| John Navas 2006-08-02, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:44:30 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
wrote in < kqa1d29hq8u4frr3qor6
c3pksnkbin2f9q@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:23:26 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Actually, what I was questioning was your assertion that gross adds
>are contrary to churn. I know gross adds are *related* to churn; what
>I want to know is how gross adds are *contrary* to churn? Was it a
>simple misstatement on your part? Perhaps I'm being too picky.
For a given increase in customer base (net additions), more churn would
mean more gross additions, and vice versa. It's a bit nebulous because
there aren't absolute standards for things like churn and gross
additions -- different carriers have different methodology, and may even
change methodology from time to time. A carrier that wants to emphasize
gross additions (at the expense of churn) might use a different
methodology than one that wants to emphasize low churn. Since precise
methodology isn't being disclosed, there's no way for us to know. This
is why comparisons between carriers aren't necessarily valid.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|