No Rebate $30/300 Minutes

So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.

---

› See More: No Rebate $30/300 Minutes

"Frank Graves" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:140620041731441699%[email protected]...
> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
> just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
> my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
> guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.


SPCS is already subsidizing some of the cost of the phones, before any
rebate, so they lose money when a phone is sold for list price. Add the
rebate, and they are further in the hole. You are not generating much if any
revenue for the company, as it takes a lot of time to recap the subsidy on
the phone and rebate on the monthly service fees, if it's taken.

If you want a $150 rebate, boost your plan by $5, & go with the F & F plan.
You will have to sign up for two more years, but if the service works well
for you, then it's no big deal, and you will still be up $30 after two
years.

Bob

"Frank Graves" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:140620041731441699%[email protected]...
> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
> just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
> my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
> guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.

No, you don't matter.. I pay $155/mo before taxes
for the last 4 years and I don't matter either..

"TheDoc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank Graves" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:140620041731441699%[email protected]...
> > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
> > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
> > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
> > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.
>
> No, you don't matter.. I pay $155/mo before taxes
> for the last 4 years and I don't matter either..

How old is your phone Doc? Has the same phone number been on that phone for
18 months or more?

http://pcshandsetupgrade.sprint.com/

Bob

Frank Graves wrote:
> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
> just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
> my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
> guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.

It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on you. We
provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and step up a few
times from there. Added service options, more minutes, stuff like that.
We're certainly not to going to take it away from you. But we're also
certain to use the upgrade program as an enticement to utilize more of our
services.

Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really the
truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar restrictions.

You have a great deal. I was paying $40 for 300 min. Now I am
paying $40 for 400, but we did not need when I changed and do not need
now the extra 100 minutes. I just thought it would be best to take it
when it was offered. Currently we could get $40 for 500 minutes, but it
would entail a contract on both the primary phone and the Add-A-Phone.
Since in the near future we have the possibility of not needing the
Add-A-Phone, it would be better to wait.

Frank Graves wrote:
> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
> just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
> my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
> guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.

In article <[email protected]>,
Jerome Zelinske <[email protected]> wrote:

> You have a great deal. I was paying $40 for 300 min. Now I am
> paying $40 for 400, but we did not need when I changed and do not need
> now the extra 100 minutes. I just thought it would be best to take it
> when it was offered. Currently we could get $40 for 500 minutes, but it
> would entail a contract on both the primary phone and the Add-A-Phone.
> Since in the near future we have the possibility of not needing the
> Add-A-Phone, it would be better to wait.
>
> Frank Graves wrote:
> > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
> > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
> > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
> > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.

Retention is giving the $40 / 750 Minute plan.

"O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
> Frank Graves wrote:
> > So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
> > just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
> > my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
> > guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.
>
> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on you. We
> provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and step up a few
> times from there. Added service options, more minutes, stuff like that.
> We're certainly not to going to take it away from you. But we're also
> certain to use the upgrade program as an enticement to utilize more of our
> services.
>
> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really the
> truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar restrictions.

No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
*grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
scheme which initiated the $30 plan---

If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
is virtually nothing.

As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
$30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
not be accurate to do.

And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans

You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.

If you expense in network improvements, R&D on new phones, added services,
etc, that number goes even higher (although I have no figures on how high).

Later, after that, you state, "If the $30/300 was/is a
loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of these
customers, then the additional profit from these customers should offset
some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't grow; this logically
should have been a part of the orginal grand scheme which initiated the $30
plan---"

That's not necessarily a contradiction, but I *do* think it's an
incompatible attitude. No company treats a customer as part of a group when
it suits the customer, and as an individual when it suits the customer. We
deal with them as a group, or we deal with each as an individual. That's
not just Sprint. Or Cellular Industry. That's true across virtually every
company out there.

Except for corporate-paid services, we deal individually with each customer
(albeit sometimes badly, I admit). And this program is an individual
offering that I'm not ashamed to admit carries with it a prerequisite that
wants to make you even more of a customer of SPCS. It doesn't matter that
customer B,C,D, and X offset the loss from Customer L. Customer L is still
not in a profitable relationship with us. If he/she is willing to establish
that profitable relationship, then by gum we've got some terrific options
for him/her.

Personally, I have to wonder what kind of customer that can't or won't
afford another $5/month can or will afford $200 up front for a new phone.
Irrelevant to this topic, but I wonder nonetheless.


plane wrote:
> "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
> news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
>> Frank Graves wrote:
>>> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a
>>> rebate just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was
>>> sufficient for my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on
>>> 16 months but I guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a
>>> company.
>>
>> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on
>> you. We provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and
>> step up a few times from there. Added service options, more
>> minutes, stuff like that. We're certainly not to going to take it
>> away from you. But we're also certain to use the upgrade program as
>> an enticement to utilize more of our services.
>>
>> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really
>> the truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar
>> restrictions.
>
> No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
> some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
> fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
> ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
> can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
> v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
> loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
> these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
> should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
> *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
> scheme which initiated the $30 plan---
>
> If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
> to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
> customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
> that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
> virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
> providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
> computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
> is virtually nothing.
>
> As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
> even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
> customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
> $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
> of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
> not be accurate to do.
>
> And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
> cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
> mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
> hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
> in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
> their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
> bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
> include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans

"O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
> You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
> SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
> It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
> average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.
>
> If you expense in network improvements, R&D on new phones, added services,
> etc, that number goes even higher (although I have no figures on how high).
>
> Later, after that, you state, "If the $30/300 was/is a
> loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of these
> customers, then the additional profit from these customers should offset
> some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't grow; this logically
> should have been a part of the orginal grand scheme which initiated the $30
> plan---"
>
> That's not necessarily a contradiction, but I *do* think it's an
> incompatible attitude. No company treats a customer as part of a group when
> it suits the customer, and as an individual when it suits the customer. We
> deal with them as a group, or we deal with each as an individual. That's
> not just Sprint. Or Cellular Industry. That's true across virtually every
> company out there.
>
> Except for corporate-paid services, we deal individually with each customer
> (albeit sometimes badly, I admit). And this program is an individual
> offering that I'm not ashamed to admit carries with it a prerequisite that
> wants to make you even more of a customer of SPCS. It doesn't matter that
> customer B,C,D, and X offset the loss from Customer L. Customer L is still
> not in a profitable relationship with us. If he/she is willing to establish
> that profitable relationship, then by gum we've got some terrific options
> for him/her.
>
> Personally, I have to wonder what kind of customer that can't or won't
> afford another $5/month can or will afford $200 up front for a new phone.
> Irrelevant to this topic, but I wonder nonetheless.
>
> Good points.

thanks
> plane wrote:
> > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
> > news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
> >> Frank Graves wrote:
> >>> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a
> >>> rebate just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was
> >>> sufficient for my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on
> >>> 16 months but I guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a
> >>> company.
> >>
> >> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on
> >> you. We provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and
> >> step up a few times from there. Added service options, more
> >> minutes, stuff like that. We're certainly not to going to take it
> >> away from you. But we're also certain to use the upgrade program as
> >> an enticement to utilize more of our services.
> >>
> >> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really
> >> the truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar
> >> restrictions.
> >
> > No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
> > some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
> > fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
> > ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
> > can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
> > v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
> > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
> > these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
> > should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
> > *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
> > scheme which initiated the $30 plan---
> >
> > If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
> > to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
> > customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
> > that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
> > virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
> > providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
> > computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
> > is virtually nothing.
> >
> > As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
> > even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
> > customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
> > $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
> > of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
> > not be accurate to do.
> >
> > And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
> > cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
> > mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
> > hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
> > in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
> > their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
> > bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
> > include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans

"O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
> You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
> SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
> It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
> average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.
>
> If you expense in network improvements, R&D on new phones, added services,
> etc, that number goes even higher (although I have no figures on how high).
>
> Later, after that, you state, "If the $30/300 was/is a
> loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of these
> customers, then the additional profit from these customers should offset
> some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't grow; this logically
> should have been a part of the orginal grand scheme which initiated the $30
> plan---"
>
> That's not necessarily a contradiction, but I *do* think it's an
> incompatible attitude. No company treats a customer as part of a group when
> it suits the customer, and as an individual when it suits the customer. We
> deal with them as a group, or we deal with each as an individual. That's
> not just Sprint. Or Cellular Industry. That's true across virtually every
> company out there.
>
> Except for corporate-paid services, we deal individually with each customer
> (albeit sometimes badly, I admit). And this program is an individual
> offering that I'm not ashamed to admit carries with it a prerequisite that
> wants to make you even more of a customer of SPCS. It doesn't matter that
> customer B,C,D, and X offset the loss from Customer L. Customer L is still
> not in a profitable relationship with us. If he/she is willing to establish
> that profitable relationship, then by gum we've got some terrific options
> for him/her.
>
> Personally, I have to wonder what kind of customer that can't or won't
> afford another $5/month can or will afford $200 up front for a new phone.
> Irrelevant to this topic, but I wonder nonetheless.
>
> Good points.

thanks
> plane wrote:
> > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
> > news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
> >> Frank Graves wrote:
> >>> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a
> >>> rebate just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was
> >>> sufficient for my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on
> >>> 16 months but I guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a
> >>> company.
> >>
> >> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on
> >> you. We provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and
> >> step up a few times from there. Added service options, more
> >> minutes, stuff like that. We're certainly not to going to take it
> >> away from you. But we're also certain to use the upgrade program as
> >> an enticement to utilize more of our services.
> >>
> >> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really
> >> the truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar
> >> restrictions.
> >
> > No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
> > some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
> > fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
> > ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
> > can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
> > v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
> > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
> > these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
> > should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
> > *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
> > scheme which initiated the $30 plan---
> >
> > If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
> > to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
> > customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
> > that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
> > virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
> > providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
> > computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
> > is virtually nothing.
> >
> > As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
> > even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
> > customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
> > $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
> > of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
> > not be accurate to do.
> >
> > And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
> > cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
> > mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
> > hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
> > in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
> > their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
> > bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
> > include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans

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

> "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
> news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
> > You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
> > SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
> > It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
> > average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.

Average customer. There's the sticking point.




> >
> > If you expense in network improvements, R&D on new phones, added services,
> > etc, that number goes even higher (although I have no figures on how high).
> >
> > Later, after that, you state, "If the $30/300 was/is a
> > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of these
> > customers, then the additional profit from these customers should offset
> > some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't grow; this logically
> > should have been a part of the orginal grand scheme which initiated the $30
> > plan---"
> >
> > That's not necessarily a contradiction, but I *do* think it's an
> > incompatible attitude. No company treats a customer as part of a group
> > when
> > it suits the customer, and as an individual when it suits the customer. We
> > deal with them as a group, or we deal with each as an individual. That's
> > not just Sprint. Or Cellular Industry. That's true across virtually every
> > company out there.
> >
> > Except for corporate-paid services, we deal individually with each customer
> > (albeit sometimes badly, I admit). And this program is an individual
> > offering that I'm not ashamed to admit carries with it a prerequisite that
> > wants to make you even more of a customer of SPCS. It doesn't matter that
> > customer B,C,D, and X offset the loss from Customer L. Customer L is still
> > not in a profitable relationship with us. If he/she is willing to
> > establish
> > that profitable relationship, then by gum we've got some terrific options
> > for him/her.
> >
> > Personally, I have to wonder what kind of customer that can't or won't
> > afford another $5/month can or will afford $200 up front for a new phone.
> > Irrelevant to this topic, but I wonder nonetheless.
> >
> > Good points.
>
> thanks
> > plane wrote:
> > > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
> > > news:<thyzc.108177$Ly.65424@attbi_s01>...
> > >> Frank Graves wrote:
> > >>> So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a
> > >>> rebate just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was
> > >>> sufficient for my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on
> > >>> 16 months but I guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a
> > >>> company.
> > >>
> > >> It's not that you don't matter. It's that we're losing money on
> > >> you. We provide that plan hoping you'll "grow" into the service and
> > >> step up a few times from there. Added service options, more
> > >> minutes, stuff like that. We're certainly not to going to take it
> > >> away from you. But we're also certain to use the upgrade program as
> > >> an enticement to utilize more of our services.
> > >>
> > >> Fact of life, man. I hate sounding that cavalier, but that's really
> > >> the truth. As I understand it, every national carrier has similar
> > >> restrictions.
> > >
> > > No disrespect to you, but my guess is that the company *is* making
> > > some profit from the $30 plans. what you are describing is one of the
> > > fairy tale's of the cost/accounting department. There are so many
> > > ways to figure cost and allocate expenses, that a creative accountant
> > > can prove or disprove a loss or a profit usually as directed by some
> > > v/p who want to make or disprove a program. If the $30/300 was/is a
> > > loss leader as you mention, and it has lead to "growth" in some of
> > > these customers, then the additional profit from these customers
> > > should offset some of the losses generated by the ones who didn't
> > > *grow*; this logically should have been a part of the orginal grand
> > > scheme which initiated the $30 plan---
> > >
> > > If they are truly losing $ on the $30, plan it would the simplest way
> > > to decrease the loss/increase the profit be just to terminate the $30
> > > customers, if they can't be forced to *grow*. Also, don't I read here
> > > that there are non published plans for even less than $30 with
> > > virtually no minutes. What is the true acutual out of pocket cost of
> > > providing a cell account---virtually everything is handled by a
> > > computer, and the product is just a radio wave. So out of pocket cost
> > > is virtually nothing.
> > >
> > > As an example big money losers, has the vision thing ever broke
> > > even--I haven't seen anything on it lately, but at one time the % of
> > > customers with the vision option was very tiny---Since vision and the
> > > $30 plans were introduced at about the same time frame, I'll bet some
> > > of those costs were tacked onto these $30 accounts---which may or may
> > > not be accurate to do.
> > >
> > > And even though a sanyo 5500 may list for ~~$300, I bet the actual
> > > cost to sprint is closer to $50----they are made in china---again
> > > mostly by machines and cheap labor----again only my guess, but the
> > > hugh salaries of the execs (who thought up these *money losing* plans
> > > in the first place)(and are now asking for more $$ as a reward for
> > > their previous poor decisions) probably are a bigger drag on the
> > > bottom line than any of the other components.--oh and we have also
> > > include these salaries onto the losses for the $30 plans

"R?bert M." <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (plane) wrote:
>
>> "O/Siris" <0siris@spr?ntpcs.c?m> wrote in message
>> news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
>> > You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege that
>> > SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price level.
>> > It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer Care,
>> > average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.
>
> Average customer. There's the sticking point.

<sarcasm>
You're absolutely right. Sprint PCS has no right to make any money off
their customers.
</sarcasm>

--
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.

"Røbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (plane) wrote:
>
> > "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.cØm> wrote in message
> > news:<rtdAc.123315$Ly.42527@attbi_s01>...
> > > You seem to have misunderstood something I said. First, you allege
that
> > > SPCS does, in fact, make a profit off of a customer at the $30 price
level.
> > > It costs, for an average customer (average # of calls to Customer
Care,
> > > average usage, etc), $33/month just to keep that customer as is.
>
> Average customer. There's the sticking point.

Absolutely ... totally incorrect, again Phillipe! ... That's the bottom line
phone plan ... and you say it's the average customer? Seems to yours truly
that to be average, it has to be between the lowest and highest plan ...

Bob

Originally posted by Frank Graves
So as I understand it Sprint has decided that I don't deserve a rebate
just because I decided that the $30/300 minute plan was sufficient for
my needs. I've always paid my bill on time going on 16 months but I
guess that doesn't matter right? Great way to run a company.

I'm also in the same boat. I have the $30/300 minute plan and have had my current phone for 17 months now. I guess I can't qualify (even though I also have two other phones on my account and a monthly bill of over $150/mo). *rolling eyes*