Waived ETF Update

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 19:29:47 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I would guess that more did than bought service for the area of Hickville,
>Texas that is the subject of this thread.

I'd guess you'd be wrong, but you could do research and find out for
sure. Maybe Cowboy can post the population of the Texas counties in
question so we can see how many potential customers there might be.

>I'm really curious about your obsession with this area of the country.

Not that it's pertinent to this thread, but I grew up there.

>No matter where coverage has been built out, building service in a
> rural area is far from profitable for the provider.

"Far from profitable"??? If that were the case, how could all the
regional providers that cater specifically to those rural areas stay
in business? Verizon also provides significant coverage to rural
areas. Are you suggesting that Verizon, Sprint, and whoever else are
taking losses on all of their rural coverage?

>I really don't care why the
>coverage you mention is there- could it be that it is now native coverage
>due to an acquisition that included it in the purchase? Much more likely
>than Sprint buidling it.

We're having this discussion because you didn't like my suggestion
that Sprint build native coverage when they lose a roaming partner.
and condescendingly told me that it would be bad business for Sprint
to add native coverage in a sparsely populated area. I proceeded to
show you an example of a sparsely populated area where Sprint has
native coverage. Even if Sprint didn't build the native coverage in
ND, they obtained it for some reason, most likely because they thought
it to be a good business decision, not a bad one.

Joe Huber
[email protected]

---

› See More: Waived ETF Update

"Joseph Huber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> "Far from profitable"??? If that were the case, how could all the
> regional providers that cater specifically to those rural areas stay
> in business? Verizon also provides significant coverage to rural
> areas. Are you suggesting that Verizon, Sprint, and whoever else are
> taking losses on all of their rural coverage?

Not what I said. I said the network development in thise areas is not
profitable. But now that I think about it, there is probably little to no
ROI on those rural towers. After all, how many of the smaller rural
carriers operate at a profit? Not many.

>
>>I really don't care why the
>>coverage you mention is there- could it be that it is now native coverage
>>due to an acquisition that included it in the purchase? Much more likely
>>than Sprint buidling it.
>
> We're having this discussion because you didn't like my suggestion
> that Sprint build native coverage when they lose a roaming partner.
> and condescendingly told me that it would be bad business for Sprint
> to add native coverage in a sparsely populated area. I proceeded to
> show you an example of a sparsely populated area where Sprint has
> native coverage. Even if Sprint didn't build the native coverage in
> ND, they obtained it for some reason, most likely because they thought
> it to be a good business decision, not a bad one.

It was probably part of an acquisiton- not the primary reason for buying the
assets. Kind of like getting the floor mats when buying a car.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "DecaturTxCowboy" <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> My guess would be the judge would ask Sprint a) where in the contract does
>> it mention "if coverage works at your billing address, the ETF won't be
>> waived" and b) why was sprint not specific what constitutes a material
>> adverse effect. <snicker>
>
> And then the judge would ask the customer a) what service provided directly
> by Sprint has declined in quality

This is highly theoretical because such a case would never reach the
courts. Sprint doesn't want a legal precedent set regarding the ETF.
They know they can cower most customers into paying the ETF without
the customer even bothering to contact the BBB or state Attorney General.
Any customer who does the latter would find Sprint quickly waiving the ETF.

> and b) would you like me to hold you
> personally responsible for the actions of others.

In business this happens all the time. For example, general contractors are
held liable for the misdeeds and omissions of subcontractors.

--
John Richards

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> In business this happens all the time. For example, general contractors
> are
> held liable for the misdeeds and omissions of subcontractors.


Apples and oranges.

Scott wrote:
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>In business this happens all the time. For example, general contractors
>>are
>>held liable for the misdeeds and omissions of subcontractors.
>
>
>
> Apples and oranges.


I agree with Scott...both apples and oranges grow on trees and therefore
the analogy would be appropriate.

Sprint PCS does not say that you can count on roaming. They don't even
say that you can count on their own service. Their coverage statements
state that there are and will be "holes". While they do try to keep
them few and small, there are no guarantees. That is what the trial
period is for. Even then what if they have a lease for a antenna site
that is ending and the old or new owner of the property does not want to
renew? And it might be very hard and take a long time to find a new
location. At least Sprint PCS maps show where it is roaming, meaning
extra iffy, while some carriers do not show where their phones would be
roaming.

If Sprint were to eliminate a Sprint Cell Site due to loss of lease on a
tower, that is grounds for termination of ETF especially if the tower
previously served the customer's home or work.


"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:s%[email protected]...
> Sprint PCS does not say that you can count on roaming. They don't even
> say that you can count on their own service. Their coverage statements
> state that there are and will be "holes". While they do try to keep them
> few and small, there are no guarantees. That is what the trial period is
> for. Even then what if they have a lease for a antenna site that is
> ending and the old or new owner of the property does not want to renew?
> And it might be very hard and take a long time to find a new location. At
> least Sprint PCS maps show where it is roaming, meaning extra iffy, while
> some carriers do not show where their phones would be roaming.