Is there anyone actually happy with sprint?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Should we be counting "Customers", or activated cell phones?
>
> That's a good point. I activated 6 different phones with Sprint this year.
> I guess only the currently activated phones should count. How many (and I
> won't use the term working) phones does Sprint provide service to.



It's all so silly. Sprint is number 4, is losing money every quarter,
and has a high churn rate; but the SprintPCS apologists need to spin
these worrisome facts.

---

› See More: Is there anyone actually happy with sprint?

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > I just posted what was on the Sprint Web Site. Sprint's stretching,
> not
> > > me.
> > > > The point, however, was that to say that Sprint wasn't able to get
800
> > MHz
> > > > because they weren't around then is false.
> > >
> > > Oh, Sprint LD was around, but they did not have a cellular division
back
> > > then, which is what has been said previously.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> >
> > Right. I'm not saying they had a cellular division then, just that they
> > weren't prohibited from getting some of the spectrum when the others
were
> > "handed theirs on a silver platter."
> >
> Well, all the others had cell service in place, didn't they?
>
> Bob

I'd have to look at that. It would have been hard to have cell service in
place when you weren't allocated a frequency by the FCC. To be honest, I'm
not sure. I'm just saying that Sprint probably could have gotten some 800
MHz spectrum if they really had wanted to. But they might have tried and
failed. It was a pretty big fight, I think.

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I'm a bit confused with your data here, considering that SPCS is reporting
> 18.8MM clients, which includes their affiliates -
> http://www.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/qe/pcs2q03.pdf .

If you include affiliates, the number is higher. The 14 M figure
referred to SPCS direct customers. I'm listing those separately now.

> That Verizon has less customers than previously reported?

Don't know about that one. Verizon never had 38 M customers. The
34.6 M figure is definitely correct (and is included in every VZW
press release).

> In addition, if I'm reading this right, you have four dates listed above all
> the carriers. If the first two dates reflect the start and end of this last
> quarter (2nd qtr 2003), then what are the last two numbers ... 4th quarter
> 2002? If that's the case, then that's not the last two quarters ...

No, 09/03 and 12/03 were placeholders for Q3 2003 and Q4 2003, those
figures are obviously not available yet.

> Maybe you could clarify this a bit?

Allow me:

wireless carriers 03/03 06/03
================= --------------
1. Verizon Wireless VZ/VOD 33.324 34.619
2. Cingular Wireless BLS/SBC 22.114 22.640
3. AT&T Wireless Services AWE 21.142 21.493
4. Sprint PCS PCS 18.243 18.8 M
direct 14.959 15.29M
resale .590
affiliate 2.694
5. Nextel Communications NXTL/NXTP 11.092 11.683
6. T-Mobile DT 10.837 11.443
7. ALLTEL AT 7.761 7.872
8. U.S. Cellular USM 4.240 4.343
9. Dobson Cellular Systems DCEL 1.411 1.565
Dobson Communications 718.9k 867.6k
American Cellular 692.1k 697.5k
10.Western Wireless WWCA 1.216 1.231
11.Rural Cellular Corporation RCCC 728.7k 739.0k
12.Centennial Wireless CYCL 538.9k 540.9k

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

> Allow me:
>
> wireless carriers 03/03 06/03
> ================= --------------
> 1. Verizon Wireless VZ/VOD 33.324 34.619
> 2. Cingular Wireless BLS/SBC 22.114 22.640
> 3. AT&T Wireless Services AWE 21.142 21.493
> 4. Sprint PCS PCS 18.243 18.8 M
> direct 14.959 15.29M
> resale .590
> affiliate 2.694
> 5. Nextel Communications NXTL/NXTP 11.092 11.683
> 6. T-Mobile DT 10.837 11.443
> 7. ALLTEL AT 7.761 7.872
> 8. U.S. Cellular USM 4.240 4.343
> 9. Dobson Cellular Systems DCEL 1.411 1.565
> Dobson Communications 718.9k 867.6k
> American Cellular 692.1k 697.5k
> 10.Western Wireless WWCA 1.216 1.231
> 11.Rural Cellular Corporation RCCC 728.7k 739.0k
> 12.Centennial Wireless CYCL 538.9k 540.9k


Good to see the facts, so SprintPCS cheerleaders who claim to be gaining
on Verizon can be disproved.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > I just posted what was on the Sprint Web Site. Sprint's stretching,
> > not
> > > > me.
> > > > > The point, however, was that to say that Sprint wasn't able to get
> 800
> > > MHz
> > > > > because they weren't around then is false.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, Sprint LD was around, but they did not have a cellular division
> back
> > > > then, which is what has been said previously.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > > Right. I'm not saying they had a cellular division then, just that they
> > > weren't prohibited from getting some of the spectrum when the others
> were
> > > "handed theirs on a silver platter."
> > >
> > Well, all the others had cell service in place, didn't they?
> >
> > Bob
>
> I'd have to look at that. It would have been hard to have cell service in
> place when you weren't allocated a frequency by the FCC. To be honest, I'm
> not sure. I'm just saying that Sprint probably could have gotten some 800
> MHz spectrum if they really had wanted to. But they might have tried and
> failed. It was a pretty big fight, I think.

Where does GTE-Sprint fit into all this? Sprint was working with GTE for
a while, then Sprint became part of United in 1989, and GTE became part
of Verizon (along with Bell-Atlantic). or am I missing something here??

http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/...n/print_files/
Sprint--GTE's_Lost_Opportunity.PDF

"P. Reality" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (XFF) wrote:
>
> > Allow me:
> >
> > wireless carriers 03/03 06/03
> > ================= --------------
> > 1. Verizon Wireless VZ/VOD 33.324 34.619
> > 2. Cingular Wireless BLS/SBC 22.114 22.640
> > 3. AT&T Wireless Services AWE 21.142 21.493
> > 4. Sprint PCS PCS 18.243 18.8 M
> > direct 14.959 15.29M
> > resale .590
> > affiliate 2.694
> > 5. Nextel Communications NXTL/NXTP 11.092 11.683
> > 6. T-Mobile DT 10.837 11.443
> > 7. ALLTEL AT 7.761 7.872
> > 8. U.S. Cellular USM 4.240 4.343
> > 9. Dobson Cellular Systems DCEL 1.411 1.565
> > Dobson Communications 718.9k 867.6k
> > American Cellular 692.1k 697.5k
> > 10.Western Wireless WWCA 1.216 1.231
> > 11.Rural Cellular Corporation RCCC 728.7k 739.0k
> > 12.Centennial Wireless CYCL 538.9k 540.9k
>
>
> Good to see the facts, so SprintPCS cheerleaders who claim to be gaining
> on Verizon can be disproved.

ROTFLOL ... Now Phillippe ... just when did anyone post that comment about
catching up to Verizon ...

Bob:isproving Phillippe's disprovable post::

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "P. Reality" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (XFF) wrote:
> >
> > > Allow me:
> > >
> > > wireless carriers 03/03 06/03
> > > ================= --------------
> > > 1. Verizon Wireless VZ/VOD 33.324 34.619
> > > 2. Cingular Wireless BLS/SBC 22.114 22.640
> > > 3. AT&T Wireless Services AWE 21.142 21.493
> > > 4. Sprint PCS PCS 18.243 18.8 M
> > > direct 14.959 15.29M
> > > resale .590
> > > affiliate 2.694
> > > 5. Nextel Communications NXTL/NXTP 11.092 11.683
> > > 6. T-Mobile DT 10.837 11.443
> > > 7. ALLTEL AT 7.761 7.872
> > > 8. U.S. Cellular USM 4.240 4.343
> > > 9. Dobson Cellular Systems DCEL 1.411 1.565
> > > Dobson Communications 718.9k 867.6k
> > > American Cellular 692.1k 697.5k
> > > 10.Western Wireless WWCA 1.216 1.231
> > > 11.Rural Cellular Corporation RCCC 728.7k 739.0k
> > > 12.Centennial Wireless CYCL 538.9k 540.9k
> >
> >
> > Good to see the facts, so SprintPCS cheerleaders who claim to be gaining
> > on Verizon can be disproved.
>
> ROTFLOL ... Now Phillippe ... just when did anyone post that comment about
> catching up to Verizon ...
>
> Bob:isproving Phillippe's disprovable post::

Try reading some of the other posts, Bob.

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

<snipped>
> > ROTFLOL ... Now Phillippe ... just when did anyone post that comment
about
> > catching up to Verizon ...
> >
> > Bob:isproving Phillippe's disprovable post::
>
> Try reading some of the other posts, Bob.
>
I have, and I don't remember seeing anyone saying that ...

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> <snipped>
> > > ROTFLOL ... Now Phillippe ... just when did anyone post that comment
> about
> > > catching up to Verizon ...
> > >
> > > Bob:isproving Phillippe's disprovable post::
> >
> > Try reading some of the other posts, Bob.
> >
> I have, and I don't remember seeing anyone saying that ...
>
> Bob

You're right. I stand corrected. It was Tom who talked about catching up
with AT&T or Cingular.

"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > <snipped>
> > > > ROTFLOL ... Now Phillippe ... just when did anyone post that comment
> > about
> > > > catching up to Verizon ...
> > > >
> > > > Bob:isproving Phillippe's disprovable post::
> > >
> > > Try reading some of the other posts, Bob.
> > >
> > I have, and I don't remember seeing anyone saying that ...
> >
> > Bob
>
> You're right. I stand corrected. It was Tom who talked about catching up
> with AT&T or Cingular.

See Justin, here's a classic example of following what a troll says, and
taking it for fact, and then backing him up without doing your own research.
Phillippe has been posting false and misleading information for quite some
time now ...

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > <snipped>
> > > > > ROTFLOL ... Now Phillippe ... just when did anyone post that
comment
> > > about
> > > > > catching up to Verizon ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob:isproving Phillippe's disprovable post::
> > > >
> > > > Try reading some of the other posts, Bob.
> > > >
> > > I have, and I don't remember seeing anyone saying that ...
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > You're right. I stand corrected. It was Tom who talked about catching
up
> > with AT&T or Cingular.
>
> See Justin, here's a classic example of following what a troll says, and
> taking it for fact, and then backing him up without doing your own
research.
> Phillippe has been posting false and misleading information for quite some
> time now ...
>
> Bob


So has Rob, and so have you. Get over it.

"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped>
> So has Rob, and so have you. Get over it.

When & where have I posted false information about SPCS?

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:0%[email protected]...
>
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snipped>
> > So has Rob, and so have you. Get over it.
>
> When & where have I posted false information about SPCS?
>
> Bob

Who said anything about posting false information "about Sprint"?

Your own words:

"Phillippe has been posting false and misleading information for quite some
time now ..."

You said nothing about Sprint. I said nothing about Sprint. Sorry, I'm not
going to let you twist out of this one.

Justin: Just remember, Bob Smith can't so 81 = 3 in his memory.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:0%[email protected]...
> >
> > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > <snipped>
> > > So has Rob, and so have you. Get over it.
> >
> > When & where have I posted false information about SPCS?
> >
> > Bob
>
> Who said anything about posting false information "about Sprint"?
>
> Your own words:
>
> "Phillippe has been posting false and misleading information for quite some
> time now ..."


Smith must consider the JD Power study false and misleading.
>
> You said nothing about Sprint. I said nothing about Sprint. Sorry, I'm not
> going to let you twist out of this one.