PRICE INCREASES BY SPRINT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Phillip <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sprint is a loser from WLNP and you need to face up and admit it.

I made no comment on Sprint's success with LNP. I did mention your
logic as severely flawed. Further, how did this thread progress from
AT&T churn to Sprint PCS WLNP success? Phillip, the winner at the game
of twister.

- --

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAq2hV1p0e3NXsrtERAq0AAKCc6DVbFgWUQBrs/HrjKFEyVw1hdwCePkT0
6Tzo0Mo6Hv8rh057hGV93oY=
=LD+B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

› See More: PRICE INCREASES BY SPRINT

In article <[email protected]>, nebby00007
@aol.com says...
> Sprint is fooling itself if it uses year to year numbers and ignores the
> Quarter to quarter numbers, showing CHURN trending up for Sprint PCS.
>=20

No, Phill, you are ignoring that ear over year comparisons are the=20
*industry* standard in just about every category that gets examined=20
that way.

But then, you have a long-standing habit of ignoring what's=20
inconvenient to your ranting.

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

In article <[email protected]>, nebby00007
@aol.com says...
>=20
> Typical apologist employee double standard.
>=20
> Osiris can editorialize, no one else can.
>=20
> Rob J Vargas remains the Disgrace of Sprint PCS.
>=20

Once again, you have lied. That is *not* what I said.

But you already knew that. You're just too slimy a con artist to=20
ever admit it.

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

"Nebby00007" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Except for ATTWS, churn numbers are down from > a year ago (pretty much
> across
> > the board), which shows some stability in light of
> > WLNP.
>
> Sprint is fooling itself if it uses year to year numbers and ignores the
> Quarter to quarter numbers, showing CHURN trending up for Sprint PCS.
>
> 2.7%/month Q4 2002; 2.9%/month Q1 2004

Sorry, Phil- you are the ONLY person to compare churn from quarter to
quarter. As has been pointed out before, sales patterns are very much based
on cyclical in nature, and this cycle follows the calendar, and not the
previous three months. And as much as you claim this to be relevent, it is
not the case.

As I stated in the last post, ATTW was the only loser last quarter.
Everybody else was in better shape than a year ago, and Sprint was better
financially than they were the previous quarter and previous year. All of
the talk about WNLP churn is irrelevent- churn is churn. People who port
don't leave because of portability- they leave because of pricing or quality
of service. People who don't port leave because of pricing or quality of
service. People who port are no more or less important, and have no
different business impact than customers who don't port. If you want to
measure the real impact, look at the customers who port in- in addition to
the normal cost of customer acquisition, you now have porting to calculate
in, which is much more involved than allowing someone to port out.