reply to discussion
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    Scott wrote:
    > 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


    Whatever lights your board. The fact that your statement isn't a fact
    apparently doesn't matter to you.



    See More: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream




  2. #32

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:40:59 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Scott wrote:
    >> 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

    >
    >Whatever lights your board. The fact that your statement isn't a fact
    >apparently doesn't matter to you.



    Sprint apologists used to claim that since CHURN was reported
    quarterly that it was a quarterly number, rather than the MONTHLY
    number that it is.



  3. #33
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    [email protected] wrote:

    > Sprint apologists used to claim that since CHURN was reported
    > quarterly that it was a quarterly number, rather than the MONTHLY
    > number that it is.


    Yes, it is confusing, probably intentionally. It's hard to believe that
    a carrier like AT&T Wireless was losing more than 40% of their customers
    a year prior to their demise.

    Scott is correct that in the past carriers tended to come up with ways
    to calculate churn that would make their churn figure appear better than
    it actually was. However they can no longer get away with this.

    Even Cingular issued a statement that they were now going to calculate
    churn the same way as their competitors.

    From 2005 Cingular press release:

    "Cingular currently includes reseller disconnects in its churn
    calculation. In the future, Cingular will base its calculations on
    total reseller net additions or reductions, in line with industry peers."

    Again, "They modified their churn equation to be in line with industry
    peers."



  4. #34
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

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

    > Scott wrote:
    >> 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

    >
    > Whatever lights your board. The fact that your statement isn't a fact
    > apparently doesn't matter to you.
    >


    Now you are acting like Navas- I asked for facts that would back up your
    statement and you avoid it like the plague. The fact is that there is no
    standard measurement of churn between carriers. The fact is that one
    carrier (that I am aware of) has unilaterally changed their churn
    calculation three times in the last couple of years. The fact is that
    churn is not a Sarbanes Oxley control as you claimed.

    Do your homework and come back when you have something of substance to back
    up your claims.



  5. #35
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:4623bdef$0$27249
    [email protected]:


    >
    > Scott is correct that in the past carriers tended to come up with ways
    > to calculate churn that would make their churn figure appear better than
    > it actually was. However they can no longer get away with this.


    Citation?

    >
    > Even Cingular issued a statement that they were now going to calculate
    > churn the same way as their competitors.
    >
    > From 2005 Cingular press release:
    >
    > "Cingular currently includes reseller disconnects in its churn
    > calculation. In the future, Cingular will base its calculations on
    > total reseller net additions or reductions, in line with industry peers."
    >
    > Again, "They modified their churn equation to be in line with industry
    > peers."
    >


    They were not the carrier I was speaking of earlier in the thread. And the
    most recent change for that particular carrier was done in 2006, which
    according to the release above would have put them out of line with
    industry peers if they were in fact in line in 2005.



  6. #36
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    Scott wrote:

    > Now you are acting like Navas- I asked for facts that would back up your
    > statement and you avoid it like the plague.


    You're the one making up stories, like Navas, so it's up to you to
    provide any evidence that contradicts Cingular's own statement that they
    calculate churn in the same way as their industry peers. Don't you be
    pulling a Navas and demanding negative proof!



  7. #37
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:31:10 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[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. ...


    There nonetheless differences in how the churn numbers are calculated,
    as I've explained in prior posts.

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



  8. #38
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:59:49 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >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.


    They've *****ed a bit, but without much effect -- there is no rigid
    formula that all carriers must use, and there is still considerable
    "wiggle room" even when it sounds the same.

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



  9. #39
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:40:59 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Scott wrote:
    >> 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

    >
    >Whatever lights your board. The fact that your statement isn't a fact
    >apparently doesn't matter to you.


    The fact remains that there is _no_ standard formula in use by all
    carriers, and considerable "wiggle room" even when methods sound the
    same. Prove me wrong if you can by citing an applicable accounting
    standard. Anything less is just an unsubstantiated claim.

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



  10. #40
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:31:53 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Scott wrote:
    >
    >> Now you are acting like Navas- I asked for facts that would back up your
    >> statement and you avoid it like the plague.

    >
    >You're the one making up stories, like Navas, so it's up to you to
    >provide any evidence that contradicts Cingular's own statement that they
    >calculate churn in the same way as their industry peers. Don't you be
    >pulling a Navas and demanding negative proof!


    The one making the claim is you, and you've posted nothing to back it up
    other than a vague statement by Cingular. The fact remains that there
    is _no_ standard formula in use by all carriers, and considerable
    "wiggle room" even when methods sound the same. Prove me wrong if you
    can by citing an applicable accounting standard. Anything less is just
    another unsubstantiated claim.

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



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.