SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" -shares plunged 25.2 percent

In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
> the U.S. market.

Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
down.

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote:
> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
> down.

More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
date was over early in the evening.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:35:04 -0800, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
<reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com>:

>In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>> the U.S. market.
>
>Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone?

Yes.

>Most
>reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>down.

That's all from one story based on spin from Verizon.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>> the U.S. market.
>
> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
> down.
>
> --
> --Tim Smith

John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.

Verizon turned the iPhone down first.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
<no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<zL-dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:

>"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>> the U.S. market.
>>
>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>> down.

>John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>
>Verizon turned the iPhone down first.

Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In news:fl4ap3l2kjvue6megaoes32qaalo827u6v@4ax.com,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
> <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <zL-dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>> news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
>>> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>>> the U.S. market.
>>>
>>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>>> down.
>
>> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>>
>> Verizon turned the iPhone down first.
>
> Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
> you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.


There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
iPhone deal.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
says?

OR do we just take your word for this.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:25:20 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM>
wrote in <7Cblj.5677$HL1.1580@newsfe21.lga>:

>In news:fl4ap3l2kjvue6megaoes32qaalo827u6v@4ax.com,
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:
>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
>> <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
>> <zL-dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>> news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
>>>> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
>>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>>>> the U.S. market.
>>>>
>>>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>>>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>>>> down.
>>
>>> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>>>
>>> Verizon turned the iPhone down first.
>>
>> Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
>> you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.
>
>There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
>iPhone deal.
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

It's the same old same old story based entirely on Verizon spin.

>Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
>says?

Can you direct us to any independent credible confirmation of the
Verizon claim?

>OR do we just take your word for this.

Whatever you want to do is OK with me. If you want to believe the Earth
is flat, that's OK with me too.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In news:svhap31ssuifed5pv5n4p4hbsmfcg3u5m5@4ax.com,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:25:20 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM>
> wrote in <7Cblj.5677$HL1.1580@newsfe21.lga>:
>
>> In news:fl4ap3l2kjvue6megaoes32qaalo827u6v@4ax.com,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
>>> <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
>>> <zL-dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> "Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com...
>>>>> In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
>>>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player
>>>>>> in the U.S. market.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>>>>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>>>>> down.
>>>
>>>> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> Verizon turned the iPhone down first.
>>>
>>> Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
>>> you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.
>>
>> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected
>> Apple iPhone deal.
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>
> It's the same old same old story based entirely on Verizon spin.
>
>> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
>> says?
>
> Can you direct us to any independent credible confirmation of the
> Verizon claim?
>
>> OR do we just take your word for this.
>
> Whatever you want to do is OK with me. If you want to believe the Earth
> is flat, that's OK with me too.

I guess we can take that to mean you have posted wishfull thinking and an
unsupported claim.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <zL-dnUZk3qHOjwjanZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness-Net" <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
>
> Ooooo! Oooooo! My turn!
>
> Ummmm....let's see.....so many to choose from.....
>
> Oh, OK:
>
> Rubbish.

Sorry Elmo..I beat ya to it!

> >John Navas wrote:
>> >> My own experience is quite authoritative to me. Whether or not it's
>> >> persuasive to you is not something that concerns me,
notwithstanding the
>> >> not-so-subtle attempt to call me a liar.
> >
> >John Navas wrote in another shortly before:
>> > > Really? Then you'll have no problem backing that up with
>> > > authoritative evidence. Otherwise it's no more persuasive
>> > > than any other unsubstantiated claim.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't
> change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it
> to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without
> any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't
> help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have
> anything to do with this.

One big advantage of CDMA for voice, which was why Australia used it out
in the bush, is the fact that the range is so much greater. The
Australian government recently denie Telstra permission to shut down
CDMA because Telstra cannot switch-off its CDMA network without first
proving equivalent Next G coverage, and Next G coverage is so far not
able to provide equivalent coverage (though like all 3G networks it's
also based on CDMA).

This past weekend I was up in Lassen Volcanic National Park. While both
Verizon and AT&T had service in Mineral (the closest town south of the
park), there was no GSM coverage within the park itself, but Verizon had
excellent coverage (digital) for as far as we skied into the park on
snow-covered highway 89, despite to coverage map showing "Moderate"
coverage.

Robert Coe wrote:

> Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest of the
> GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones that handle
> all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive.

Actually they're pretty common, and not too expensive. Some tri-band
phones sold in the U.S. are also fine in Europe and Asia as they are
850/900/1900. In most places you can get by with only 900 MHz, you just
have to be careful when buying a prepaid SIM card that you don't use one
of the secondary carriers that got stuck up at 1800 MHz. What you want
to avoid if you're in the U.S. but traveling to Europe or Asia is an
850/1800/1900, and what you want to avoid if you're in Europe or Asia
and traving to the U.S. is a 900/1800/1900 (these were very common when
the only U.S. GSM service was at 1900 MHz).

IMHO IIRC wrote:

> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
> iPhone deal.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>
> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
> says?
>
> OR do we just take your word for this.

John isn't known for ever providing references.

Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke,
I was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of
the story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so
it's pretty clear that the story was accurate.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:23:50 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47957d49$0$84231$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't
>> change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it
>> to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without
>> any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't
>> help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have
>> anything to do with this.
>
>One big advantage of CDMA for voice, which was why Australia used it out
>in the bush, is the fact that the range is so much greater. The
>Australian government recently denie Telstra permission to shut down
>CDMA because Telstra cannot switch-off its CDMA network without first
>proving equivalent Next G coverage, and Next G coverage is so far not
>able to provide equivalent coverage (though like all 3G networks it's
>also based on CDMA).

No matter how many times you repeat it, total nonsense is still total
nonsense.

>This past weekend I was up in Lassen Volcanic National Park. While both
>Verizon and AT&T had service in Mineral (the closest town south of the
>park), there was no GSM coverage within the park itself, but Verizon had
>excellent coverage (digital) for as far as we skied into the park on
>snow-covered highway 89, despite to coverage map showing "Moderate"
>coverage.

Just like your claimed coverage in the Bay Area that ins't on Verizon's
coverage maps?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:32:51 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47957f66$0$84204$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
>> iPhone deal.
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>
>> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
>> says?
>>
>> OR do we just take your word for this.
>
>John isn't known for ever providing references.

That would actually be you.

>Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke,
>I was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of
>the story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so
>it's pretty clear that the story was accurate.

Same old nonsense.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

"SMS" wrote:
> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected
>> Apple iPhone deal.
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>
>> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
>> says?
>>
>> OR do we just take your word for this.
>
> John isn't known for ever providing references.
>
> Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke, I
> was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of the
> story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so it's
> pretty clear that the story was accurate.

If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the guy
posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But since
you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is some sort of
new development.

Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being repeated
by the clueless...

And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted logic
is ridiculous.


--
Mike

DTC wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>> down.
>
> More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
> date was over early in the evening.

Verizon had no interest in Apple's plan for revenue sharing of monthly
fees, while Apple felt that the added upside in new customers that the
iPhone would bring the carrier entitled them to part of the revenue.

Both had strong bargaining positions, Verizon as the premier carrier in
the U.S. in terms of quality, with the largest base of retail
subscribers, and Apple with its consumer electronics marketing
expertise. Reportedly Verizon did offer a compromise where they would
revenue share on new subscribers but not current subscribers that
switched to the iPhone, but that wasn't sufficient for Apple so they
went to their second choice.

Tinman wrote:

> If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the
> guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But
> since you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is
> some sort of new development.

Huh? I know he was posting a link to last year's article, it was true
then and it's true now.

> Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being
> repeated by the clueless...

LOL, so how many articles, repeating the same facts, do you think are
required?

> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
> logic is ridiculous.

No it isn't. When a major newspaper has a story that is negative to a
major corporation you will always see a response if the story is untrue.
In this case you would have seen denials from both Apple and AT&T if the
story was false. With Sarbanes-Oxley, you no longer have executives of
major corporations running around making up stories that are so easy to
verify.

Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
quality carrier?

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2008-01-19, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:46:08 -0800 (PST), jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote in
>> <6da5f0e5-6cf7-498b-aefc-a73189a886f7@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 6:38 pm, 4phun <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares
>>>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01.
>>> HA HA HA, shoulda went with GSM...those Lucifer radio cards should be
>>> good for some gold and silver scrap value....JG
>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>
> ?? Over the past 52 weeks Verizon shares are up 5%, AT&T up 3% and Sprint
> down 50%. The S&P is down 7%.
>
> Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated
> to me.

I'm sure that John is well aware that Sprint's current problems are
totally unrelated to CDMA. They paid a huge premium for Nextel, because
of Nextel's high ARPU, and thought they could convert all those Nextel
iDEN customers into Sprint customers. Instead, those customers fled to
other carriers.

OTOH, Verizon and Alltel's success in terms of being the top quality
networks in the U.S., _is_ partly related to using CDMA which is able to
provide better coverage and fewer dropped calls. The financial success
of Verizon Wireless is very much tied to their lower capital costs
because even though CDMA infrastructure equipment is more expensive, you
need fewer sites to cover the same area and fewer sites to provide
equivalent capacity (compared with GSM). Even Cingular admitted this,
and used it as an excuse for their poorer financial performance,
claiming that once they completed build-out of their network that their
margins would increase to close to Verizon's.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:37:07 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47961b16$0$84193$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Dennis Ferguson wrote:

>> Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated
>> to me.
>
>I'm sure that John is well aware that Sprint's current problems are
>totally unrelated to CDMA.

On the contrary -- CDMA2000 has made it difficult to migrate Nextel
customers, a problem I pointed out way back at the beginning. You just
don't like admitting that.

>OTOH, Verizon and Alltel's success in terms of being the top quality
>networks in the U.S., _is_ partly related to using CDMA which is able to
>provide better coverage and fewer dropped calls. The financial success
>of Verizon Wireless is very much tied to their lower capital costs
>because even though CDMA infrastructure equipment is more expensive, you
>need fewer sites to cover the same area and fewer sites to provide
>equivalent capacity (compared with GSM). Even Cingular admitted this,
>and used it as an excuse for their poorer financial performance,
>claiming that once they completed build-out of their network that their
>margins would increase to close to Verizon's.

Total lack of citations, as usual, but of course that's no surprise,
since that's totally false.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:39:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47960d7b$0$84175$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>DTC wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
>>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>>> down.
>>
>> More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
>> date was over early in the evening.
>
>Verizon had no interest in Apple's plan for revenue sharing of monthly
>fees, while Apple felt that the added upside in new customers that the
>iPhone would bring the carrier entitled them to part of the revenue.
>
>Both had strong bargaining positions, Verizon as the premier carrier in
>the U.S. in terms of quality, with the largest base of retail
>subscribers, and Apple with its consumer electronics marketing
>expertise. Reportedly Verizon did offer a compromise where they would
>revenue share on new subscribers but not current subscribers that
>switched to the iPhone, but that wasn't sufficient for Apple so they
>went to their second choice.

Still the Verizon apologist. In fact AT&T had the strongest position,
with the most customers of any U.S. carrier, and technology common to
most of the rest of the world. Verizon simply lost the beauty contest,
and then tried desperately to explain that away.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:05:37 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<5vlmepF1m4agbU1@mid.individual.net>:

>"SMS" wrote:
>> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>>
>>> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected
>>> Apple iPhone deal.
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
>>>
>>> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
>>> says?
>>>
>>> OR do we just take your word for this.
>>
>> John isn't known for ever providing references.
>>
>> Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke, I
>> was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of the
>> story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so it's
>> pretty clear that the story was accurate.
>
>If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the guy
>posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But since
>you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is some sort of
>new development.
>
>Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being repeated
>by the clueless...
>
>And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted logic
>is ridiculous.

Nicely put.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:03:39 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4796133e$0$84220$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Tinman wrote:
>
>> If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the
>> guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But
>> since you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is
>> some sort of new development.
>
>Huh? I know he was posting a link to last year's article, it was true
>then and it's true now.

Except is was just spin then, and is still just spin now.

>> Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being
>> repeated by the clueless...
>
>LOL, so how many articles, repeating the same facts, do you think are
>required?

Spin, no matter how many times repeated, is still spin, not "facts".
The only real "facts" is that the only source is Verizon.

>> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
>> logic is ridiculous.
>
>No it isn't. ...

Saying so over and over doesn't make it true.

>Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
>carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
>its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
>quality carrier?

Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest
subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On 2008-01-22, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
>> logic is ridiculous.
>
> No it isn't. When a major newspaper has a story that is negative to a
> major corporation you will always see a response if the story is untrue.
> In this case you would have seen denials from both Apple and AT&T if the
> story was false.

Boy, I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a losing
competitor attempting to diminish an announcement which had attracted
some interest by blabbing about talks that were certainly intended to
be kept private in an attempt to make the case that they'd been clever
not to take that deal (which really suggests to me that they were
motivated by worry that they'd been stupid not to pursue the deal).
This is a low class act that it speaks for itself and needs no
public response. In fact it demands no response; a response would
only suggest that you actually care what Verizon thinks, and wrestling
with pigs will only get you dirty too.

Of course, I could be wrong since I have no particular information
beyond the article itself, but then again, neither do you. To be
clear what the job of the Verizon VP quoted in that article (and
apparently its source) is, however, here's a quote from the same
guy on another, more recent, topic, in particular an article in
the Wall Street Journal that US carriers should be made to open
their networks to compatible phones:

The Journal makes an increasingly popular but mistaken assumption
that the European government-mandated model of unlocked handsets
means better consumer choices.

Let's start with the European experience. Viruses and Trojans are
part of the unlocked handset experience. Just imagine children's
mobile phones receiving some of the indecent messages that come
into e-mail boxes everyday. "Open" devices simply lower standards.

In contrast to Europe, handsets provided by U.S. carriers have
software that protects consumers from fraud and theft. [...]
Carriers customize handsets to optimize voice quality and data
services.

Contrary to the Journal's assertion, Europe's one-size fits all
portability comes at the expense of consumer choice and price.

This requires no response either (especially when I look at how high
Verizon's revenue and profit from handset sales is compared to its
GSM competitors). This was, of course, before Verizon decided an
open phone network was a good thing.

> With Sarbanes-Oxley, you no longer have executives of
> major corporations running around making up stories that are so easy to
> verify.

Oh my god, so it's true unlocked phones attract viruses and child
porn... Oh, never mind, I can't bring myself to respond to that.

> Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
^^^^^

So you are assuming not only that Apple spoke to Verizon, but also that
Apple kept Verizon up to date on who else they were talking to and how
that was going, so Verizon could know they were first? Doubt it, though
you never know.

> carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
> its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
> quality carrier?

Well, let's look at what the carriers we know Apple did deals with since
then (you can even throw in China Mobile if you want) have in common:
(1) they're the biggest carrier in their market by number of users; and
(2) GSM. So which carrier would Apple have preferred in 2005?

There is at least some hint that Apple must have been fairly close to
doing something with one of Verizon Wireless's parent companies since
they included Vodafone's logo with the original firmware. See, e.g.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2mpm39

So (noting that Vodafone and O2 have pretty near identical shares of the
UK market) do you think the sins of the child might have been visited
upon the parent? I have no idea but, since we're engaging in pure, idle
speculation about things we have absolutely no knowledge of, I'll just
point out that from my point of view this would have been a way more
appropriate response to the quite tacky Verizon-sourced article than
getting all tacky yourself by arguing about it in public would have
been. Who wants to talk business with people who will turn around and
do that?

In any case, I don't think we'll ever know anything more about this
until someone at Apple writes a book.

Dennis Ferguson

In news:fvgcp39cg6n7gaonb2vojnfc40ama1olvo@4ax.com,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:03:39 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4796133e$0$84220$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> Tinman wrote:
>>
>>> If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the
>>> guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But
>>> since you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is
>>> some sort of new development.
>>
>> Huh? I know he was posting a link to last year's article, it was true
>> then and it's true now.
>
> Except is was just spin then, and is still just spin now.
>
>>> Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being
>>> repeated by the clueless...
>>
>> LOL, so how many articles, repeating the same facts, do you think are
>> required?
>
> Spin, no matter how many times repeated, is still spin, not "facts".
> The only real "facts" is that the only source is Verizon.
>
>>> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
>>> logic is ridiculous.
>>
>> No it isn't. ...
>
> Saying so over and over doesn't make it true.
>
>> Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
>> carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
>> its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
>> quality carrier?
>
> Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest
> subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world.


Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
first choice rather than just you saying it?

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:04:19 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM>
wrote in <ZDulj.38691$pq.11263@newsfe24.lga>:

>In news:fvgcp39cg6n7gaonb2vojnfc40ama1olvo@4ax.com,
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> typed:

>> Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest
>> subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world.
>
>Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>first choice rather than just you saying it?

Why not just tell us where anything that independently corroborates the
Verizon spin can be found rather than just taking Verizon at its word.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

At 22 Jan 2008 22:41:05 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> Boy, I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a losing
> competitor attempting to diminish an announcement which had attracted
> some interest by blabbing about talks that were certainly intended to
> be kept private in an attempt to make the case that they'd been clever
> not to take that deal (which really suggests to me that they were
> motivated by worry that they'd been stupid not to pursue the deal).


To be fair, the undue amount of press surrounding the AT&T iPhone deal
probably prompted a response.

> This is a low class act that it speaks for itself and needs no
> public response.

The VPs quote was measured and appropriate- it was PC (didn't knock the
product, AT&T or Apple.)

> In fact it demands no response; a response would
> only suggest that you actually care what Verizon thinks, and wrestling
> with pigs will only get you dirty too.


That's an interesting take on it that I'd agree with if this wasn't AT&T we
were talking about! The same AT&T, wo, despite having an "open network"
already, followed Verizon's "open network" pledge with their own, and who
announced the availability of a 3G iPhone be ore Apple did! ;-)

> Of course, I could be wrong since I have no particular information
> beyond the article itself, but then again, neither do you.

Agreed. It's fun to speculate though.

> To be
> clear what the job of the Verizon VP quoted in that article (and
> apparently its source) is, however, here's a quote...
<snip "closed-is-better" quote>

That was priceless! Thanks for the chuckle. To be fair, I've never heard
of a Verizon kiddie-porn spam incident so he must've been right! ;-)


> This requires no response either (especially when I look at how high
> Verizon's revenue and profit from handset sales is compared to its
> GSM competitors). This was, of course, before Verizon decided an
> open phone network was a good thing.


I'm still surprised AT&T didn't take the bait. They rarely show any
restraint.


> In any case, I don't think we'll ever know anything more about this
> until someone at Apple writes a book.

Fair enough!

IMHO IIRC wrote:

> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
> first choice rather than just you saying it?

Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or citations.

One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.

I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success
(following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of
new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:51:39 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47969d0e$0$84165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>> first choice rather than just you saying it?
>
>Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or citations.

Too funny! Let's see if you have any...

>One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
>story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
>grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
>Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
>Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
>them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
>for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
>legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.

No citations. What a shock. Not.

>I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
>choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success
>(following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of
>new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon.

The shill here is you, constant Verizon apologist and AT&T basher.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

In news:47969d0e$0$84165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> typed:
> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>> first choice rather than just you saying it?
>
> Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or
> citations.
> One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
> story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
> grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
> Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
> Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
> them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
> for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
> legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.
>
> I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
> choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success
> (following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of
> new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon.


Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and therefore
there is no need for him to provide any support.

The only thing that might get Navas to change his claim is to have a video
of Steve Jobs saying that Apple was forced to go with ATT since they were
unable to get VZW to meet their demands - but then again Navas might not.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:26:07 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM>
wrote in <aBxlj.13599$OC1.6600@newsfe20.lga>:

>In news:47969d0e$0$84165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> typed:
>> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>>
>>> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>>> first choice rather than just you saying it?
>>
>> Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or
>> citations.
>> One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
>> story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
>> grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
>> Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
>> Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
>> them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
>> for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
>> legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.
>>
>> I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
>