KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Same excuse....
I've heard this excuse before. Back in the day at&t claimed it was "impossible" to get dry DSL because "the billing system had no way of tracking you without a POTS number."
Fine, fix it then, or don't bill me anything. 
Look, we're not idiots. They can do anything they *want* to do and consider a priority...... anything they don't really want to do, and are forced to do for consumer benefit, well, they'll make excuses, drag feet, and generally cry and gnash teeth.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS
·Sunflower Broadband
·Comcast
1 edit | Who cares?
Sprint is a has-been of a company. It's only a matter of time before they either fold or get sold in parts to their competitors... then it won't matter what their ETF policies are.
Edit: Just looked it up: Sprint, once worth $74+/share is now worth ~$3.64/share having posted losses in 2006, 2007, and the most recent quarter. That's a hell of a company right there. |
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by mlundin  :Sprint is a has-been of a company. It's only a matter of time before they either fold or get sold in parts. They won't fold as they are a massive company that would be big enough to come out of Chapt 11, which they are nowhere near. But there is a huge chance they'll get sold off in parts as it is already happening...
Sprint Local - split off separately as Embarq
Sprint Xohm - to split off with Clearwire (though 51% owned by Sprint)
Sprint LDX - to be sold ATT or maybe MajicJack (hah)
Nextel - to be sold to current Alltel holding company after Verizon merger?
SprintPCS - to be sold to T-Mobile parent or SK Telcom?
Sprint backbone - to be sold to Level 3 or PSINet?
If Sprint doesn't completely sell these divisions to others, I could see divisions partially merging with others where Sprint is a part or majority owner and they become simply a holding company themselves.
They aren't a has-been company though. They still have over 50 million customers. Their revenue is greater than Apple, Coca-Cola, Disney, etc. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to mlundin
said by mlundin :Sprint is a has-been of a company. It's only a matter of time before they either fold or get sold in parts to their competitors... then it won't matter what their ETF policies are. Edit: Just looked it up: Sprint, once worth $74+/share is now worth ~$3.64/share having posted losses in 2006, 2007, and the most recent quarter. That's a hell of a company right there. Sprint rocks!
»www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/new···1960585/
They offer the best packages and if you live in an area with excellent coverage and don't travel abroad, it's great.
Don't think of their low stock value as anything other than a bargain for prospective buyers. I think they are turning things around, I really do.
Besides, I just started a 2-year plan with my BlackBerry, they better not evaporate.  |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to KrK
Re: Same excuse....
Most companies end up making excuses for changes, as they don't have staff to implement them. With many mega corps doing hack/slash layoffs, its skeleton crew doing maintenance work.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS
·Sunflower Broadband
·Comcast
| reply to xenophon
Re: Who cares?
You're right about the revenue, but who cares if it doesn't result in profit? Apple, Coca-Cola, Disney? They all made money last year. Sprint didn't. 50 million customers? Yes, but losing more than they're gaining every day. Losing customers and money with no end in sight is the sign of a dying company. With a market capitalization of 10 billion, you're right, they probably won't fold... but you won't see their name around for long either. |
|
Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05
·Embarq
| reply to mlundin
Sprint is turning things around. The CS is much better. The past 2 times I have used CS they have been great. I expected a hard time to get the old SERO plan added back to a line, but I had no problem. I just renewed my contract with the LG Lotus. You can't beat the coverage b/c of the roaming agreements with Verizon/ US cellular/ and Alltel. |
|
Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA | reply to KrK
Re: Same excuse....
The best excuse I saw was the line can't handle dry DSL and that it would wreak havoc on the copper |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to mlundin
Re: Who cares?
Profit is not the only factor that indicates success. There are plenty of reasons why immediate profit is not warranted as a sole indicator of how a company is doing or if improvements are being made. If you buy your competitor, for instance, the numbers might be in the red for a few quarters, but that would not tell the whole story. While it does not look cheery right now for Sprint, I see them turning the corner and I am another happy customer. If they are spending what money they do have in the right places, which it seems like they are, it's quite possible that they could right this ship. |
|
George_Still
join:2002-03-13
Harrisburg, PA | 50 Million Customers
How many of the 50 million have no other options? I know the reason some their customers are with Sprint due to no other options. |
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17 | reply to Tarheels Fan
Re: Who cares?
Just today, Sprint honored with 'tremendous progress in customer service'.
»www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/new···1960585/ |
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to mlundin
said by mlundin :You're right about the revenue, but who cares if it doesn't result in profit? Apple, Coca-Cola, Disney? They all made money last year. Sprint didn't. Neither have any of the car companies, are they hasbeen companies? Probably not. Sprint is nowhere near Chapt 11 and one thing for sure, the network won't just shutoff. It would be sold before that happens.
Large companies don't fold but could morph into something else, which is my point.
I suspect they'll at least stabilize by next year or so and show a profit again. The Nextel division could be sold by then, making them a smaller (but still large) F200 company with promise while solving the source of their drainage problems.
The CDMA side is growing, not shrinking. Xohm will be separate, funded by other parties as well, reducing the risk. Sprint's Internet backbone is the second largest in terms of connections. |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS
·Sunflower Broadband
·Comcast
| reply to jmn1207
"Profit is not the only factor that indicates success."
I beg to differ. At exactly what point do we consider sustained quarterly losses in excess of $100 million a success? Profit is the ONLY factor that indicates success. If you can't turn a profit, you won't be in business for long. |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS
·Sunflower Broadband
·Comcast
| reply to xenophon
"Neither have any of the car companies, are they hasbeen companies?"
Some of 'em, yea. If you think that a ginormus company can't fold in a matter of days, you don't have to look too far to be proven wrong: Bear Stearns? Enron? Granted, these were epic collapses related to gross negligence and mismanagement, but no one ever thought Studebaker, once a Down Jones Industrial Average component, would fold either... then one day it just disappeared. Companies can just disappear, doesn't matter how big they are. In Sprint's case, there is substantial infrastructure that would certainly be valuable to someone, but they're a disaster waiting to happen. Size does not make a company invincible. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Jonbo298
Re: Same excuse....
I've heard that one... 'the copper will oxidize' (Bell Canada I think ) unless the circuit is energized.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to xenophon
Re: Who cares?
Definitely a noteworthy metric for a company that's had a reputation for the bottom end of billing and customer service. A step in the right direction, IMO
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to mlundin
said by mlundin :Profit is the ONLY factor that indicates success. If you can't turn a profit, you won't be in business for long. That is just not true unless you happen to be as short-sighted as the previous CEO's of many failing businesses. Sprint is losing money, but rather than have some pathetic knee-jerk reaction and fire middle management and "trim the fat" to turn piddly salaries into temporary revenue, they are actually spending money on things that seem to be helpful in the long run. A complete resurrection is not just going to happen by magic, Sprint needs to make some drastic changes. It looks as though they are doing just that, and what little information we can publicly find seems to indicate that at least they are making better decisions with their money than the competition.
Your idea of profit being the ONLY factor indicating success is EXACTLY what caused Sprint to be in the situation they are seemingly correcting. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| reply to en102
said by en102 :Definitely a noteworthy metric for a company that's had a reputation for the bottom end of billing and customer service. A step in the right direction, IMO How quick people forget. There was a time when AT&T was at the bottom of the pile. VZ/VZW.. OMG.. I just don't get it. Lots of people I talk to cry and moan about how much they cost, bad customer service.. but refuse to go anywhere else. I think those magic pills they feed their customers work really well..  |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Fair Pro-Rated EFTs
In my opinion, if I am offered the same phone on a "month-to-month no contract but pay for the phone" basis or one where I must sign a 1 or 2 year contact with an EFT but with the phone at a subsidized price, the EFT should reflect the amount of the subsidy and be reduced based on the term of the contract so that the subsidy is paid off as the the contact runs.
IOW (to use simple numbers) if the difference in cost for the phone (ie: The subsidy) is $240 less than a outright purchase with a 2-year contract then the EFT should be $240 and be reduced by $10 for each month that I use the phone. Since after 24 months I own the phone, the un-repaid subsidy with 2 months to go is just $20. Any attempt to start the EFT at more than the subsidy or have the EFT shrink slower than the subsidy is repaid is a rip-off. The SUPPOSED reason for the EFT is to repay the CellCO for the subsidizing the cost of the phone over the term of the contract so this method is fair to both sides.
If someone disagrees, please explain why and what is a fairer method. |
|
sprintspeed
@comcast.net
| reply to KrK
Re: Same excuse....
We just got training on this the other day. The prorated ETF's are to start with the new scheduled release of Ensemble (billing system) by Nov 9th. This only applies to new contracts, so new activations or contracts renewed prior will not have prorated ETF's. |
|
