Todd Allcock wrote:

> 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?

Yes, but they know that few people will take advantage of the escape
clause. They must have calculated that the increased revenue from the
higher rates more than offsets the lost subscribers.

> 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.

I know that AT&T's dealers are very upset about not being able to sell
the iPhone, however I'd speculate that it was the revenue sharing and
not the residuals that caused Verizon to pass on the iPhone.

> 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.

True, I originally thought that the iPhone would enable AT&T to overtake
Verizon in new retail additions, but in fact Verizon continues to widen
its lead. With the right management, Sprint could probably turn things
around, but they'll probably be sold to someone that can make better use
of their network.