Cingular cell phone service - Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

Author

Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:51:04 -0700, Tinman <ask@for.it> wrote in
<58citlF2g6ps9U1@mid.individual.net>:

>Had MP3s not been perceived as "free" they would never have taken
>off--and it's doubtful iTunes would have either.

Agree,

>And I'm not convinced
>managing DRM'd music on a PC is that much more convenient than buying an
>actual CD, if at all.

From experience I'd much rather manage my music with iTunes (lossless
compression) than with actual CDs -- much, much more flexible and
convenient.

>
>VHS was not really a successor to Beta--most people bought Beta and it
>won the (home) video tape format war. ...

Say what?

>
>Again, quality has generally moved forward. Vinyl was better than wax
>cylinders, 33 RPM was better than 78, CDs better than vinyl.

CDs offer freedom from surface noise and mechanical wear, but vinyl is
capable of higher quality audio than CD.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 15:40:38 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <evrqna$mu6$2@aioe.org>:

>At 14 Apr 2007 11:25:58 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
>
>I'm not really buying that. In _theory_ you had "full frequency
>response" on an LP. In practise, mechanical noise transmission from the
>turntable motor made low-end reproduction inaccurate, S/N ratio (and
>physical debris!) could effect the high-end, except on, perhaps, the most
>expensive of systems. CDs lopped off nothing that 98% of human beings
>could hear anyway, and brought real hi-fi to the masses at an inexpensive
>price for the first time.

At the time, an Empire turntable and Shure cartridge costing about $300
outperformed CD players costing as much or more. The market was willing
to pay more for more convenience and durability with "good enough"
quality.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:23:37 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-36E257.11233714042007@news.giganews.com>:

>In article <58cbu1F2gl859U1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
>wrote:

>
>You have it in AIFF on CD. It's still only as good as the original
>encode. Apple's AAC is not bad, though .

Apple Lossless is better.

>I was hoping that DVD audio would do better. 4 times the info on a CD
>with the chance to get almost the entire frequency range encoded.
>
>Audiophiles seem to be a dying breed.

DVD audio has the potential to be better, but the market just wasn't
there.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:21:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46218c36$0$27181$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Tinman wrote:
>
>
>There are other workarounds to the Apple DRM that don't result in a loss
>in fidelity.

There's _no_ way to avoid the loss of quality from 128 kbps AAC
encoding.

>Apple couldn't care less, all they care about is selling music. It's the
>record companies that are insisting on DRM.

Apple actually cares about selling iPods -- there's no real profit in
the iTunes Music store.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:01:29 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-CD9E4D.09012915042007@news.giganews.com>:

>In article <58euf3F2gpm9uU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
>wrote:

>
>Only if the MP3 was poorly encoded from the start - and so many of them
>are.
>You cannot tell the difference in a iTunes Mp4 burned to disk and then
>brought back in as AAC.

iTunes format _is_ AAC.

I _can_ tell the difference between original CD and 128 kbps AAC
encoding. If you can't, then your equipment isn't all that good.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:22:56 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46225f6f$0$27171$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Tinman wrote:
>
>
>I'm not sure what all the reasons are is for the falling iTunes volume
>(in relation to the number of iPods) but part of it is certainly due to
>the DRM. That's why Job's is pushing for the abandonment of it.

It's probably due to lack of demand for the same old stuff over and
over. The real problem for the music industry is lack of compelling new
music.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:54:53 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 462258dc$0$27237$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Tinman wrote:
>
>Use dBpoweramp Music Converter. It isn't lossless, but in terms of a
>standard MP3 which isn't of such great quality anyway, it'll be fine.

The loss in quality from a second round of lossy encoding is inevitable
no matter what converter is used.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Larry

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:5kk523t2i9kurnd
qtlah5qn7nkm8jdj0ni@
4ax.com:

>
> Since when?
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
>
>

The disconnected users say:
http://www.evdoforums.com/thread2366.html

The nasty part of Verizon's actual AUP says:

"UNLIMITED DATA PLANS AND FEATURES
Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess,
BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY be
used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet
browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to
corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like
customer relationship management, sales force, and field service
automation). The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for
any other purpose. Examples of prohibited uses include, without
limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading or
streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server devices or
host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera
posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine–to–machine
connections or peer–to–peer (P2P) file sharing; or (iii) as a substitute
or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. This means, by
way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet,
downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets
is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services
and/or redirecting television signals for viewing on laptops is
prohibited. A person engaged in prohibited uses, continuously for one
hour, could typically use 100 to 200 MBs, or, if engaged in prohibited
uses for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GBs in a
month.

For individual use only and not for resale. We reserve the right to
protect our network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. We
reserve the right to limit throughput or amount of data transferred, and
to deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is
using an Unlimited Data Plan or Feature in any manner prohibited above or
whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Anyone using
more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the
service in a manner prohibited above, and we reserve the right to
immediately terminate the service of any such person without notice. We
also reserve the right to terminate service upon expiration of Customer
Agreement term"

And, it looks like it's being enforced from what I read from the
users....at least the individual users. Big corporate users are probably
exempted. Verizon is stupid, but not THAT stupid to lose big money
accounts.

This isn't new. The limit is new. It WAS 10GB/month but has been
dropped 50% to 5GB/month. Cellular has never quite gotten over selling
data by the kilobyte, ya know...(c;

Larry
--

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:15:03 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<58f52gF2gsg2hU1@mid.individual.net>:

>"SMS" wrote:
>
>Standard MP3 can be great, if done properly. But it can't be done properly
>(for me) if the source was already lossy compressed. Ergo I won't be needing
>to convert anything from iTunes till DRM is gone (or I can buy lossless
>compressed music and burn that to CD, or otherwise remove its DRM).

"Great"MP3 needs sufficient bitrate, at least 192 kbps, preferably with
ABR (rather than CBR) encoding.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:26:53 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4622605b$0$27171$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Tinman wrote:
>
>What's the difference if the M4P has DRM? It's easily changed into a
>non-DRM M4P. It sounds as if you want iTunes to be selling a format
>other than M4P, regardless of the DRM. I doubt if they'll do that even
>when DRM goes away.

The difference is that AAC (not M4P) isn't playable on most hardware,
whereas MP3 is supported on quite a bit of hardware.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:14:50 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<58fc33F2h0790U1@mid.individual.net>:

>It's not like I am trying to buy food or some other must-have product. The
>biggest enemy the record companies have is apathy. If it ain't attractive
>enough, convenient enough, and affordable enough I just won't care (or two
>out of three).

The biggest enemy is themselves and lack of compelling new music. They
have fallen into the bad habit of trying to recycle the same old stuff
over and over.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Larry

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:nkn923llegh1o2k
av19bii9lihq31s83a9@
4ax.com:

> I'd put it about halfway between the painful experience of 1X and the
> decent experience of wired broadband, clearly inferior to Skype over
> wired broadband and to cellular; i.e, usable, but nothing to write home
> about, which is why I don't think it would be a viable commercial
> offering for general consumption.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
>
>

I don't see any difference in using Skype on a Verizon EVDO Aircard
actually on EVDO and using it on a cable modem/wifi router with the same
laptop. Maybe there's some kind of priority on this particular aircard
because the aircard belongs to a huge international construction company
who's Verizon bill must be +$100K/month. That might buy them better
prioritizing for their aircards....??

Larry
--

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:38:46 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <f01mrp$tlf$2@aioe.org>:

>At 16 Apr 2007 21:57:34 -0500 Scott wrote:
>
>
>
>But, to be fair, none of those categories are a significant number
>compared to those who simply cancelled service and moved on. I doubt any
>of the categories you mentioned (or even all of them in aggregate) would
>move the churn percentage a tenth of a point.

Such factors can actually make a very big difference. Case in point is
long a new subscriber has to be with a carrier before being counted in
churn statistics -- excluding at least the first 30 days has a big
effect on the number.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:41:14 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
< Xns99159FE51A13Fnoon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:5kk523t2i9kurnd
qtlah5qn7nkm8jdj0ni@
4ax.com:
>
[color=darkred]
>[SNIP]
>This isn't new. The limit is new. It WAS 10GB/month but has been
>dropped 50% to 5GB/month. ...

"A movie" compressed with MPEG4 is about 700 MB, far below 5000 MB.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:44:48 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
< Xns9915A0807C06Fnoon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:nkn923llegh1o2k
av19bii9lihq31s83a9@
4ax.com:
>
[color=darkred]
>I don't see any difference in using Skype on a Verizon EVDO Aircard
>actually on EVDO and using it on a cable modem/wifi router with the same
>laptop. ...

I do.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Dennis Ferguson

2007-04-17, 3:33 pm

On 2007-04-17, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:58:16 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>
> I'd put it about halfway between the painful experience of 1X and the
> decent experience of wired broadband, clearly inferior to Skype over
> wired broadband and to cellular; i.e, usable, but nothing to write home
> about, which is why I don't think it would be a viable commercial
> offering for general consumption.

?? Skype comes pre-installed on some Nokia phones from several UK
carriers, e.g.

http://www.three.co.uk/xseries/get_x_series/index.omp

They seem to find it perfectly viable to offer it for general
consumption. It sounds pretty fine to me, too.

Dennis Ferguson

Steven J. Sobol

2007-04-17, 10:33 pm

In article < Xns99159FE51A13Fnoon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>, Larry wrote:

> The disconnected users say:
> http://www.evdoforums.com/thread2366.html
>
>
> The nasty part of Verizon's actual AUP says:

Their network, their rules. If they want to limit you to port 80
access to a half-dozen websites, and they say they'll do so in their
contract, they can (although that would be STUPID). The problems: the
original poster on the EVDOForums was given incorrect info or outright
lied to, and VZW can't explain exactly what was done that violated the
Terms of Service, and as the OP said, you can't necessarily assume a
specific type of traffic based on the TCP or UDP port being accessed.

The AUP was not the problem, the lack of clear enforcement was. But
that was still a horrible situation that didn't have to happen.

--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

Todd Allcock

2007-04-17, 10:33 pm

At 17 Apr 2007 19:10:05 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> The iTunes Store is in fact only marginally profitable (and thus a
> margin negative), as confirmed by authoritative citations I've posted
> here.

All of which predated Apple's 2005 Q4 report, IIRC.

Again, I don't disagree with your argument or it's conclusions- just the
credibility of it's
outdated "evidence."

Scott

2007-04-17, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:f01mrp$tlf$2
@aioe.org:

> At 16 Apr 2007 21:57:34 -0500 Scott wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> But, to be fair, none of those categories are a significant number
> compared to those who simply cancelled service and moved on. I doubt any
> of the categories you mentioned (or even all of them in aggregate) would
> move the churn percentage a tenth of a point.
>
>
>

Actually, three of those mentioned can have a huge impact- no-pay cutomers,
fraudulent activations and customers bailing before 30 days can represent a
good portion of total deactivations

Paul Miner

2007-04-17, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:49:57 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:41:14 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>< Xns99159FE51A13Fnoon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>
>
>
>"A movie" compressed with MPEG4 is about 700 MB, far below 5000 MB.

And "a movie" compressed with standard MPEG2 can be 8500 MB, far above
5000 MB. HDTV and the new DVD formats can be much bigger still.

--
Paul Miner

Larry

2007-04-17, 10:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:a49a23pv2774hph
tg641ag2m988mt9c4rs@
4ax.com:

>
> "A movie" compressed with MPEG4 is about 700 MB, far below 5000 MB.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
>

I view this nonsense just like Comcrap Cable's 2GB/month Usenet
limit...without some hacking involving multiple email addresses....

Sure, you can watch a couple of movies and NOTHING ELSE ALL MONTH. What
stupidity is that? On Comcrap, you get one Divx movie per month then 30
days, 23 hours, 42minutes, 8 seconds of DEAD TIME. How stupid.

Why would anyone pay for something that only works a few hours a month?

Larry
--

Larry

2007-04-17, 10:33 pm

Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:slrnf2aan9.7i.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com:

> ?? Skype comes pre-installed on some Nokia phones from several UK
> carriers, e.g.
>
> http://www.three.co.uk/xseries/get_x_series/index.omp
>
> They seem to find it perfectly viable to offer it for general
> consumption. It sounds pretty fine to me, too.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
>
>

Geez, Dennis! You're gonna give some Verizon hack a heart attack!
Unlimited Skype on a cellphone....That's like finding out the Archbishop
has a teenager!....(c;

You got to break this news to them GENTLY, mate!

Larry
--

Scott

2007-04-17, 10:33 pm

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9915DE3D912B
8noonehomecom@
208.49.80.253:

> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:a49a23pv2774hph
tg641ag2m988mt9c4rs@
4ax.com:
>
>
> I view this nonsense just like Comcrap Cable's 2GB/month Usenet
> limit...without some hacking involving multiple email addresses....
>
> Sure, you can watch a couple of movies and NOTHING ELSE ALL MONTH. What
> stupidity is that? On Comcrap, you get one Divx movie per month then 30
> days, 23 hours, 42minutes, 8 seconds of DEAD TIME. How stupid.
>
> Why would anyone pay for something that only works a few hours a month?
>
> Larry

Gee, Larry- mine works all month long.

John Navas

2007-04-18, 10:33 am

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:15:38 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnf2aan9.7i.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:

>On 2007-04-17, John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>?? Skype comes pre-installed on some Nokia phones from several UK
>carriers, e.g.
>
> http://www.three.co.uk/xseries/get_x_series/index.omp
>
>They seem to find it perfectly viable to offer it for general
>consumption. It sounds pretty fine to me, too.

I was referring to voice over WiMAX.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-18, 10:33 am

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:02:05 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <f03jn8$qit$3@aioe.org>:

>At 17 Apr 2007 19:10:05 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>All of which predated Apple's 2005 Q4 report, IIRC.
>
>Again, I don't disagree with your argument or it's conclusions- just the
>credibility of it's
>outdated "evidence."

Hardly outdated when all available evidence is consistent.

As my late father used to say, "There are none so blind as those that
will not see."

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-18, 12:33 pm

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:31:10 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4622372c$0$27156$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>
>Nope, all four numbers are postpaid churn. The analysts now insist that
>the carriers provide churn numbers that comply to the same standard.
>Most now provide both total churn (combined wholesale/retail/prepaid)
>and retail churn. ...

There nonetheless differences in how the churn numbers are calculated,
as I've explained in prior posts.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-18, 12:33 pm

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:59:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4622a055$0$27241$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>
>No it isn't. The financial analysts have really read the riot act to the
>carriers in terms of reporting of financial results, of which churn is
>always a part.

They've bitched a bit, but without much effect -- there is no rigid
formula that all carriers must use, and there is still considerable
"wiggle room" even when it sounds the same.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-18, 12:33 pm

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:40:59 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4622fe5c$0$27204$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>Whatever lights your board. The fact that your statement isn't a fact
>apparently doesn't matter to you.

The fact remains that there is _no_ standard formula in use by all
carriers, and considerable "wiggle room" even when methods sound the
same. Prove me wrong if you can by citing an applicable accounting
standard. Anything less is just an unsubstantiated claim.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-18, 12:33 pm

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:31:53 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46243fac$0$27245$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>
>You're the one making up stories, like Navas, so it's up to you to
>provide any evidence that contradicts Cingular's own statement that they
>calculate churn in the same way as their industry peers. Don't you be
>pulling a Navas and demanding negative proof!

The one making the claim is you, and you've posted nothing to back it up
other than a vague statement by Cingular. The fact remains that there
is _no_ standard formula in use by all carriers, and considerable
"wiggle room" even when methods sound the same. Prove me wrong if you
can by citing an applicable accounting standard. Anything less is just
another unsubstantiated claim.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

Scott

2007-04-18, 10:33 pm

John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:t3hc23lrhrnci5k
pec3n2933053h5b864f@
4ax.com:

>
> There nonetheless differences in how the churn numbers are calculated,
> as I've explained in prior posts.
>

Now don't get ahead of yourself, Skippy. While you have argued the point,
you never explained a thing. A quick Google search will indicate that until
just a few days ago, the specifics of churn calculation have not been
discussed, and it wasn't by you. Even if it was- your pedestrian consumer
view would hardly put you in a position to know anything of substance.

SMS

2007-04-19, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 17 Apr 2007 19:10:05 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>
> All of which predated Apple's 2005 Q4 report, IIRC.
>
> Again, I don't disagree with your argument or it's conclusions- just the
> credibility of it's
> outdated "evidence."

The difference is between an "operating profit" and real profit that
takes into account the initial investment. Apple stated that the iTunes
store was profitable, without qualifying the statement with "operating."

They would never fail to make the distinction, as to do so could land
the execs in trouble.

The problem is that Navas doesn't understand that over time a business
unit of a company can change from being unprofitable to being
profitable, as the return on investment increases and the initial
investment is amortized over more unit sales.

SMS

2007-04-19, 10:33 pm

Scott wrote:

> Actually, three of those mentioned can have a huge impact- no-pay cutomers,
> fraudulent activations and customers bailing before 30 days can represent a
> good portion of total deactivations

It doesn't matter because the way the carrier calculates churn is to
calculate the net additions for the quarter by subtracting the total
customers at the end of the quarter from the total customers at the
beginning of the quarter to find the net additions. Then they subtract
the net additions from the gross additions to find out the number of
customers that left during the quarter. Then they divide the number of
customers that left by the the total number of customers to find the
churn. Cingular explicitly stated that they were going to this model,
because the other carriers followed it, rather than trying to track
reseller deactivations.

A customer that activated during the quarter, but then deactivated
during the same quarter isn't counted at all. There will be some
customers that span the quarter, i.e. that activate on March 31st then
deactivate on April 15th, and they would be counted as a new customer
during that quarter, but as a lost customer the next quarter. However it
will all even out as there would be customers that activated during the
previous quarter that deactivated during the current quarter.

No carrier would put itself at a competitive disadvantage by choosing to
calculate the churn number in a way that made its churn uncompetitive.

Scott

2007-04-19, 10:33 pm

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:46280477$0$2717
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Scott wrote:
>
>
> It doesn't matter because the way the carrier calculates churn is to
> calculate the net additions for the quarter by subtracting the total
> customers at the end of the quarter from the total customers at the
> beginning of the quarter to find the net additions. Then they subtract
> the net additions from the gross additions to find out the number of
> customers that left during the quarter. Then they divide the number of
> customers that left by the the total number of customers to find the
> churn. Cingular explicitly stated that they were going to this model,
> because the other carriers followed it, rather than trying to track
> reseller deactivations.

NO carrier uses that particular formula- they all adjust the net adds for
one reason or another.

>
> A customer that activated during the quarter, but then deactivated
> during the same quarter isn't counted at all. There will be some
> customers that span the quarter, i.e. that activate on March 31st then
> deactivate on April 15th, and they would be counted as a new customer
> during that quarter, but as a lost customer the next quarter. However
> it will all even out as there would be customers that activated during
> the previous quarter that deactivated during the current quarter.

And yet theree is absolutely no proof of this being the case. If you did
your homework, you would know that some carriers do not count deceased
subscribers, some do not count no-pay customers and some don't count
fraudulent activations.

>
> No carrier would put itself at a competitive disadvantage by choosing
> to calculate the churn number in a way that made its churn
> uncompetitive.
>

Churn is nothing but a measurement- it has no direct line to financials.
It is not used in consumer advertising and except for analysts and a few
other geeks, has nothing to do with competitive advantage. Now you are
grasping, Steve.

John Navas

2007-04-20, 12:33 pm

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:58:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46280209$0$27183$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>The difference is between an "operating profit" and real profit that
>takes into account the initial investment. Apple stated that the iTunes
>store was profitable, without qualifying the statement with "operating."

The iTunes store is marginally profitable, which only means it's not
operating at a loss, which makes it a loss leader, since it drags down
margins.

>They would never fail to make the distinction, as to do so could land
>the execs in trouble.
>
>The problem is that Navas doesn't understand that over time a business
>unit of a company can change from being unprofitable to being
>profitable, as the return on investment increases and the initial
>investment is amortized over more unit sales.

The real problem is that you don't understand the economics, and aren't
willing to accept clear statements from Apple.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-04-20, 12:33 pm

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:08:26 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 46280477$0$27171$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>
>It doesn't matter because the way the carrier calculates churn is to
>calculate the net additions for the quarter by subtracting the total
>customers at the end of the quarter from the total customers at the
>beginning of the quarter to find the net additions. Then they subtract
>the net additions from the gross additions to find out the number of
>customers that left during the quarter. Then they divide the number of
>customers that left by the the total number of customers to find the
>churn. Cingular explicitly stated that they were going to this model,
>because the other carriers followed it, rather than trying to track
>reseller deactivations.

Sorry, but it's not that simple -- there's substantial wiggle room in
how numbers are calculated and adjusted that make them not directly
comparable.

>No carrier would put itself at a competitive disadvantage by choosing to
>calculate the churn number in a way that made its churn uncompetitive.

In fact there can be good reasons to calculate churn differently, as
I've explained before.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

LinkBot