Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Robert M.
    Guest
    Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
    2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.


    Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
    give it back now??


    NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.


    http://www3.sprint.com/PR/CDA/PR_CDA...0,3681,1112020
    ,00.html



    See More: Churn, Churn, Churn




  2. #2
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
    > 2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.
    >
    >
    > Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
    > give it back now??


    Who said his bonus was based on a lower churn rate? From what I see from
    that P/R, is that all numbers were improved from last year, especially with
    EBITA. As to churn rate, it was down when comparing it to last year's first
    quarter. Impressive considering that WLNP came on line in December.
    >
    > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.


    What does that have to do with the 16.3MM direct customers?

    Bob






  3. #3
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
    > 2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.
    >
    >
    > Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
    > give it back now??


    Who said his bonus was based on a lower churn rate? From what I see from
    that P/R, is that all numbers were improved from last year, especially with
    EBITA. As to churn rate, it was down when comparing it to last year's first
    quarter. Impressive considering that WLNP came on line in December.
    >
    > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.


    What does that have to do with the 16.3MM direct customers?

    Bob






  4. #4
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
    > 2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.
    >
    >
    > Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
    > give it back now??


    Who said his bonus was based on a lower churn rate? From what I see from
    that P/R, is that all numbers were improved from last year, especially with
    EBITA. As to churn rate, it was down when comparing it to last year's first
    quarter. Impressive considering that WLNP came on line in December.
    >
    > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.


    What does that have to do with the 16.3MM direct customers?

    Bob






  5. #5
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
    > 2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.
    >
    >
    > Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
    > give it back now??


    Who said his bonus was based on a lower churn rate? From what I see from
    that P/R, is that all numbers were improved from last year, especially with
    EBITA. As to churn rate, it was down when comparing it to last year's first
    quarter. Impressive considering that WLNP came on line in December.
    >
    > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.


    What does that have to do with the 16.3MM direct customers?

    Bob






  6. #6
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
    > 2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.
    >
    >
    > Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
    > give it back now??


    Who said his bonus was based on a lower churn rate? From what I see from
    that P/R, is that all numbers were improved from last year, especially with
    EBITA. As to churn rate, it was down when comparing it to last year's first
    quarter. Impressive considering that WLNP came on line in December.
    >
    > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.


    What does that have to do with the 16.3MM direct customers?

    Bob






  7. #7
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
    > 2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.


    OK- but you failed to mention the following:

    "The wireless segment lost 8 cents a share on an adjusted basis, half the
    year-ago loss of 16 cents. "

    "It's the first time that Sprint PCS has surpassed the company's traditional
    wireline operations in total revenue."

    http://tinyurl.com/23pl6

    and this:

    "SG Cowen analyst Tom Watts described Sprint's growth as "fantastic."
    "We're seeing the benefits of all the intense marketing over the last couple
    of quarters ... and strong uptake of data services," he added."

    http://tinyurl.com/2rfwd


    Oh- and after all of the posting about the Stockholders Meeting, this might
    be of interest to you:

    "NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Shareholders at Sprint Corp.'s (FON) annual meeting
    Tuesday sided with management and voted to re-elect Linda Koch Lorimer.
    Holders also turned down shareholder proposals to curb executive pay and
    separate the chairman and chief executive positions."

    http://tinyurl.com/36b5x

    So, cling to your churn number. That is, cling to that number until
    everybody shows higher churn for the quarter, then we'll talk. Its the only
    2004 number you have to whine about.

    >
    >
    > Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
    > give it back now??


    Have a URL for that statement?

    >
    >
    > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers
    >
    >






  8. #8
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Sprint reports a 2.9 % churn rate in the first quarter up from
    > 2.7% churn rate reported in the 2003 4th quarter.


    OK- but you failed to mention the following:

    "The wireless segment lost 8 cents a share on an adjusted basis, half the
    year-ago loss of 16 cents. "

    "It's the first time that Sprint PCS has surpassed the company's traditional
    wireline operations in total revenue."

    http://tinyurl.com/23pl6

    and this:

    "SG Cowen analyst Tom Watts described Sprint's growth as "fantastic."
    "We're seeing the benefits of all the intense marketing over the last couple
    of quarters ... and strong uptake of data services," he added."

    http://tinyurl.com/2rfwd


    Oh- and after all of the posting about the Stockholders Meeting, this might
    be of interest to you:

    "NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Shareholders at Sprint Corp.'s (FON) annual meeting
    Tuesday sided with management and voted to re-elect Linda Koch Lorimer.
    Holders also turned down shareholder proposals to curb executive pay and
    separate the chairman and chief executive positions."

    http://tinyurl.com/36b5x

    So, cling to your churn number. That is, cling to that number until
    everybody shows higher churn for the quarter, then we'll talk. Its the only
    2004 number you have to whine about.

    >
    >
    > Lauer waS given a humongous bonus because churn was coming down? Does he
    > give it back now??


    Have a URL for that statement?

    >
    >
    > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers
    >
    >






  9. #9
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn

    In article <rmarkoff-4B3022.11494920042004
    @news02.east.earthlink.net>, [email protected] says...
    > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.
    >=20
    >=20


    It's 21 million customers, Phillie. And it's DOWN year over year. =20
    Are you saying a 0.2% bump in churn after WLNP settles in is=20
    catastrophic?

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



  10. #10
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn

    In article <rmarkoff-4B3022.11494920042004
    @news02.east.earthlink.net>, [email protected] says...
    > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.
    >=20
    >=20


    Woops, missed that one. Although I'd still include the affiliate=20
    customers in any claims, even your false ones.

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



  11. #11
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn

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

    > In article <rmarkoff-4B3022.11494920042004
    > @news02.east.earthlink.net>, [email protected] says...
    > > NOT GOOD for the remaining 16.3 million direct customers.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Woops, missed that one. Although I'd still include the affiliate
    > customers in any claims, even your false ones.


    Directly from the SEC filings. So saying my statements are false, is a
    bald faced LIE.

    Failing to face up to the 5 million folks a year who vote with their
    feet about SprintPCS service is why SprintPCS is STILL losing money.



  12. #12
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn

    In article <[email protected]>,
    O/Siris <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > It's 21 million customers. And it's DOWN year over year.
    > Are you saying a 0.2% bump in churn after WLNP settles in is
    > catastrophic?


    It's 16.4 Postpaid direct customers, against whom churn is calculated.

    If you don't like those numbers, your argument is with SprintPCS,
    who filed that with the SEC, and not me.

    Considering Lauer was quoted as saying WLNP would be neutral, and many
    apologists were saying SprintPCS was coming out ahead from WLNP, seeing
    that churn went up, shows who the LIARs really are.



  13. #13
    TechGeek
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn

    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >>

    > Considering Lauer was quoted as saying WLNP would be neutral, and many
    > apologists were saying SprintPCS was coming out ahead from WLNP, seeing
    > that churn went up, shows who the LIARs really are.


    And you said the PCS stock would toumble to nothing and Sprint would
    be out of business.

    Shows who the liar in this newsgroup is.



  14. #14
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn

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

    > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > >>

    > > Considering Lauer was quoted as saying WLNP would be neutral, and many
    > > apologists were saying SprintPCS was coming out ahead from WLNP, seeing
    > > that churn went up, shows who the LIARs really are.

    >
    > And you said the PCS stock would toumble to nothing and Sprint would
    > be out of business.


    And the URL for that is:

    You can't find one as it doesn't exit.

    >
    > Shows who the liar in this newsgroup is.



    Is O/Siris posting under your account?

    No, I said SprintPCS as we know it would not exist by end of 2004, and I
    am spot-on. Its being absorbed into Sprint.

    In November I posted:

    " Unless Customer Service is changed, SprintPCS as we know it will not
    be here in 12 months."

    And even though its being outsourced to IBM, (I think we can both agree
    that qualifies as a change), SprintPCS will not exist as we know it by
    November 2004, as its performance will not be broken out like it is now
    for the SEC.

    And even now SprintPCS is hiding data.

    No data on win-loss numbers from WLNP.

    No numbers this quarter on $$$ cost for acquistion per new customer.



  15. #15
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Churn, Churn, Churn


    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (TechGeek) wrote:
    >
    > > "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > >>
    > > > Considering Lauer was quoted as saying WLNP would be neutral, and many
    > > > apologists were saying SprintPCS was coming out ahead from WLNP,

    seeing
    > > > that churn went up, shows who the LIARs really are.

    > >
    > > And you said the PCS stock would toumble to nothing and Sprint would
    > > be out of business.

    >
    > And the URL for that is:
    >
    > You can't find one as it doesn't exit.


    Sure it does, here's one right here, under your Catonhat ID -
    http://tinyurl.com/ysx4o

    Here's another - http://tinyurl.com/ytwvs What's interesting in this one, is
    I found another different new ID on him, and within this one thread,
    Phillipe posts with 5 separate IDs. Up to 67 separate IDs now.

    One more here - http://tinyurl.com/2pval This one says SPCS is out of
    business in 2005.


    >
    > >
    > > Shows who the liar in this newsgroup is.


    Why, it's you of course.
    >
    >
    > Is O/Siris posting under your account?
    >
    > No, I said SprintPCS as we know it would not exist by end of 2004, and I
    > am spot-on. Its being absorbed into Sprint.


    Nope, you said that they would be out of business ... flat ... period. Don't
    try to cover your ass with this bull**** now!

    >
    > In November I posted:
    >
    > " Unless Customer Service is changed, SprintPCS as we know it will not
    > be here in 12 months."
    >
    > And even though its being outsourced to IBM, (I think we can both agree
    > that qualifies as a change), SprintPCS will not exist as we know it by
    > November 2004, as its performance will not be broken out like it is now
    > for the SEC.
    >
    > And even now SprintPCS is hiding data.
    >
    > No data on win-loss numbers from WLNP.
    >
    > No numbers this quarter on $$$ cost for acquistion per new customer.


    So what? Those are all false arguments. All they need to show is their what
    the number of customers they have, and they do that via the net increase
    numbers. There is no requirement to your alleged win-loss numbers from WLNP.
    Why is it necessary to say what the new customer acquisition costs are?

    Bob

    Bob





  • Similar Threads