In alt.cellular.sprintpcs CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:5up7fvF1im164U2@mid.individual.net:
>
>> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>>>
>>> Go to any of their investor pages and pull up any one of their
>>> quarterly reprts that are filed with the SEC. Each and every one
>>> will have a line item for equipment subsidies.
>>>
>>
>> No no. You said they list equipment subsidies as a loss. I said they
>> do not. They are two distinctly different things. They are expenses,
>> as I said, and not losses. You don't consider buying food a loss do
>> you? You trade money for food. A loss is giving something and getting
>> nothing in return.
>>
>>> It doesn't get any more public than that. And you can argue the
>>> semantics of the terminology used all you want- that's not going to
>>> change the reality of the situation.
>>
>> It is not meerly semantics that I am arguing. You used a well defined
>> word very much incorrectly and applied it to subsidies. Subsidies are
>> very much NOT a loss to a carrier.
>>
>
> You didn't look, did you? You asked for a link, I provided three, and you
> didn't look. If you did, you wouldn't be posting anymore.
>

Feel free to point it out. I didn't even find subsidy mentioned at all in the
Verizon quarterly report.

http://news.vzw.com/pdf/Cellco10Q9-30-06.pdf

I notice that depreciation is a huge part of the report though. In large
part, that is probably the deployed towers and/or antennas that they own, but
in no small part is it the inventory [of phones] they maintain as well.

<snip>unfriendliness</snip>

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

America is the country where you buy a lifetime
supply of aspirin for one dollar, and use it up in two weeks.