To: i-node who wrote (2279 ) 2/25/2006 10:57:49 PM From: pcstel Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3386 CHURN??? Now you are avoiding answering the question, that we are asking you to support the statements that you claimed were a FACT by TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBECT. We were waiting for an answer with some data points to back up this statement that you made about "PROMOTIONAL SUBSCRIBERS".. Here is what you said.. >>>>>The argument that XM's disclosure is inadequate is wrong. And it is totally consistent with the way other industries report promotional subscribers (Sirius is a different matter).<<<<Message 22177844 And you answer that question by claiming that there is no "standard" for computhing CHURN??? Maybe you can either provide the data points to back up your original statements presented as above FACT about "promotional subscribers" , or you can simply admit that you were talking out of your arse?? Then you claim... "I can tell you that when this issue first was publicly criticized I found a couple of cellphone companies who were using short (30 day) promotional periods and their churn was calculated precisely as XM's is. But I don't have the links and I'm not going to find them again " Soooo.. In other words.. You have no proof, now will you provide any proof that what you said was a FACT. E And even though your "credibility" is on the line here, you claim that you won't go find them again. You seem to have plenty of time to post your, "Bullcrap" on this and other boards. But, when someone calls you on the complete line of BS that you spew.. You won't go find them again, BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST. And you were simply making stuff up on the fly? Weren't you?? I'll give you a hint.. There isn't a "cellphone company" that releases subscriber metircs that I haven't followed, (hence my alais PCS-TEL, and I will call you out on that statement and tell you that you are a Liar. You lied about the "promotional subscriber" statement, and you are doing the same on this statement. Why do you ruin your "personal credibility", by making up statements to cover up a companies questionable metric reporting schemes? Then you admitted that you lied in your earlier statement by saying.. "But I don't have the links and I'm not going to find them again -- they are rare, because this is not a common practice today in the consumer electronics sevice businesses. " ????? But, that is not what you said.. You said.. The argument that XM's disclosure is inadequate is wrong. And it is totally consistent with the way other industries report promotional subscribers (Sirius is a different matter) First you claim the XM's methodology is "totally consistant with the way other industries report promotional subscribers" Then you turn around and admit that But I don't have the links and I'm not going to find them again -- they are rare, because this is not a common practice today in the consumer electronics sevice businesses. First they are "totally consistant with the way other industries report", now, you claim that the way XM reports is RARE, and not a common practice!! So you finally got it right.. The way XM reports "promotional subscribers as a subscriber, and then fails to report them in CHURN" is RARE!! So rare in fact.. XM is the only one that does it!! "The comparison with Sirius makes little sense. The Sirius subs were basically prepaid for a year by Sirius (via a roundabout process of Sirius giving DCX receivers of equal value). " "XM Radio Offer December 30, 2005 - The following came from our friends at XM Radio: The offer for XM Radios has never been better—ranging from $39 COMPLETE boom boxes to FREE Audiovox XCS-9’s. No catch— we just want to get XM to everyone. Feel free to send this around your company or to your family and pals. Hard core gift for anyone into music, baseball, amazing RADIO, or pretty much anything… For inexpensive and free XM radios go to friends.xmradio.com then under “Sponsor email” enter Lee.Abrams@xmradio.com. " These guys are GIVING ME A PREPAID YEAR (via a roundabout process of XM giving me a free Roady XT.. But, that is somehow "different" than the SIRI process?