At 20 Feb 2008 17:13:32 -0800 SMS wrote:

> You may be right. Both are headstrong companies with an attitude
> of "we have all the supply, so we can demand whatever the $%#@
> we want." Let's face it, Verizon knows that it gets away with a lot
> of what they do because for many subscribers there is simply no
> decent alternative.

Agreed.

> They periodically offer to let subscribers out of their contracts when
> they unilaterally change the terms for the worse.

Which I've never understood (from any cell company- not just Verizon.)
Most have billing systems advanced enough to handle myriads of
"grandfathered" rate plans. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just grandfather, say,
a $0.10 or $0.15 texting charge until the end of a contract, rather than
let people walk out of a $50/month plan over a lousy nickel increase?

> It's not surprising
> that Verizon didn't want to give Apple the revenue sharing that Apple
> wanted.

I'm sure it was simply Verizon greed, but as a former cellular dealer I'd
like to pretend it was at least partly out of respect for their dealer
base. AT&T is essentially paying Apple the "dealer residuals" on each
iPhone contract, and locking their entire dealer network out of a hot-
selling phone possibly to prevent "double-dipping" of residuals.


> > Again, that's an unwarranted conclusion, conveniently forgetting the
small
> > spike in Verizon churn in the 3rd-quarter last year (the iPhone's big
> > quarter.) Apparently not ALL Verizon customers swear an allegiance!
;-)
>
> A small spike for what was supposed to be g-ds gift to the cellular phone
industry.

Agreed, but it was a spike nonetheless. Frankly, for all the noise about
the JesusPhone, all of the other carriers (except Sprint) are doing well in
net adds- at last year's level or above, so the iPhone exclusivity isn't
exactly crippling the competition.