New Plans: Fair & Flexible

Jerome Zelinske <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just a couple of days ago I went from 400 to 500 minutes for $40
> with still the 8pm. It required a 1 yr. AA, but only on the primary
> phone not on Add-A-Phone. I'm still debating the PCS-to-PCS, but we
> were not using more than the 400 as it was so???

So making a simple plan change that doesn't require taking a promotion
*does* extend your contract?

(I'm still trying to get a conclusive answer on this. Although $45/1000
is a nice deal, if I'll just have to change plans again next time I travel,
I'll stick with $50/700. $45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)

(Another note: Our phones are separate. We intentionally avoided getting
a shared-minute plan.)

--
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.

---

› See More: New Plans: Fair & Flexible

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 15:16:58 GMT, [email protected] (Daniel
> Tso) wrote:
>
>>So who thinks that F&F is or will be a successful offering to compete with
>>RollOver ? Does anyone think that F&F is as desireable as RollOver ?
>
> Not me. I've done the math based on my calling pattern over the last
> year, and figure that the RollOver plan will cost me considerably less
> over a 12 month period.

The fact is that Rollover makes more sense. F&F is cool, but it won't work
for most people, and may end up costing them more. What Sprint *should* have
done is just implemented a rollover program and called it F&F, since
RollOver is a Cingular trademark.

--
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.

Did you get the e-mail I sent you on 11 Jul?


Steven J Sobol wrote:

> Jerome Zelinske <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just a couple of days ago I went from 400 to 500 minutes for $40
>>with still the 8pm. It required a 1 yr. AA, but only on the primary
>>phone not on Add-A-Phone. I'm still debating the PCS-to-PCS, but we
>>were not using more than the 400 as it was so???
>
>
> So making a simple plan change that doesn't require taking a promotion
> *does* extend your contract?
>
> (I'm still trying to get a conclusive answer on this. Although $45/1000
> is a nice deal, if I'll just have to change plans again next time I travel,
> I'll stick with $50/700. $45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)
>
> (Another note: Our phones are separate. We intentionally avoided getting
> a shared-minute plan.)
>

Jerome Zelinske <[email protected]> wrote:
> Did you get the e-mail I sent you on 11 Jul?

Yup - just read it. About 8:10am Pacific

--
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:
$45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)

No, but $40/750 thru retentions is.

Rod <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steven J Sobol wrote:
> $45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)
>
> No, but $40/750 thru retentions is.

Yes, that'll go over well. I just signed up for a two-year agreement and
now I'm calling Retention? And I can't use the excuse that I'm going to
cancel if I ask them about a plan on a *second* line that I'm about to
activate, so it wouldn't have worked before buying the phone either.

--
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:
> Rod <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Steven J Sobol wrote:
>> $45/1000 is NOT a nationwide plan.)
>>
>> No, but $40/750 thru retentions is.
>
> Yes, that'll go over well. I just signed up for a two-year agreement
> and now I'm calling Retention? And I can't use the excuse that I'm
> going to cancel if I ask them about a plan on a *second* line that
> I'm about to activate, so it wouldn't have worked before buying the
> phone either.

You would be surprised what you can get just for asking. I got 2500/$100 on
a new account in May.

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> Okay, let's take your above statement as the intended market and benefit =
of
> F&F.
>=20
> Person A uses an annual mean of 1000 min/month, with a std dev of 500=20
> min/month (computed annually). Person B uses a mean of 500min/month,
> with a std dev of 300min/month, and Person C uses a mean of 2000min/month
> with a std dev of 1000min/month.
>=20
> My contention is that F&F is not financially beneficial for any of these=
=20
> scenerios when compared with the standard F&C plans EVEN THOUGH these
> people would have to choose a F&C that has monthly minutes equal to their
> (mean + std dev) usage (or more, perhaps even (mean + 2*stddev).
>=20
> Whereas a Rollover option would allow all of these people to simply choos=
e a
> monthly plan roughly equal to their mean usage.
>=20

That's an easy contention to make if you're not willing to do the=20
math behind it. First, Fair & Flexible vs Free & Clear:

Let's just take an imagined 5 months. Someone uses 600 normally, and=20
that pretty much is the norm for 3 months. But, on two of the=20
months, they have something, and their usage doubles. 1200 minutes=20
twice in that time. =20

First, Fair & Flexible. That's $75 for each of three months, and=20
$107.50 twice. $440 over 5 months.

Free & Clear we need two alternatives: cover the minutes, or cover=20
the norm.

Norm: A 700 minute plan at $50/month, for $250 total, but two months=20
each with 600 minutes in overage. At $0.40/minute, that's $240,=20
twice. $250+$240+$240. $730.

Total: 1400 minute plan. $80/month. $400. Cheaper, eh?

But that's $80 every single month, and you're using less than half of=20
what you're paying for every month. And with F&F you don't have to=20
worry about those minutes eventually disappearing.

Cingular: The only plan that would cover that kind of usage is the=20
1250 minute plan. Same $400, basically. Anything lower won't cover=20
the minutes. I can't find out what overage costs with Cingular once=20
those rollover minutes are gone, but I'd wager it very rapidly eats=20
up the cost "advantage" involved.

The difference is not nearly so large as you allege, AND the rollover=20
plan that would cover this level of usage doesn't allow for 7PM night=20
hours (just to use one example).

No, I think your contention is far more arguable than you claim.

--=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 <[email protected]>,=20
>[email protected] says...

>> My contention is that F&F is not financially beneficial for any of these
>> scenerios when compared with the standard F&C plans EVEN THOUGH these
>> people would have to choose a F&C that has monthly minutes equal to their
>> (mean + std dev) usage (or more, perhaps even (mean + 2*stddev).
>>
>> Whereas a Rollover option would allow all of these people to simply choose a
>> monthly plan roughly equal to their mean usage.
>>
>
>That's an easy contention to make if you're not willing to do the
>math behind it. First, Fair & Flexible vs Free & Clear:
>
>Let's just take an imagined 5 months. Someone uses 600 normally, and
>that pretty much is the norm for 3 months. But, on two of the
>months, they have something, and their usage doubles. 1200 minutes
>twice in that time.
>
>First, Fair & Flexible. That's $75 for each of three months, and
>$107.50 twice. $440 over 5 months.
>
>Free & Clear we need two alternatives: cover the minutes, or cover
>the norm.
>
>Norm: A 700 minute plan at $50/month, for $250 total, but two months
>each with 600 minutes in overage. At $0.40/minute, that's $240,
>twice. $250+$240+$240. $730.
>
>Total: 1400 minute plan. $80/month. $400. Cheaper, eh?
>
>But that's $80 every single month, and you're using less than half of
>what you're paying for every month. And with F&F you don't have to
>worry about those minutes eventually disappearing.
>
>Cingular: The only plan that would cover that kind of usage is the
>1250 minute plan. Same $400, basically. Anything lower won't cover
>the minutes. I can't find out what overage costs with Cingular once
>those rollover minutes are gone, but I'd wager it very rapidly eats
>up the cost "advantage" involved.
>
>The difference is not nearly so large as you allege, AND the rollover
>plan that would cover this level of usage doesn't allow for 7PM night
>hours (just to use one example).

Well that's interesting. I guess its a "glass half-empty, half-full" scenerio.
I think your example is a little extreme, jumping from 600min to 1200min
on a couple of months, but OK, let's take ALL of what you say above.

You are basically saying that F&F under those conditions didn't fair so
bad compared with the F&C "overbuy" nor the Cingular Rollover plans,
coming in at "only" 10% higher than either ($440 vs 400 vs 400).

Fair enough (...not...) but the way I see it is that under these extreme
conditions you have in fact shown that F&F is in fact worse than these
two other, admittedly outrageous strategies, i.e. if I norm at 600 min, I
still am better off buying 1400min or 1250min/month at $80 than going
with F&F. I personally don't think that makes F&F look very good. As I've
said, F&F is the worse of all the options out there. Its all
right here in your most telling statement:

"But that's $80 every single month, and you're using less than half of
what you're paying for every month. And with F&F you don't have to
worry about those minutes eventually disappearing."

In this statement you are giving negative spin to the "overbuying F&C"
strategy saying that $80/month is too much to pay and seem to be implying
that buying 1400min when you only use 600min norm is a waste. Then you
seem to be refering to the RollOver option and "worrying about minutes
disappearing".

But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see that
$75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as far
as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad about,
not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one sheet.
The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is that
with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.

And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
back to me in the first place is simply laughable.

If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've over-bought
(i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of the
F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.

"Daniel Tso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped>

> But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see that
> $75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as far
> as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
> points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
> even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
> The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad
about,
> not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one sheet.
> The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
> structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is that
> with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
> for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.

Your whole discussion, which you started a while ago, is trying to compare F
& F to the amount of minutes YOU normally use Daniel. This F & F plan
doesn't work for high minute users. It's designed for low end users ... who
might go over their 300 minutes a few times a year.

By the way, you've have also mentioned in the past several times that low
end minute users are a very small percentage of SPCS's customer base, and
for at least two times, I've asked you to back up your statement and haven't
seen a reply of how you developed that %.
>
> And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
> having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
> back to me in the first place is simply laughable.
>
> If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
> you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
> to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've
over-bought
> (i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
> feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of
the
> F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
> at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.

Who knows? They might be considering that. Then again, they might not, after
looking at the actual use of monthly minutes for that bracket of customers
and whether they normally exceed 700 AT minutes in a month's time.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>, "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Daniel Tso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
><snipped>
>
>> But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see that
>> $75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as far
>> as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
>> points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
>> even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
>> The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad
>about,
>> not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one sheet.
>> The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
>> structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is that
>> with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
>> for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.
>
>Your whole discussion, which you started a while ago, is trying to compare F
>& F to the amount of minutes YOU normally use Daniel. This F & F plan
>doesn't work for high minute users. It's designed for low end users ... who
>might go over their 300 minutes a few times a year.

Nope, sorry. This discussion start, at least my part, when I was reminded that
it was rumored here that F&F was developed as a competitive response to
RollOver. In fact it was touted as being *better* than RollOver. I have
present here why I think that F&F is not better at all and not an effective
competitive response to RollOver. This discussion never had anything to
do with *me*. I have never said what my usage is and you have no idea
about it.

Yes, in my postings I have said that F&F only makes (some) sense for
low minutes users. I offered up the range of 300-350 +- 50-100min. So in
that I *agree* with you that F&F might help those customers. However,
O/Siris countered saying that he thought F&F also make sense for higher
usage customers. The example of 600min/month with 2 months at 1200min
is HIS example, not mine. He shows that F&F is "only" 10% more costly
than overbuying F&C. I think this very example shows exactly that F&F
isn't attractive at all when a customer can instead save money (albeit 10%)
by buying 1400min/month.

>By the way, you've have also mentioned in the past several times that low
>end minute users are a very small percentage of SPCS's customer base, and
>for at least two times, I've asked you to back up your statement and haven't
>seen a reply of how you developed that %.

Nope again, I have *never* said that low-end min users are a very small
percentage. Never said that, sorry. I never would. What I did say, is exactly
as above, and in agreement with you, that F&F only might help a narrow
range of customers, that is those customers whose usage is around 300-350
with variability in the 50-100min range. I mean it to say narrow in the sense
of the possible spectrum of usage, not necessarily in the total distribution
of the population.

Now I can't tell, given your postings whether you think F&F is actually
better than RollOver or even just over-buying F&C or not. That is the
discussion here, not my usage. I would have liked to have seen Sprint
actually offer RollOver, as was originally rumored here, as I think I
would benefit from it, but alas...

>> And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
>> having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
>> back to me in the first place is simply laughable.
>>
>> If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
>> you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
>> to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've
>over-bought
>> (i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
>> feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of
>the
>> F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
>> at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.
>
>Who knows? They might be considering that. Then again, they might not, after
>looking at the actual use of monthly minutes for that bracket of customers
>and whether they normally exceed 700 AT minutes in a month's time.
>

And a lot of people will change to save 3 percent, some for 1
percent.


Daniel Tso wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Daniel Tso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>><snipped>
>>
>>>But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see that
>>>$75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as far
>>>as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
>>>points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
>>>even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
>>>The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad
>>
>>about,
>>
>>>not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one sheet.
>>>The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
>>>structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is that
>>>with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
>>>for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.
>>
>>Your whole discussion, which you started a while ago, is trying to compare F
>>& F to the amount of minutes YOU normally use Daniel. This F & F plan
>>doesn't work for high minute users. It's designed for low end users ... who
>>might go over their 300 minutes a few times a year.
>
>
> Nope, sorry. This discussion start, at least my part, when I was reminded that
> it was rumored here that F&F was developed as a competitive response to
> RollOver. In fact it was touted as being *better* than RollOver. I have
> present here why I think that F&F is not better at all and not an effective
> competitive response to RollOver. This discussion never had anything to
> do with *me*. I have never said what my usage is and you have no idea
> about it.
>
> Yes, in my postings I have said that F&F only makes (some) sense for
> low minutes users. I offered up the range of 300-350 +- 50-100min. So in
> that I *agree* with you that F&F might help those customers. However,
> O/Siris countered saying that he thought F&F also make sense for higher
> usage customers. The example of 600min/month with 2 months at 1200min
> is HIS example, not mine. He shows that F&F is "only" 10% more costly
> than overbuying F&C. I think this very example shows exactly that F&F
> isn't attractive at all when a customer can instead save money (albeit 10%)
> by buying 1400min/month.
>
>
>>By the way, you've have also mentioned in the past several times that low
>>end minute users are a very small percentage of SPCS's customer base, and
>>for at least two times, I've asked you to back up your statement and haven't
>>seen a reply of how you developed that %.
>
>
> Nope again, I have *never* said that low-end min users are a very small
> percentage. Never said that, sorry. I never would. What I did say, is exactly
> as above, and in agreement with you, that F&F only might help a narrow
> range of customers, that is those customers whose usage is around 300-350
> with variability in the 50-100min range. I mean it to say narrow in the sense
> of the possible spectrum of usage, not necessarily in the total distribution
> of the population.
>
> Now I can't tell, given your postings whether you think F&F is actually
> better than RollOver or even just over-buying F&C or not. That is the
> discussion here, not my usage. I would have liked to have seen Sprint
> actually offer RollOver, as was originally rumored here, as I think I
> would benefit from it, but alas...
>
>
>>>And the idea that F&F is doing me a favor by eliminating the "worry" of
>>>having RollOver minutes disappearing, by not giving over-bought minutes
>>>back to me in the first place is simply laughable.
>>>
>>>If Sprint is so concerned about the customer "using less than half of what
>>>you're paying for", then it should TRULY develop a competitive response
>>>to RollOver: Either give us back in some form the minutes we've
>>
>>over-bought
>>
>>>(i.e. RollOver), or, if it is so enthralled with the (un)Fair and Flexible
>>>feature, then at least allow F&F to be an option that can start at ANY of
>>
>>the
>>
>>>F&C plan points, i.e., let someone whose "norm" is 700min/mon, start F&F
>>>at 700min/$50 rather than 350min/$35.
>>
>>Who knows? They might be considering that. Then again, they might not, after
>>looking at the actual use of monthly minutes for that bracket of customers
>>and whether they normally exceed 700 AT minutes in a month's time.
>>

"Daniel Tso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Bob
Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel Tso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> ><snipped>
> >
> >> But with the F&F plan with norm at 600 is $75 as you say, I don't see
that
> >> $75 is a whole lot less than the $80 you are complaining about. And as
far
> >> as the "waste" of buying 1400min when you only norm 600min, that just
> >> points to how *unfair* F&F is, since I am STILL AHEAD of F&F cost wise
> >> even if I go to the ridiculous extreme of overbuying that many minutes.
> >> The "waste" is not some ecological/moral issue that I should feel bad
> >about,
> >> not like buying a whole ream of paper even if I only need just one
sheet.
> >> The "waste" issue in fact points out how contrived the way plans are
> >> structured and how little F&F does to help. All you've shown here is
that
> >> with F&F you get 600min for $75 whereas with F&C you get 1400min
> >> for $80. I think most customers will see that as ridiculous.
> >
> >Your whole discussion, which you started a while ago, is trying to
compare F
> >& F to the amount of minutes YOU normally use Daniel. This F & F plan
> >doesn't work for high minute users. It's designed for low end users ...
who
> >might go over their 300 minutes a few times a year.
>
> Nope, sorry. This discussion start, at least my part, when I was reminded
that
> it was rumored here that F&F was developed as a competitive response to
> RollOver. In fact it was touted as being *better* than RollOver. I have
> present here why I think that F&F is not better at all and not an
effective
> competitive response to RollOver. This discussion never had anything to
> do with *me*. I have never said what my usage is and you have no idea
> about it.

The only one here who brought up a Rollover rumor was you, in the 7-4-04
11:16AM EDT post. You said "In any case, when this F&F schemed was first
talked about, it was touted, at least by some, as Sprint's answer to
Cingular's RollOver feature -- indeed it was first rumored that Sprint had
decided to offer a rollover feature."

You were the one who brought it up ... What's more, before you made that
comment, that rumor you mention above, wasn't discussed in this newsgroup.
>
> Yes, in my postings I have said that F&F only makes (some) sense for
> low minutes users. I offered up the range of 300-350 +- 50-100min. So in
> that I *agree* with you that F&F might help those customers. However,
> O/Siris countered saying that he thought F&F also make sense for higher
> usage customers. The example of 600min/month with 2 months at 1200min
> is HIS example, not mine. He shows that F&F is "only" 10% more costly
> than overbuying F&C. I think this very example shows exactly that F&F
> isn't attractive at all when a customer can instead save money (albeit
10%)
> by buying 1400min/month.
>
> >By the way, you've have also mentioned in the past several times that low
> >end minute users are a very small percentage of SPCS's customer base, and
> >for at least two times, I've asked you to back up your statement and
haven't
> >seen a reply of how you developed that %.
>
> Nope again, I have *never* said that low-end min users are a very small
> percentage. Never said that, sorry. I never would. What I did say, is
exactly
> as above, and in agreement with you, that F&F only might help a narrow
> range of customers, that is those customers whose usage is around 300-350
> with variability in the 50-100min range. I mean it to say narrow in the
sense
> of the possible spectrum of usage, not necessarily in the total
distribution
> of the population.

Yes ... you did ... in your 7-4-04 post, @ 11:16AM EDT. You said ... "Yah, I
still can't decide whether F&F is actually a useful plan offering that
*many* people will benefit from, or whether it is just another stupid
marketing gimmick that is of no real value. Certainly it seems to only
make to a narrow range of customers..."

Now, how do you define a narrow range? I define it as a small percentage and
questioned you on that twice ... and now a third time.

>
> Now I can't tell, given your postings whether you think F&F is actually
> better than RollOver or even just over-buying F&C or not. That is the
> discussion here, not my usage. I would have liked to have seen Sprint
> actually offer RollOver, as was originally rumored here, as I think I
> would benefit from it, but alas...

I've never discussed it, as it's never been mentioned ... or offered by
SPCS. I don't speculate on things not mentioned in terms of SPCS's wireless
service. I still don't see where it ... rollover, was mentioned as something
SPCS might offer prior to your comment. Lots of comments about Cingular's
rollover plans, but nothing on a rumor that SPCS would do something like
that.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,=20
[email protected] says...
> I offered up the range of 300-350 +- 50-100min. So in
> that I *agree* with you that F&F might help those customers. However,
> O/Siris countered saying that he thought F&F also make sense for higher
> usage customers.
>=20

No, that ignores something I've said from my very first post in this=20
thread: I don't know that works, or that it should.

Only that it was an interesting attempt to change the terms of the=20
discussion. And I think coming within 10% of Rollover as a first=20
response is clearly a good first shot.

Maybe F&F needs to get tweaked. Maybe quite a bit. I still stand by=20
my original assertion, though: I think it's a great first effort.

--=20
R=D8=DF
O/Siris
~+~
"A thing moderately good is not so good=20
as it ought to be. Moderation in temper=20
is always a virtue, but moderation in=20
principle is always a vice."
Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792

R?? Vargas <robjvargas@comc?st.net> wrote:

> Maybe F&F needs to get tweaked. Maybe quite a bit. I still stand by
> my original assertion, though: I think it's a great first effort.

Certainly an interesting deal and worth looking at in certain situations,
but I still just think SPCS should offer rollover under a different name.

--
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.