customer satisfaction
> ratings are lower than customer satisfaction ratings in other
> industries is meaningless.

Really? When talking about an industry whose companies see an average of
24% of their customers leave their ranks every year (depsite agressive
programs to give away the farm to anyone threatening to leave), it becomes
a very importamt point of discussion, because the very things you are
trying to say are successes are in fact the reasons that those customers
leave (even at your beloved Verizon).

> The expectations are set too high to begin
> with.

And the carriers shoulder most of the blame for that with their advertising
campaigns and blinding need to convonce customers at any cost that they are
better than the competition. In fact, it is one of the few industries that
I can think of that spends more time and energy bashing the competition
than they do showing the unique differentiation of their product. Of
course the expectations are too high- the carriers have built the market
out of high expectations.

> Yet you still can't ignore the very significant differences
> between carriers in many metropolitan markets.
>

Sorry- I don't applaud mediocrity. I'll get excited about a carrier when
their satisfactions scores are not in the average or below-average range.
At this time, one of those doesn't exist.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Scott wrote:
>
>>> Everything is relative. The fact that wireless customer satisfaction
>>> ratings are lower than customer satisfaction ratings in other
>>> industries is meaningless.
>>
>> Really? When talking about an industry whose companies see an average
>> of 24% of their customers leave their ranks every year.
>
> The average is NOT 24% per year any more.
>
> If you want to use the churn as an indicator of how good a carrier is,
> be my guest:


Churn is an indicator- why would you make it seem otherwise? And my
point was not to show how good a carrier is- it was to show how poor the
iverall industry is, which I made very clear. Don't twist my words to
fit your Verizon agenda.


>
> 4th quarter 2006 churn:
>
> Verizon 0.9% (11% normalized for a year)
> Cingular 1.5% (18% normalized for a year)
> T-Mobile 2.1% (25% normalized for a year)
> Sprint 2.3% (28% normalized for a year)

Now Steve. don't be mixing numbers- the number you provide for Verizon
is strictly post-paid and the Sprint number is everything. Verizon is
more like 15-16% normalized when you factor in the entire customer base.

>
> The average is well under 20% (you have to factor in the number of
> subscribers of each carrier, you can't just add the carrier's totals
> together and divide by four).


The average is actually very close to 20% when you use total churn
numbers for ALL carriers. One out of five- not a good business model
for anyone but those that wallow in mediocrity. Even your beloved
Verizon comes in at about one out of every six customers- not something
to be proud of.
>


> As you would expect, Verizon, the carrier consistently ranked as the
> best in coverage by every independent survey, has the lowest churn by
> a very wide margin. This is despite the fact that Verizon doesn't have
> all the marketing gimmicks used by Cingular (rollover), Sprint, or
> T-Mobile.


No- you cooked the numbers to make it look that way. And you purposely
ignore the "It's the Network" campaign, where they use internal (and not
independent) test results to back up their marketing claims. And if you
are even vaguely familiar with the program, the test is really nothing
more than "we drive around to make sure the network is on". This might
actually be the most deceptive of the marketing campaigns, because they
use a dataset that does not relate directly to the implied content of
the ad.


BTW- that last paragraph of yours is vintage Navas- blindly loyal and
trying to prove a point at any cost.




>

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:34:02 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>>> Everything is relative. The fact that wireless customer satisfaction
>>> ratings are lower than customer satisfaction ratings in other
>>> industries is meaningless.
>>
>> Really? When talking about an industry whose companies see an average of
>> 24% of their customers leave their ranks every year.
>
>The average is NOT 24% per year any more.
>
>If you want to use the churn as an indicator of how good a carrier is,
>be my guest:
>
>4th quarter 2006 churn:
>
>Verizon 0.9% (11% normalized for a year)
>Cingular 1.5% (18% normalized for a year)
>T-Mobile 2.1% (25% normalized for a year)
>Sprint 2.3% (28% normalized for a year)

Those numbers aren't directly comparable -- different carriers calculate
churn differently. Verizon in particular uses a method that makes it
look better than it really is.

>The average is well under 20% ...

Somewhat less than 20%, but that's still quite poor by other retail
standards, indicating a good deal of dissatisfaction with all carriers
(and a major cost issue for carriers, since replacing a defection is
very expensive).

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> Now Steve. don't be mixing numbers- the number you provide for
>> Verizon is strictly post-paid and the Sprint number is everything.
>
> Nope, all four numbers are postpaid churn. The analysts now insist
> that the carriers provide churn numbers that comply to the same
> standard. Most now provide both total churn (combined
> wholesale/retail/prepaid) and retail churn. Don't you be accusing me
> of pulling a Navas!
>

But Navas is right on one thing- the means to caluculate the number is left
totally up to the carrier. I know for a FACT that one carrier has changed
the means of calculating churn at least three times in the last two years-
a totally unilateral move that none of the other carriers adopted. You
can't play the " they report the same number" game because the reality is
that they don't.

And your Verizon number only take retail sales into consideration- it is
not a total churn number for postpaid.

Scott wrote:

> But Navas is right on one thing- the means to caluculate the number is left
> totally up to the carrier.

No it isn't. The financial analysts have really read the riot act to the
carriers in terms of reporting of financial results, of which churn is
always a part.

For a long time the carriers would manipulate the quarterly results by
separating (or not separating when it was beneficial) the prepaid versus
postpaid numbers, and the retail versus wholesale numbers. What the
analysts are interested in (besides profit of course), is the trend of
ARPU, the retail net additions, and the retail churn. Once you know the
retail gross additions and the retail net additions, calculating the
churn is not something the carriers can fudge.

> And your Verizon number only take retail sales into consideration- it is
> not a total churn number for postpaid.

There is postpaid retail, prepaid retail, and postpaid wholesale for
Verizon. I don't think that they have any postpaid wholesale customers.

Cingular and Sprint had fallen into the practice of counting wholesale
customers for total customer base, but excluding them for metrics like
ARPU and churn.

The analysts now insist on clear and unambiguous data. You want to focus
on postpaid retail when comparing churn, ARPU, and net additions. These
are the key indicators of the trends for a carrier. The churn is
calculated based on retail postpaid net additions, no one is going to
risk fudging it due to Sarbanes Oxley.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


>
> The analysts now insist on clear and unambiguous data. You want to
> focus on postpaid retail when comparing churn, ARPU, and net
> additions. These are the key indicators of the trends for a carrier.
> The churn is calculated based on retail postpaid net additions, no one
> is going to risk fudging it due to Sarbanes Oxley.
>

Sorry Steve- unless you point to a standard formula for churn that is
required for all carriers to use by a regulatory body (which doesn't exist)
I stand my statement as fact- while the analysts can ask for all they want,
there is no standard calculation for churn numbers by any of the carriers.
Maybe you miussed the point about one carrier changing their formula three
times unilaterally (once as recently as a few months ago)?


BTW- churn calculation is not subject to Sarbanes Oxley, as the number is
not directly tied to financial data. It is merely a number presented by
the carriers. Sarbanes Oxley deals directly with financial accounting
controls, as related to balance sheet items. Churn is not one of these.