Sprint PCS sees strong subscriber defection

In article <[email protected]>,
"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

---

› See More: Sprint PCS sees strong subscriber defection

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.


"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Chris Russell) wrote:

> 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

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Chris Russell) wrote:
>
> > 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.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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


"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> 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

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.

"Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.

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.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Chris Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

In article <rmarkoff-8F0FEB.15444921042004
@news05.east.earthlink.net>, [email protected] says...
>=20
> But we don't know how many new SprinPCS customers from WLNP and how many=
=20
> from "walkups".
>=20

OK, Phillie, enlighten us. Start with the extreme. Let's say it was=20
all one or the other. How does that alter the picture?

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
I work for Sprint PCS
I *don't* speak for them

In article <[email protected]>,
O/Siris <0siris@sprîntpcs.com> wrote:

> In article <rmarkoff-8F0FEB.15444921042004
> @news05.east.earthlink.net>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > But we don't know how many new SprinPCS customers from WLNP and how many
> > from "walkups".
> >
>
> 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.

[email protected] (Robert=A0M.) 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 ??
=A0=A0SPRINTPCS 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.
>
> **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.


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

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> 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.