FCC Proposes Fines For E911 Failure
poor management
not to smart IMO, probably would have cost them far less to just send out some cheap gps capable freebies to their customers.
...
I dunno - assuming Sprint's share of the $2.8m fine is $1m even, that's still a fair bit of cash to suddenly drop on customers. Even a 10th of a percent of their customer base is tens of thousands of users, and to just give them phones (which they'd likely have to do, since forcing people to extend their contracts isn't very friendly) would really cut into their bottom line. Remember, no phone is truly free in terms of cost - the carrier pays something to the manufacturer.
I'd guess (though I admit I don't know for sure) that a fine of roughly a million bucks is the cheaper option for them.
I'd guess (though I admit I don't know for sure) that a fine of roughly a million bucks is the cheaper option for them.
...
That is true. But this is only the first fine. They still have to switch the remaining customers over to the new headsets or the FCC will simply fine them again. So in my opinion their crappy management cost them a million dollars.
Sprint has a lot of potential with Wimax, but they really need to get asses in gear and not let stupid things like this happen again.
Sprint has a lot of potential with Wimax, but they really need to get asses in gear and not let stupid things like this happen again.
...
Management is saving money by eating the fine and making customers shell out money for E911 handsets. Sounds like a great move to me.
...
Sprint claims 94.7%, so 0.3%, or 0.003, short.
45 million customers times 0.003 = 135,000 people.
Suppose a new phone costs Sprint $100 wholesale (near bottom):
http://www.wirelessweek.com/Intellectual-Properties- ... »
That's $1.35 million, IF they could be certain exactly which 135,000 of the remaining 5.3% of customers, who have already declined the option to get a new phone for several years, would accept the new phone sent to them at random and not refuse to use it. To make it actually work, they would have to send out more phones to get the desired result.
Or they could just pay the fine and wait for those people to willingly get new phones.
It might also be worth something to not beat their customers over the hea...
(continues)
45 million customers times 0.003 = 135,000 people.
Suppose a new phone costs Sprint $100 wholesale (near bottom):
http://www.wirelessweek.com/Intellectual-Properties- ... »
That's $1.35 million, IF they could be certain exactly which 135,000 of the remaining 5.3% of customers, who have already declined the option to get a new phone for several years, would accept the new phone sent to them at random and not refuse to use it. To make it actually work, they would have to send out more phones to get the desired result.
Or they could just pay the fine and wait for those people to willingly get new phones.
It might also be worth something to not beat their customers over the hea...
(continues)
...
japhy said:
I dunno - assuming Sprint's share of the $2.8m fine is $1m even, that's still a fair bit of cash to suddenly drop on customers. Even a 10th of a percent of their customer base is tens of thousands of users, and to just give them phones (which they'd likely have to do, since forcing people to extend their contracts isn't very friendly) would really cut into their bottom line. Remember, no phone is truly free in terms of cost - the carrier pays something to the manufacturer.
I'd guess (though I admit I don't know for sure) that a fine of roughly a million bucks is the cheaper option for them.
That reminded me of the Ford Pinto ordeal. Ford decided it would be cheaper to settle with ...
(continues)
...
japhy said:
I dunno - assuming Sprint's share of the $2.8m fine is $1m even, that's still a fair bit of cash to suddenly drop on customers. Even a 10th of a percent of their customer base is tens of thousands of users, and to just give them phones (which they'd likely have to do, since forcing people to extend their contracts isn't very friendly) would really cut into their bottom line. Remember, no phone is truly free in terms of cost - the carrier pays something to the manufacturer.
I'd guess (though I admit I don't know for sure) that a fine of roughly a million bucks is the cheaper option for them.
Why don't they just let them upgrade without extending their contracts!
...
Keep in mind that Sprint also has a large business base of customers. And if they are part of the non-GPS crowd, they would be a hard sell to switch over. If I were running a business, I wouldn't buy new phones for my employees just because my contract was up, I would wait for the phones to become obsolete and non-functional. In fact, I probably would buy used phones or phones at full retail just to avoid extending contracts.
...
it depends on the business. If your business has an image to convey as a leader in its field then yes you want them to have new phones as often as possible, especially if it's a free one (ie sanyo 3200), or offers increased productivity (Treo over RAZR). Transportation companies would want to be the first ones to have GPS enabled phones. Location based businesses that would have a liability if power was lost also need e911 phones.
It's all relative
It's all relative
...
jskrenes said:
Keep in mind that Sprint also has a large business base of customers. And if they are part of the non-GPS crowd, they would be a hard sell to switch over. If I were running a business, I wouldn't buy new phones for my employees just because my contract was up, I would wait for the phones to become obsolete and non-functional. In fact, I probably would buy used phones or phones at full retail just to avoid extending contracts.
lol. this is exactly what I was talking about in another post, that most Sprint customers won't upgrade until they can't use their phones anymore. Thanks for reconfirming that notion.
...
And why should they extend their contracts, and pay for a new device they don't want or need? Sorry I think the goverment is off base, and I am no fan of the crappy cusotmers service that Sprint is. So its not that I am a fanboy.
Heck they are almost 95% compliant, thats pretty damned good for any industry.
Heck they are almost 95% compliant, thats pretty damned good for any industry.
...
First off Verizon is bigger so don't blame the size of the customer base, but here is the main point.
By getting fined it solved nothing, they still have to get those customers switched, it is not going to cost them less today then it would have months ago. So they are still going to have to figuere this out or they will just keep getting fined until they do get those switched over, so No they are not saving $ it is costing far more in the long run. No matter how you cut it they need to get those switched out, so good management would have had it done before they were fined! now they will still be paying to switch those out on top of the fine
By getting fined it solved nothing, they still have to get those customers switched, it is not going to cost them less today then it would have months ago. So they are still going to have to figuere this out or they will just keep getting fined until they do get those switched over, so No they are not saving $ it is costing far more in the long run. No matter how you cut it they need to get those switched out, so good management would have had it done before they were fined! now they will still be paying to switch those out on top of the fine
...
sprint phones so good you dont gots to change em lot. sanyo last long time man. you know wat i mean. lg verizon last 7 month. i dont care wut nobody say sprint phone are more reliable
...
This forum is closed.
