"FloydinTampa" <Flooydomit@Prodigy.net> wrote in news:fOgmi.1361$Dx2.350
@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

>>>> I'll spell this out again- you are wrong in portraying the call
>>>> volume as the sole reason tha these customers were let go. What is
>>>> so hard to comprehend in that statement?
>>> I agree with you there again. I believe that they wanted to get rid
>>> of low-profit customers. But if they wanted to release customers that
>>> had low-profit plans, either through retention deals or by taking
>>> advantage of offered specials, then they should have waited until
>>> those customers were out of contract and then informed them that their
>>> previous plans were not going to be continued at the same price,
>>> giving them a chance to secure a new plan or move on if that is what
>>> they decided to do.
>>
>> Whoa, whoa, whoa Skippy- nobody anywhere has tied these customers to
>> unprofitable rate plans. Where did that come from?
>>
> OK, low profit plans or whatever. The woman who started the whole
> rebellion(I forgot her name)
> has a $30/mo plan.
>
>
>

Understood, but even according to her, her termination had nothing to do
with the rate plan she was on.