Cingular's concern CHURN

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:51:23 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.62.248.1
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1098996683 207.62.248.1 (Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:51:23 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:51:23 PDT
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular.cingular:36074

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 28 Oct
2004 09:52:49 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>Cingular WILL have grief integrating AT&TWS !

Probably not too much, since their networks and infrastructure are highly
compatible.

>They have yet to integrate
>the pieces that created Cingular 4 years ago.

Not really comparable.

>Just go 1000 miles from
>home and see the grief you have calling 611, or roaming to prove that.

I don't have any problem. What does that prove? ;-)

>And one can't adjust rates and promotions infinitely or profits go down
>the tube, as AT&TWS found out last winter, giving away phones Cingular
>was charging $200 or $300 for, and the CHURN was still the industry's
>highest.

That wasn't what got ATTWS into trouble, and in any event the company did
pretty well in holding on to its customer base -- see numbers I posted
previously.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Cingular's concern CHURN

In article <[email protected]>,
"Brian Oakley" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> > >
> > > In <[email protected]> on Sun, 24
> Oct
> > > 2004 08:32:13 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >AT&T Wireless is still scaring customers with a churn rate of 3.7% in
> Q3.
> > >
> > > Scaring investors -- customers don't care about churn. Regardless,
> that's
> > > actually not bad in the context of the merger.
> >
> > AT&T Wireless is scaring customers away I meant to say.
> >
> > >
> > > >And Verizon is about to launch
> > > >promotions trying to snare many of those folks as the merger takes
> > > >effect.
> > >
> > > But will still fall to #2 in cellular.
> >
> > Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
> > Verizon could be back on top within 2 years
>
> Your assuming that Verizon has no churn of its own. It wont affect any of
> the companies as much as you think. Churn fluctuates. Month to month, day to
> day even but they don't post a daily tally. So if churn gets to be too big a
> problem, Cingular will adjust its rates and promotions to attract the people
> back.
> CT

No such assumption. Read the thread. Verizon's churn has stayed below 2%
and was 1.5% last quarter. Navas (as always snipped out the details that
might contradict his posturings).

Cingular WILL have grief integrating AT&TWS ! They have yet to integrate
the pieces that created Cingular 4 years ago. Just go 1000 miles from
home and see the grief you have calling 611, or roaming to prove that.

And one can't adjust rates and promotions infinitely or profits go down
the tube, as AT&TWS found out last winter, giving away phones Cingular
was charging $200 or $300 for, and the CHURN was still the industry's
highest.

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 28 Oct
> 2004 09:52:49 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Cingular WILL have grief integrating AT&TWS !
>
> Probably not too much, since their networks and infrastructure are highly
> compatible.


Integrating the towers yes, integrated the customers, NO WAY.
>
> >They have yet to integrate
> >the pieces that created Cingular 4 years ago.
>
> Not really comparable.

Correct, ATTWS will be much more difficult.

>
> >Just go 1000 miles from
> >home and see the grief you have calling 611, or roaming to prove that.
>
> I don't have any problem. What does that prove? ;-)

You never have a problem, too you (and only you) Cingular is PERFECT.

If you are in a different piece (a SWB, a PacBell, an AmeriTech, a SNET,
a Bell South piece, a Houston Cellular piece), none are fully integrated
yet 4 years later after being combined into Cingular.


>
> >And one can't adjust rates and promotions infinitely or profits go down
> >the tube, as AT&TWS found out last winter, giving away phones Cingular
> >was charging $200 or $300 for, and the CHURN was still the industry's
> >highest.
>
> That wasn't what got ATTWS into trouble, and in any event the company did
> pretty well in holding on to its customer base -- see numbers I posted
> previously.

It most certainly was with respect to profitability.

Holding on is not the same as adding.

Yes, ATTWS held on in 2004, Verizon added 1,900,000 the last quarter;
and at that rate WILL pass Cingular as biggest cellular carrier in 2
years.

"Jack Zwick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <[email protected]> on Thu, 28
Oct
> > 2004 09:52:49 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Cingular WILL have grief integrating AT&TWS !
> >
> > Probably not too much, since their networks and infrastructure are
highly
> > compatible.
>
>
> Integrating the towers yes, integrated the customers, NO WAY.

And you say this based on what professional experiance?

> >
> > >They have yet to integrate
> > >the pieces that created Cingular 4 years ago.
> >
> > Not really comparable.
>
> Correct, ATTWS will be much more difficult.

Proof? URL?

>
> >
> > >Just go 1000 miles from
> > >home and see the grief you have calling 611, or roaming to prove that.
> >
> > I don't have any problem. What does that prove? ;-)
>
> You never have a problem, too you (and only you) Cingular is PERFECT.

And every cellular company you have subscribed to has been the antichrist.

>
> If you are in a different piece (a SWB, a PacBell, an AmeriTech, a SNET,
> a Bell South piece, a Houston Cellular piece), none are fully integrated
> yet 4 years later after being combined into Cingular.
>
>
> >
> > >And one can't adjust rates and promotions infinitely or profits go down
> > >the tube, as AT&TWS found out last winter, giving away phones Cingular
> > >was charging $200 or $300 for, and the CHURN was still the industry's
> > >highest.
> >
> > That wasn't what got ATTWS into trouble, and in any event the company
did
> > pretty well in holding on to its customer base -- see numbers I posted
> > previously.
>
> It most certainly was with respect to profitability.
>
> Holding on is not the same as adding.
>
> Yes, ATTWS held on in 2004, Verizon added 1,900,000 the last quarter;
> and at that rate WILL pass Cingular as biggest cellular carrier in 2
> years.

Yeah- and you'll finally find a carrier that suits your whiney ass.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 28 Oct
2004 23:33:14 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 28 Oct
>> 2004 09:52:49 GMT, Jack Zwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Cingular WILL have grief integrating AT&TWS !
>>
>> Probably not too much, since their networks and infrastructure are highly
>> compatible.
>
>Integrating the towers yes, integrated the customers, NO WAY.

Back end systems too.

>> >They have yet to integrate
>> >the pieces that created Cingular 4 years ago.
>>
>> Not really comparable.
>
>Correct, ATTWS will be much more difficult.

Easier.

>> >Just go 1000 miles from
>> >home and see the grief you have calling 611, or roaming to prove that.
>>
>> I don't have any problem. What does that prove? ;-)
>
>If you are in a different piece (a SWB, a PacBell, an AmeriTech, a SNET,
>a Bell South piece, a Houston Cellular piece), none are fully integrated
>yet 4 years later after being combined into Cingular.

Been there; done that -- no problem.

>> >And one can't adjust rates and promotions infinitely or profits go down
>> >the tube, as AT&TWS found out last winter, giving away phones Cingular
>> >was charging $200 or $300 for, and the CHURN was still the industry's
>> >highest.
>>
>> That wasn't what got ATTWS into trouble, and in any event the company did
>> pretty well in holding on to its customer base -- see numbers I posted
>> previously.
>
>It most certainly was with respect to profitability.

Irrelevant.

>Holding on is not the same as adding.

It did add.

>Yes, ATTWS held on in 2004, Verizon added 1,900,000 the last quarter;
>and at that rate WILL pass Cingular as biggest cellular carrier in 2
>years.

Unlikely (as I showed in earlier posts).

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>