Sprint PCS Doesn't *Really* Want To Keep My Business

"Notan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I recently tried to donate some math book to our local library, but was
> told that they only accept *brand new* books.
>
> Mind you, these weren't old, out-of-date books. They were fairly recent
> math books, whose contents, I would imagine, haven't changed much over
> the years.
>
> Amazing.

Yep. I recently tried to donate a bicycle to a local charity.
They refused to take it because it had a flat tire.
All the tire needed was some air.

--

John Richards

---

› See More: Sprint PCS Doesn't *Really* Want To Keep My Business

"Jim Seymour" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> I just figured-out that, by dumping SPCS and not over-paying for that
> phone, I'll save at least US$606.20 in the following 12 months
> alone. Nearly one-third of that in over-priced disposable hardware
> costs.

How far do you want to take that?
You can save a lot more by becoming homeless and sleeping
in your car.

--

John Richards

Bob Smith wrote in reply to Jim Seymour:

> I'm going to [be] blunt with you here. You want a free lunch here, and
> you don't qualify for a free lunch. It doesn't matter whether you have
> been with SPCS for 6 years. You are on a plan where SPCS is not making
> much if any revenue off you.

This assertion has been made by at least two posters in this thread. Out
of curiosity, does anyone have any concrete evidence to support this
claim? (I.e. $30/month does not qualify for a new phone rebate because
of the unprofitability to Sprint PCS?)

I would venture to guess that the *majority* of Sprint PCS customers
(although probably not the majority of readers in this newsgroup) have
monthly plans totaling $30 or less. I remember the enormous holiday
season promotion of a year and a half ago, which attempted to lure new
customers with the promise of 300 anytime plus unlimited N&W minutes for
"only" $30. The year before that, it was 3000 minutes (200 anytime plus
2800 N&W) for $29.95. That was before the advent of WLNP and 3G (Vision)
phones and two-year contracts, and Sprint PCS was begging for new
customers to sign up on those sub-$35 plans with just a one-year (or
zero-year) commitment. Today, with all those sub-$35/month one-year
contracts expired or expiring, I'm not so sure that Sprint's replacement
phone rebate requirements are simply a matter of minimum profitability.

Underqualified for a "free lunch" after six years? Perhaps. We all know
that TANSTAAFL, but consider two additional points regarding handset
replacement:

(1) In most cases, older Wireless Web (2G) phones will be replaced by
Vision (3G) phones. If I'm not mistaken, 3G data transmission saves
significant bandwidth (which translates into infrastructure cost
savings). So, there is an indirect benefit to Sprint PCS when existing
customers upgrade older phones.

(2) Although upgraders may choose to cancel Vision after the two-month
free trial period, a certain percentage may decide to keep the service,
thus adding an additional $20/month to Sprint's revenue stream for those
customers.

Personally, I have to sympathize with the OP's contention that Sprint
PCS is neglecting a large portion of its existing customer base who
might want to upgrade aging handsets. Unless someone can produce
evidence to the contrary, I'm not convinced a minimum price point of $30
would be much more detrimental to Sprint PCS than one of $35.

Jim Seymour wrote:


>>Have you read the retention FAQ?
>
>
> No, I have not. Wasn't aware of its existence. (Wonder why the
> Customer Retention rep. didn't mention it?)
>
>
>> In fairness though, the good deals given new
>>customers on phones, is ALWAYS with a 2 year contract.
>
>
> Like I told SPCS: I don't *care* what they usually do. They're not
> meeting *my* requirements.

*shrug* Then what do you expect them to do? If it's not within the
realm of what is reasonable to them long-term, then *your* requirements
simply can't be met. Sorry.

> Besides that... hmmm... let's play some "Jeopardy," shall we?
>
> The category is "Cell Phones." The answer is:
>
> A way for a cellular company to recoup what it "lost" on
> deep-discounting an equipment sale.
>
> <queue Final Jeopardy music...>
>
> The question is:
>
> What is "Locking the buyer into a minimum-length contract?"

I see you've answered your own question. So, if you want a reduced
price on a phone, and you expect Sprint - or any company for that matter
- to eat the cost, should it not be reasonable that they ask for a
commitment of a certain dollar plan for a certain length of time? Your
other option is to pay full price for the phone and then Sprint is not
exposed the financial risk of not recouping their loss on the phone subsidy.


> Now: I'd *been* a customer for six years. I was looking to buy a
> phone so that I could *remain* a customer. A phone I can't take
> anywhere else. Odds were they would've recouped their "investment."

Not necessarily true. At a minimum price plan, they're about breaking
even, really. So if they eat the cost of a phone, they'll continue to
operate at a loss on you unless you upgrade your plan.

> (Particularly since I pay for 300 mins./mo. and use, on average, less
> than 200. Use *very* little VM. Never use call-forwarding or
> three-way calling. Had text messaging turned straight off, due to
> getting spammed.)

This makes no difference, really. VM, call forwarding and three-way
calling cost nothing extra to implement. That's why they're free. They
cost no overhead if you use them, and they cost no overhead if you don't
use them. So the discount on those services are already factored into
the plan price, and Sprint makes no more money whether you use VM, CF
and 3W or not.

The fact remains that you're on a *base* plan with absolutely no premium
services. To Sprint, that's enough to balance the books, but when you
ask them to give you a steep discount on a phone having paid no
insurance for your old phone, AND you give them no assurance that you
won't up and leave later, you're basically asking them to lose money on
you. Loyalty is fine, but there's a fine line between loyalty and
freeloading.

> Hell, having me as a customer was a bargain for
> SPCS.

No, as I said, they're just about breaking even. Barely, if that.

> Yeah, I know: This isn't the way business works anymore--all
> personalized and rational and all. I guess that's part of my point.

What's not rational about this? Company stands to lose money on a
potential deal, so they pass on the deal. What's missing here?

> Why do I want to keep giving money to people who don't care about
> me, as a customer?

Under the terms you offer them, they'll be *losing* money.

>
>> Buying a phone on Ebay
>>may be another option for you to consider.
>
>
> I've invested all the time I'm going to in trying to stay with
> Sprint, I think.

Good for you! Bye now.


> Only problem with this is that, in the absence of my watch, when I
> needed to know what time it was I consulted my cellphone. Guess I'll
> have to get a new watch, now .

Maybe you should ask Timex to give you a 75% discount on their top of
the line watch for being such a loyal customer, and see how far you'll
get with that.



--
e-mail address fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address in order to reply.

In article <[email protected]>,
"John Richards" <[email protected]> writes:
> "Jim Seymour" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I just figured-out that, by dumping SPCS and not over-paying for that
>> phone, I'll save at least US$606.20 in the following 12 months
>> alone. Nearly one-third of that in over-priced disposable hardware
>> costs.
>
> How far do you want to take that?

I really couldn't say. I do know I find myself becoming increasingly
less interested in *things*, of late. My stuff is almost becoming a
burden. Particularly stuff that I don't really *need*. Maybe I'll
find I don't *need* that SPCS phone. We still have the Verizon
(originally AirTouch) phone that's on, believe-it-or-not, a
$12.95/mo., 25 cents-per-minute plan. That'll be fine for trips, I'm
thinkin'.

Here's an amusing side note: Colleague at work I was talking to about
this has an SPCS phone he doesn't use much, either. After I told him
my story and then my realization of how much I was spending a year on
a phone I maybe didn't even really *need*, he says "You know, I don't
really use mine, either. I should just cancel it." Oh ohhhh...

I'm reminded of...

"... just walk in say "Shrink, You can get anything you
want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if
one person, just one person does it they may think he's
really sick and they won't take him. And if two people,
two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both
faggots and they won't take either of them. And three
people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking
in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They
may think it's an organization. And can you, can you
imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day
walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking
out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement."

- Excerpt from "Alice's Restaurant," by Arlo Guthrie



> You can save a lot more by becoming homeless and sleeping
> in your car.

Have you ever heard the term "reductio ad absurdum?"

That would be uncomfortable. Besides: I'd rather keep the house and
lose the car. Don't like cars anymore. The car has become one of
those burdensome things. Unfortunately, living where I do, the car
is currently a necessity :/.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
| http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
|
| http://jimsun.LinxNet.com

In article <[email protected]>,
"John Richards" <[email protected]> writes:
[snip]
>
> A $5 increase for 24 months would cost you $120, so you'd
> still be money ahead by qualifying for a $150 phone rebate
> every two years,

See my number-crunching, elsewhere, on what that would total. I
don't know about you, but to me $1100 is a lot of money.

> plus the advantage of having an up-to-date phone
> with all the latest features, like SMS.

Neither need nor want SMS.

>
>> Maybe to you $360/year isn't "paying anything." To me that's a lot
>> of money.
>
> The expression: "Penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.

That was a non sequitur.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: [email protected] | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com

In article <[email protected]>,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> writes:
> Jim Seymour wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Now: I'd *been* a customer for six years. I was looking to buy a
>> phone so that I could *remain* a customer. A phone I can't take
>> anywhere else. Odds were they would've recouped their "investment."
>
> Not necessarily true. At a minimum price plan, they're about breaking
> even, really. So if they eat the cost of a phone, they'll continue to
> operate at a loss on you unless you upgrade your plan.

You know this for a fact? This is not a challenge, but an honest
question. I've seen this assertion made before, but nothing to back
it up.

When all the below-cost xDSL providers were going under a couple
years ago or so, and the remaining providers were charging twice as
much as what some were used to paying, these people were going
ballistic over it. They were all angry that they couldn't get 192k
SDSL with all the trimmings for $50/mo. anymore. Ironically, I was
on the opposite side of the argument as I am now. Thing is: I had
facts and figures to prove that an xDSL provider was losing money at
$50/mo.

Do *you* know what SPCS pays for, say, a Sanyo RL7300?

>
[snip]
>
>> Only problem with this is that, in the absence of my watch, when I
>> needed to know what time it was I consulted my cellphone. Guess I'll
>> have to get a new watch, now .
>
> Maybe you should ask Timex to give you a 75% discount on their top of
> the line watch for being such a loyal customer, and see how far you'll
> get with that.

Well, I'm not a Timex customer, for starters. So I guess that won't
fly.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
| http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
|
| http://jimsun.LinxNet.com

Jim Seymour wrote:

>>Not necessarily true. At a minimum price plan, they're about breaking
>>even, really. So if they eat the cost of a phone, they'll continue to
>>operate at a loss on you unless you upgrade your plan.
>
>
> You know this for a fact? This is not a challenge, but an honest
> question.

As a matter of fact, yes, countless Sprint employees who don't know each
other and through different time periods have all said the same thing.
In fact, I can also assert that even if you buy a phone at "full price,"
Sprint is STILL eating about $100 to $200 of the true cost of the phone,
and will not make *any* profit on a person buying a new phone until
about 3 months of billing receipts, based on a standard priced $200
phone and a person running a $50 monthly plan. This is why the phones
have a subsidy lock. If you think prices are absurd now, just imagine
what they would be like if phones were completely unsubsidized.

This is not a Sprint-only phenomenon. Nearly all U.S. wireless carriers
do this.

> When all the below-cost xDSL providers were going under a couple
> years ago or so, and the remaining providers were charging twice as
> much as what some were used to paying, these people were going
> ballistic over it. They were all angry that they couldn't get 192k
> SDSL with all the trimmings for $50/mo. anymore. Ironically, I was
> on the opposite side of the argument as I am now. Thing is: I had
> facts and figures to prove that an xDSL provider was losing money at
> $50/mo.
>
> Do *you* know what SPCS pays for, say, a Sanyo RL7300?

Probably around the $350 range. They *do Not* make a profit on the
phones, even without a discount. That's simply not the way the U.S.
mobile telephony business model works. U.S. consumers want cheap phones
and cheap service, and so the equipment must be sold at a lost.

Buy the same Sanyo phone in South Korea, or through KDDI in Japan, and
you'll be in for some sticker shock. Phones are not subsidized there.

--
e-mail address fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my address in order to reply.

RAF <[email protected]> wrote:

> Personally, I have to sympathize with the OP's contention that Sprint
> PCS is neglecting a large portion of its existing customer base who
> might want to upgrade aging handsets. Unless someone can produce
> evidence to the contrary, I'm not convinced a minimum price point of $30
> would be much more detrimental to Sprint PCS than one of $35.

As I have posted before, I agree with the people who contend that at $30,
they can't be making much money off you. I'm one of them. However, I think
Sprint is missing a HUGE sales opportunity here. Require a more expensive
plan but don't lock people into a contract. (I know, it is never going to
happen.)


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Steven J Sobol wrote:

> RAF wrote:
>
>> Personally, I have to sympathize with the OP's contention that
>> Sprint PCS is neglecting a large portion of its existing customer
>> base who might want to upgrade aging handsets. Unless someone can
>> produce evidence to the contrary, I'm not convinced a minimum price
>> point of $30 would be much more detrimental to Sprint PCS than one
>> of $35.
>
> As I have posted before, I agree with the people who contend that at
> $30, they can't be making much money off you. I'm one of them.

You (and others) have made that contention numerous times. Just agreeing
with others doesn't make it so. Do you really believe that all the $30
plans sold were nothing more than loss leaders?

Again I ask, can anyone cite proof?

> However, I think Sprint is missing a HUGE sales opportunity here.
> Require a more expensive plan but don't lock people into a contract.
> (I know, it is never going to happen.)

I'd like to see the reverse: Require a new contract but don't change the
current plan. I.e., offer the same benefit to $30 customers as to $35
customers.

It's the same subsidy cost to Sprint PCS; they reap the benefits of
converting phones from 2G to 3G and possibly increased Vision revenue;
and they'd have kept the OP's business. (Unless, perhaps, his subject
contention is true?)

"RAF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Smith wrote in reply to Jim Seymour:
>
> > I'm going to [be] blunt with you here. You want a free lunch here, and
> > you don't qualify for a free lunch. It doesn't matter whether you have
> > been with SPCS for 6 years. You are on a plan where SPCS is not making
> > much if any revenue off you.
>
> This assertion has been made by at least two posters in this thread. Out
> of curiosity, does anyone have any concrete evidence to support this
> claim? (I.e. $30/month does not qualify for a new phone rebate because
> of the unprofitability to Sprint PCS?)

Here ya go ... http://pcshandsetupgrade.sprint.com/

Bob
>
> I would venture to guess that the *majority* of Sprint PCS customers
> (although probably not the majority of readers in this newsgroup) have
> monthly plans totaling $30 or less. I remember the enormous holiday
> season promotion of a year and a half ago, which attempted to lure new
> customers with the promise of 300 anytime plus unlimited N&W minutes for
> "only" $30. The year before that, it was 3000 minutes (200 anytime plus
> 2800 N&W) for $29.95. That was before the advent of WLNP and 3G (Vision)
> phones and two-year contracts, and Sprint PCS was begging for new
> customers to sign up on those sub-$35 plans with just a one-year (or
> zero-year) commitment. Today, with all those sub-$35/month one-year
> contracts expired or expiring, I'm not so sure that Sprint's replacement
> phone rebate requirements are simply a matter of minimum profitability.

It is ...

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,
Isaiah Beard <[email protected]> writes:
> Jim Seymour wrote:
>
>>>Not necessarily true. At a minimum price plan, they're about breaking
>>>even, really. So if they eat the cost of a phone, they'll continue to
>>>operate at a loss on you unless you upgrade your plan.
>>
>>
>> You know this for a fact? This is not a challenge, but an honest
>> question.
>
> As a matter of fact, yes, countless Sprint employees who don't know each
> other and through different time periods have all said the same thing.
> In fact, I can also assert that even if you buy a phone at "full price,"
> Sprint is STILL eating about $100 to $200 of the true cost of the phone,
> and will not make *any* profit on a person buying a new phone until
> about 3 months of billing receipts, based on a standard priced $200
> phone and a person running a $50 monthly plan.
[remainder snipped]
>

Okay. Thanks for the info. *shrug* I can't justify the expense of
the higher contract prices. I neither need nor want Vision. I
neither need nor want many of the bells & whistles on these new
feature-rich phones. I certainly cannot justify the expense of a new
phone every two years. Oh well - I guess wireless just isn't for me
anymore.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: [email protected] | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com

Bob Smith wrote:

> RAF wrote...
>> This assertion has been made by at least two posters in this thread.
>> Out of curiosity, does anyone have any concrete evidence to support
>> this claim? (I.e. $30/month does not qualify for a new phone rebate
>> because of the unprofitability to Sprint PCS?)
>
> Here ya go ... http://pcshandsetupgrade.sprint.com/

Huh?

We know that SPCS requires a $35 minimum plan for rebates on handset
upgrades. That's the reason for this discussion. Let me rephrase the
question:

What evidence do you have to support your assertion that $30 plans earn
insufficient revenue for SPCS?

>> Today, with all those sub-$35/month one-year contracts expired or
>> expiring, I'm not so sure that Sprint's replacement phone rebate
>> requirements are simply a matter of minimum profitability.
>
> It is ...

Because ... ???

In article <[email protected]>,
"RAF" <[email protected]> writes:
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
>
>> RAF wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I have to sympathize with the OP's contention that
>>> Sprint PCS is neglecting a large portion of its existing customer
>>> base who might want to upgrade aging handsets. Unless someone can
>>> produce evidence to the contrary, I'm not convinced a minimum price
>>> point of $30 would be much more detrimental to Sprint PCS than one
>>> of $35.
>>
>> As I have posted before, I agree with the people who contend that at
>> $30, they can't be making much money off you. I'm one of them.
>
> You (and others) have made that contention numerous times. Just agreeing
> with others doesn't make it so. Do you really believe that all the $30
> plans sold were nothing more than loss leaders?
>
> Again I ask, can anyone cite proof?

I suppose it's possible. But what would that say about the even
cheaper ($19.95, IIRC) plans they used to sell? I dunno. Maybe they
were selling all these cheap plans to build up their customer base
and now feel they either can no longer afford to do so or they have
reached the point they no longer need to? Maybe they feel that
having a wireless phone has reached "just gotta have" status in
everybody's minds, so the market will bear the higher costs?

In my case, the equation is simple: A new phone, these days, costs a
minimum of about $150 (from a SPCS store, after rebate). You can
pretty-much bet that phone will last two years, at best. Even if you
don't abuse it. So look at the numbers I added-up elsewhere. Even
on a minimum plan, you're looking at about $1100 over a two year
period. Maybe some people *need* the constant connectivity that
wireless more-or-less provides. I do not. It's a convenience item,
for me. I'll miss having it, to be sure. But I don't *need* it. In
these economic times, smart people forgo "wants," and take care of
needs.

>
>> However, I think Sprint is missing a HUGE sales opportunity here.
>> Require a more expensive plan but don't lock people into a contract.
>> (I know, it is never going to happen.)
>
> I'd like to see the reverse: Require a new contract but don't change the
> current plan. I.e., offer the same benefit to $30 customers as to $35
> customers.

One of my original points was that they didn't *need* to lock me into
a contract. I wasn't going anywhere. I had been an SPCS customer
for six years. I was relatively happy with the service. I was going
to buy a phone, that I couldn't take with me to another carrier, so I
could *continue* being a customer. What would be the business case
for converting such a person from non-contract to contract at no
additional fee increase to the customer?

>
> It's the same subsidy cost to Sprint PCS; they reap the benefits of
> converting phones from 2G to 3G and possibly increased Vision revenue;
> and they'd have kept the OP's business. (Unless, perhaps, his subject
> contention is true?)

I don't know whether the contention in my subject line is really true
or not. Well, strictly speaking, it *has* to be true - it's just the
reason it's true we can debate at this point.

In any event: I'm now coming to the conclusion that I'm not sure I
can even justify keeping my current service, with the phone I have,
considering what it really costs. I've been making the same mistake
a lot of people do with a lot of purchases: "Oh, $30/mo.? That's not
so bad. I can handle that easily." Instead of adding that up and
figuring out what the true cost is. This whole event caused me to
add it up. Now I understand why the family CFO has been protesting
it.

So the current phone will stay where it is: Turned off and stashed
away. Maybe I'll put it back in service after the 21 days are up.
Maybe I'll cancel. I do know I'm *not* going to increase my monthly
recurring costs by over $5/mo. I do know I'm *not* going to pay
nearly $200 for a product with a 2-yr. lifetime. These things I
know. It's exceedingly unlikely I'm going to commit to even a 1-year
contract with SPCS, much-less a 2-year contract.

Btw: SPCS came this >< close to getting *all* of my family telephone
business at one point. We figured we could dump the wife's Verizon
phone, dump one of the land-lines, convert to a contract on SPCS, get
two new phones, and *about* break even. The show-stopper: SPCS'
long-distance rate to Europe, at the time (hold on to your seats):
$5.00 a *minute*! It gets "better": For $20/mo. (IIRC), we could
sign up for a package that would lower that to a "cuttin' their own
throats," "how *can* they sell it so low" rate of only $1.75/min.!
(Or maybe it was $1.75 and 75 cents a minute. No matter.) This when
we were paying Sprint LD 10 cents a minute for LD to Europe?

Um, I don't think so.

(I just called and asked. The rate's down to "only" $0.40/minute.
Whoopee. Only 4x the land-line rate from the same company.)

So here we are, a year or so down the road. Wifey still has her
inexpensive Verizon phone and plan. We're still using SBC
land-lines. And SPCS is now about this >< far from losing what
little of our business they have.

--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: [email protected] | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com

"Jim Seymour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
<snipped>
> I suppose it's possible. But what would that say about the even
> cheaper ($19.95, IIRC) plans they used to sell? I dunno. Maybe they
> were selling all these cheap plans to build up their customer base
> and now feel they either can no longer afford to do so or they have
> reached the point they no longer need to? Maybe they feel that
> having a wireless phone has reached "just gotta have" status in
> everybody's minds, so the market will bear the higher costs?
>
> In my case, the equation is simple: A new phone, these days, costs a
> minimum of about $150 (from a SPCS store, after rebate).

Uhhh, no ... that's incorrect. In viewing
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/Ph.../AllPhones.jsp . With the
mail in rebate, your final cost on a phone could be $0 to $30 for 3 models,
2 @ $50, with the rest of the phones, excluding the PDAs up to $150 to $200.

> You can
> pretty-much bet that phone will last two years, at best. Even if you
> don't abuse it.

Oh, I don't know about that. Phones can last longer than 2 years. What
generates new phone sales within 2 years now is that newer phones come with
more options, faster Vision speeds, 2 way radio, SMS etc. True, some phones
do crap out within 2 years, but IMHO, it's because it's part of a bad batch
of phones which shouldn't have passed inspection in the first place, or
where the user has done something, like too many dropped phones, phones left
in a hot car or any other number of reasons.

Obviously, you don't want the expense of an additional $5 / mo, nor to sign
an AA, so you've already made your mind up and that's OK. Short sighted
maybe, for that one time you need to use it, but that's just yours truly
talking.

Bob::My last reply to you in this thread::