Tinman wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.
>
> Your analogy was asinine.
>
> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
> Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling its
> network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If they
> tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
> commoditized as mobile phones.

This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
Verizon network. I was on Nevada 431, the road that connects North Lake
Tahoe to Reno over Mount Rose. There was CDMA coverage on Verizon, and
roaming onto Verizon by Sprint, but there was no AT&T or T-Mobile
coverage. I was stopped at a snowplay area and was on the phone, and
talking to someone who had no signal on his AT&T phone, and he was using
his friend's Sprint phone. 431 is a fairly major state highway for
Nevada, it's not some back-country Forest Service Road. Similarly, up at
the Mount Rose Ski Area, you can only get coverage on AMPS, there is no
CDMA or GSM at the lodge (though at the top of the mountain you can get
CDMA coverage.

> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as
> advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be
> well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year).

In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms of
retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs, so the
AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less subscribers.

See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"