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

IMHO IIRC wrote:

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

He follows the adage, "If You Don't Like the Facts...Go Out and Make
Some of Your Own."

> 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.

He might claim that it was an actor impersonating Steve Jobs.

Still, "demands" is probably too strong. They just couldn't reach an
agreement. It wasn't just the revenue sharing either, it was the demand
that the iPhone only be sold in Verizon's company-owned stores and Apple
stores, which would have upset Verizon's resellers including the big-box
stores. AT&T had less to worry about, since they probably didn't mind
upsetting resellers like Radio Shack.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:4796ab59$0$84197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and
>> therefore there is no need for him to provide any support.
>
> He follows the adage, "If You Don't Like the Facts...Go Out and Make
> Some of Your Own."
>
>> 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.
>
> He might claim that it was an actor impersonating Steve Jobs.
>
> Still, "demands" is probably too strong. They just couldn't reach an
> agreement. It wasn't just the revenue sharing either, it was the
> demand that the iPhone only be sold in Verizon's company-owned stores
> and Apple stores, which would have upset Verizon's resellers including
> the big-box stores. AT&T had less to worry about, since they probably
> didn't mind upsetting resellers like Radio Shack.
>

I'm going to assume that we won't see any more "Don't feed the Navas
troll" posts from you after this thread.

Replying to him second hand and complaining about those that reply to him
directly is rather hypocritical.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:37 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4796ab59$0$84197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and therefore
>> there is no need for him to provide any support.
>
>He follows the adage, "If You Don't Like the Facts...Go Out and Make
>Some of Your Own."
>
>> 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.
>
>He might claim that it was an actor impersonating Steve Jobs.
>
>Still, "demands" is probably too strong. They just couldn't reach an
>agreement. It wasn't just the revenue sharing either, it was the demand
>that the iPhone only be sold in Verizon's company-owned stores and Apple
>stores, which would have upset Verizon's resellers including the big-box
>stores. AT&T had less to worry about, since they probably didn't mind
>upsetting resellers like Radio Shack.

No citations. No surprise. Total fantasy.

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

SMS wrote:
> Navas never has references or citations.

Totally incorrect. He provides links to his personal experiences
to validate his point. Perhaps if he wore a hat, it might hide it.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> 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.

Apple has never hesitated in responding to news stories about the iPhone
that have no basis in fact. If the Verizon executive's statements had
been false then they would have responded.

Verizon isn't the only carrier in the world that decided that Apple's
requirements in terms of revenue sharing and distribution were not
something they were interested in. See
"http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9850498-7.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=NewsBlog".

It's pretty clear why Apple approached Verizon first. Verizon has more
retail customers than AT&T (and the iPhone isn't sold to MVNOs or to
prepaid customers), Verizon has a higher ARPU, Verizon has a better 3G
network, and Verizon has a _much_ better reputation in terms of coverage
and service.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:57:39 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4796c8a8$0$84176$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Apple has never hesitated in responding to news stories about the iPhone
>that have no basis in fact.

Not true.

>If the Verizon executive's statements had
>been false then they would have responded.

Nonsense.

>Verizon isn't the only carrier in the world that decided that Apple's
>requirements in terms of revenue sharing and distribution were not
>something they were interested in. See
>"http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9850498-7.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=NewsBlog".

Your first cite in ages is a blog! LOL
And that's China, which is pretty much meaningless.

>It's pretty clear why Apple approached Verizon first. ...

It didn't.

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

Kevin Weaver wrote:

>>
>>> It's pretty clear why Apple approached Verizon first. ...
>>
>> It didn't.
>
> Nonsense.

Apple has used the same approach in each region; approach the carrier
with the biggest potential for sales, and try to work out a deal. If it
doesn't work out, move on to the next best carrier. What some people
don't realize is that the carrier whose network has the most users is
not necessarily the carrier with the most retail subscribers. Verizon
passed AT&T in retail subscribers last year, even though the AT&T GSM
network has more users by virtue of wholesale and prepaid users, two
segments where Verizon is very weak. No doubt Apple understood the
difference, and they were looking for the greatest sales potential which
is why they approached Verizon first.

You can see a replay of what happened in the U.S. now happening in
China, with China Mobile turning down the opportunity to sell the
iPhone, and Apple approaching other carriers.

"http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb20080118_025613.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index _global+business"
"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/15/china_mobile_iphone/"
"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9149361c-c30e-11dc-b617-0000779fd2ac.html"

I honestly don't understand what he is so upset about. AT&T ended up
with the iPhone, which they wanted, Verizon didn't end up with it
because they didn't think that it was financially advantageous to meet
the terms that Apple wanted. Is he that upset that AT&T was Apple's
second choice? I'm sure that he searched endlessly for something to
contradict the USA Today story, but was unsuccessful. He rarely posts
any references or citations because most of what he posts is untrue.
Looks like this is just one more case of him lying.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:52:01 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4796e376$0$84212$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Apple has used the same approach in each region; approach the carrier
>with the biggest potential for sales, and try to work out a deal. If it
>doesn't work out, move on to the next best carrier. What some people
>don't realize is that the carrier whose network has the most users is
>not necessarily the carrier with the most retail subscribers. Verizon
>passed AT&T in retail subscribers last year, even though the AT&T GSM
>network has more users by virtue of wholesale and prepaid users, two
>segments where Verizon is very weak. No doubt Apple understood the
>difference, and they were looking for the greatest sales potential which
>is why they approached Verizon first.

Pure fantasy.

>You can see a replay of what happened in the U.S. now happening in
>China, with China Mobile turning down the opportunity to sell the
>iPhone, and Apple approaching other carriers.

China is unlike the rest of the world.

>I honestly don't understand what he is so upset about. AT&T ended up
>with the iPhone, which they wanted, Verizon didn't end up with it
>because they didn't think that it was financially advantageous to meet
>the terms that Apple wanted.

Translation: Verizon lost out to AT&T.

>Is he that upset that AT&T was Apple's
>second choice? I'm sure that he searched endlessly for something to
>contradict the USA Today story, but was unsuccessful.

Nope. I don't waste time on unsubstantiated spin.

>He rarely posts
>any references or citations because most of what he posts is untrue.
>Looks like this is just one more case of him lying.

That would actually be you.

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

> The irony is that YOU demand proof, yet YOU never offer ANY to back up
> yours.

This is true, but it goes further than that. Even when posters
consistently provide references with their posts, as I almost always do,
he then makes up stories about why the references are not valid.

> Bottom line - hypocrite is the best description (that and complete ass)

I don't know why so many people insist on stating the obvious over and
over again. Kill-file him, ignore him, and he'll go away. People like
this _thrive_ on attention, and he's realized that posting outrageous
lies gets attention.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> So which numbers should we look at to be able to measure that massive
> advantage and its payoff? The wireless operations of AT&T and Verizon
> make about the same revenue from about the same number of customers, but
> Verizon's operating income from that revenue is about 50% higher than AT&T.
> And, despite the lower spending per customer, most big surveys which try
> to measure it still give Verizon's network a coverage and performance
> advantage. If there really is a massive advantage at something which
> matters it should be measureable somehow.

I think what some people don't take into account is the vast differences
between the U.S. and Europe & Asia when it comes to cellular. The
biggest reason why AT&T has such poor margins is because it has much
higher infrastructure costs, and these costs are directly related to the
technological disadvantages of GSM in terms of having to cover larger,
more sparsely populated, geographic areas. AT&T has even stated the
reasons for their low margins, and has said that margins will improve
once they are able to make fewer capital investments. Other than one
person out in the Pacific Ocean on a boat, no one in the U.S. has
experienced "extended range GSM" because no U.S. GSM carriers have
deployed it.

> 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.

The reasons for Sprint's problems are well known, and are unrelated to
CDMA or GSM. Poor customer service, poor coverage (though better than
AT&T's thanks to off-network roaming on Verizon), and a poor handset
selection. The last one _would_ have been made simpler if they were a
GSM operator, but Verizon has done well in handset selection, and is
able to leverage all the Korean CDMA handsets as well as getting CDMA
versions of other popular handsets. It wasn't that many years ago when
everyone was complaining about Verizon's handset selection, and claiming
that Sprint had better choices.

Eventually CDMA 2000 _and_ GSM will be EOL, and voice calls will be
carried over some version of CDMA or LTE technology.

On 2008-01-23, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> 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.

That's what I said. I don't know how much I can trust the things Verizon
(or anyone else) says in the promotion of their own interests, but the
fact that they felt the need to say anything at all speaks volumes about
the importance they must have attached to the iPhone. If it wasn't
important they wouldn't have bothered.

> Apple has never hesitated in responding to news stories about the iPhone
> that have no basis in fact. If the Verizon executive's statements had
> been false then they would have responded.

Even if the Verizon executive's statements had been entirely fabricated,
a self-serving denial from Apple might or might not have been believed but
certainly would have made it clear that Apple thought what a Verizon executive
(especially this particular source of clearly objective information) had
to say about them was important enough to deserve a response. Not saying
anything doesn't say anything about what was said, all it says is that
you don't think there is anything worth talking about.

Do you see the common theme in the two paragraphs I wrote above? I'm not
an iPhone fan but I think Apple won that one big time, though feel free to
continue to put your faith in your Verizon executive if you want. Beware of
unlocked phones.

> Verizon isn't the only carrier in the world that decided that Apple's
> requirements in terms of revenue sharing and distribution were not
> something they were interested in. See
> "http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9850498-7.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=NewsBlog".

You know, I'd be surprised if Apple hadn't talked to dozens of mobile
phone companies by now, including many we may never hear about (note
the Vodafone logo in the firmware but no reports of talks with Vodafone
in the press). They do have a hot product. For all I know they may
have even been shown the door after many of those visits; their terms
really do suck for the phone company. Out of all of this, so far we
have reports of a few details of what was said in two of those negotiation,
one from a China Mobile guy who claims he thought the seminar he was
speaking at would be private, and one from a Verizon VP of Communications
who apparently went out of his way to offer it to the press.

What I would conclude from this is that (1) leaks of private information
from those talks are rare (I think this is how it is supposed to work),
and (2) in intentionally leaking information about the terms of the deal
offered, Verizon is still unique. I think Verizon is still in a class
by itself, and that isn't a high class.

Oh, and I see the China Mobile guy also said China Mobile had some
concerns about Apple's competence building communications equipment.
I've seen no response from Apple about that. Does your theory about
the meaning of Apple's lack of response mean Apple also thinks this
report has some basis in fact, or does that theory only apply when it
suits you?

> It's pretty clear why Apple approached Verizon first.

It is pretty clear that Verizon is unlikely to know if they were
approached first, and while Apple knows Apple hasn't said yet. Beyond
that is the realm of speculation.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> That's what I said. I don't know how much I can trust the things Verizon
> (or anyone else) says in the promotion of their own interests, but the
> fact that they felt the need to say anything at all speaks volumes about
> the importance they must have attached to the iPhone. If it wasn't
> important they wouldn't have bothered.

They may have been compelled to say what transpired for their own
protection against shareholder lawsuits. They may have been concerned
that the facts would leak out and they wanted to put them out there
first. It may have been entirely self-serving sour grapes.

Whatever the case, one thing you can be certain of is that if the USA
Today story was a fabrication on the part of Verizon that AT&T and/or
Apple would have denied the story. Neither company has been shy about
responding to news stories about their products and services.

Look how Apple has responded to the stories about another Chinese
partner after China Mobile turned them down.

Business Week stated:

"China's largest mobile operator, China Mobile, stopped negotiation with
Apple due to a disagreement over revenue sharing."

No one has denied that this is true, not Apple, and not the China Mobile
competitors that are now reportedly being offered the iPhone.

Given what transpired in China, Is it really so hard for people to
believe that Apple didn't first approach Verizon, which has more retail
customers and a larger network than AT&T? Has anyone come up with
anything that contradicts the USA Today story?

'The U.S.'s largest mobile operator, Verizon, stopped negotiation with
Apple due to a disagreement over revenue sharing.'

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Jan 2008 22:41:05 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> 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!

We're not. It was Cingular at the time, particularly during the original
negotiations. Heck, it was still Cingular when the iPhone was announced.

So all of these "this is how at&t works" type posts are pointless IMO.



--
Mike

At 24 Jan 2008 12:51:22 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> > That's an interesting take on it that I'd agree with if this wasn't
> > AT&T we were talking about!
>
> We're not. It was Cingular at the time, particularly during the original
> negotiations. Heck, it was still Cingular when the iPhone was announced.
>
> So all of these "this is how at&t works" type posts are pointless IMO.

AT&T didn't acquire Cingular. It was simply a name change. Cingular was
owned by SBC (who bought and then assumed the name of AT&T, who by that
time was but a shadow of it's former self) and BellSouth. When "AT&T" (SBC)
merged with BellSouth, Cingular was rechristened "AT&T" with no material
change in operation. For all intents and purposes, "AT&T Mobility" (what
the company refers to it's wireless division internally) is the old Cingular,
unchanged but for it's name.

When I referred to "how AT&T works" I was referring to "The Artist Formerly
Known As Cingular." ;-)

RCR Wireless News, a cellular industry trade paper, has, since the name
change, been referring to the former Cingular as "AT&T Mobility" to avoid
confusion with "AT&T" (the former SBC/BellSouth landline telco) and "AT&T
Wireless" the old cell company spun off from the old AT&T and eventually
acquired by Cingular. Besides being the company's internal name for that
divison, it's easier to write and say than "the wireless division of AT&T."

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 24 Jan 2008 12:51:22 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>>> That's an interesting take on it that I'd agree with if this wasn't
>>> AT&T we were talking about!
>>
>> We're not. It was Cingular at the time, particularly during the
>> original negotiations. Heck, it was still Cingular when the iPhone
>> was announced.
>>
>> So all of these "this is how at&t works" type posts are pointless
>> IMO.
>
> AT&T didn't acquire Cingular.

It's not that black and white. The merger that was finalized in late
December 2006 was between AT&T and Bellsouth. Bellsouth owned half of AT&T.


> It was simply a name change.

See above (it was more than that--two parents coming together so to speak).
The rebranding came about in mid-January, 2007, after the iPhone's
announcement. In any event the company with whom Apple negotiated was not
AT&T (or maybe they did if they started early enough, but it would have been
ATTWS).

Please note it was your comment of "I'd agree with if this wasn't AT&T we
were talking about" that triggered my reply. To me that comment implies the
AT&T of yore, which doesn't apply at all in this situation, nor was "that"
AT&T even involved in iPhone negotiations.



--
Mike

At 24 Jan 2008 13:58:41 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> It's not that black and white. The merger that was finalized in late
> December 2006 was between AT&T and Bellsouth. Bellsouth owned half of AT&T.




Man, we REALLY need to define "AT&T" better! ;-)

BellSouth didn't own half of AT&T, they owned half (actually 40% to
SBC's 60%) of Cingular Wireless.

SBC bought what was left of AT&T (just the long distance and VoIP
"CallVantage" company- they'd already divested their wireless and hardware
divisions prior.) Essentially SBC bought the LD, VoIP, name, "blue sky,"
Death Star logo, etc.

> > It was simply a name change.
>
> See above (it was more than that--two parents coming together so to speak).



Yes- the two owners of Cingular became one- that really didn't affect
Cingular's operations any. When I say "it was simply a name change" I was
speaking from Cingular's perspective. Their ownership didn't really change-
instead of being owned by a separate SBC/AT&T and BellSouth, they're owned
by a merged SBC and BellSouth.
> The rebranding came about in mid-January, 2007, after the iPhone's
> announcement. In any event the company with whom Apple negotiated was not
> AT&T (or maybe they did if they started early enough, but it would have
been
> ATTWS).


No, it was negotiated with Cingular wireless, which again, despite the
marriage of it's owners is essentially the same company, with the same top
brass.

> Please note it was your comment of "I'd agree with if this wasn't AT&T we
> were talking about" that triggered my reply. To me that comment implies
the
> AT&T of yore, which doesn't apply at all in this situation, nor was
"that"
> AT&T even involved in iPhone negotiations.

True- I should've specified "AT&T's Wireless divison" which is Cingular.
The AT&T of yore is no more (sort of- the now combined SBC, BellSouth and
AT&T Long Distance probaby represents 40% of the old Ma Bell! If they can
merge with Verizon someday, we'll all wonder why we broke them up in the
first place!) ;-)

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 24 Jan 2008 12:51:22 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>>> That's an interesting take on it that I'd agree with if this wasn't
>>> AT&T we were talking about!
>> We're not. It was Cingular at the time, particularly during the original
>> negotiations. Heck, it was still Cingular when the iPhone was announced.
>>
>> So all of these "this is how at&t works" type posts are pointless IMO.
>
> AT&T didn't acquire Cingular. It was simply a name change. Cingular was
> owned by SBC (who bought and then assumed the name of AT&T, who by that
> time was but a shadow of it's former self) and BellSouth. When "AT&T" (SBC)
> merged with BellSouth, Cingular was rechristened "AT&T" with no material
> change in operation. For all intents and purposes, "AT&T Mobility" (what
> the company refers to it's wireless division internally) is the old Cingular,
> unchanged but for it's name.
>
> When I referred to "how AT&T works" I was referring to "The Artist Formerly
> Known As Cingular." ;-)
> RCR Wireless News, a cellular industry trade paper, has, since the name
> change, been referring to the former Cingular as "AT&T Mobility" to avoid
> confusion with "AT&T" (the former SBC/BellSouth landline telco) and "AT&T
> Wireless" the old cell company spun off from the old AT&T and eventually
> acquired by Cingular. Besides being the company's internal name for that
> divison, it's easier to write and say than "the wireless division of AT&T."

I think Steven Colbert had the best explanation of the whole thing:

"http://www.videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-gives-a-brief-history-of-ATT"

Tinman wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 24 Jan 2008 12:51:22 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>>
>>>> That's an interesting take on it that I'd agree with if this wasn't
>>>> AT&T we were talking about!
>>> We're not. It was Cingular at the time, particularly during the
>>> original negotiations. Heck, it was still Cingular when the iPhone
>>> was announced.
>>>
>>> So all of these "this is how at&t works" type posts are pointless
>>> IMO.
>> AT&T didn't acquire Cingular.
>
> It's not that black and white.

Despite the similarity in names, AT&T Wireless was a totally different
company than AT&T. AT&T spun it off on July 9th 2001.

SBC, which owned half of Cingular, acquired AT&T (not AT&T Wireless) on
November 18th 2005, and then changed its own name to AT&T.

Then AT&T (previously SBC) acquired BellSouth on December 29th 2006
(which owned the other half of Cingular), and the kept the AT&T name,
and now AT&T owned all of Cingular.

Then AT&T (which owned all of Cingular) decided to rename Cingular to
AT&T (though they did not rename it as AT&T Wireless).

So the bottom line is that AT&T did not acquire Cingular.

At 24 Jan 2008 16:05:51 -0800 SMS wrote:

> I think Steven Colbert had the best explanation of the whole thing:
>
> "http://www.videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-gives-a-brief-history-of-
ATT"
>

That's a great clip- I downloaded it to my phone a couple of months ago as
a test of some YouTube capture/playback Windows Mobile software. I still
fire it up occasionally for a chuckle.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 24 Jan 2008 16:05:51 -0800 SMS wrote:
>
>> I think Steven Colbert had the best explanation of the whole thing:
>>
>> "http://www.videosift.com/video/Stephen-Colbert-gives-a-brief-history-of-
> ATT"
>
> That's a great clip- I downloaded it to my phone a couple of months ago as
> a test of some YouTube capture/playback Windows Mobile software. I still
> fire it up occasionally for a chuckle.

It's been taken down from most places. That's the only place I could
find it anymore.

On Jan 23, 11:29 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> > So which numbers should we look at to be able to measure that massive
> > advantage and its payoff? The wireless operations of AT&T and Verizon
> > make about the same revenue from about the same number of customers, but
> > Verizon's operating income from that revenue is about 50% higher than AT&T.
> > And, despite the lower spending per customer, most big surveys which try
> > to measure it still give Verizon's network a coverage and performance
> > advantage. If there really is a massive advantage at something which
> > matters it should be measureable somehow.
>
> I think what some people don't take into account is the vast differences
> between the U.S. and Europe & Asia when it comes to cellular. The
> biggest reason why AT&T has such poor margins is because it has much
> higher infrastructure costs, and these costs are directly related to the
> technological disadvantages of GSM in terms of having to cover larger,
> more sparsely populated, geographic areas. AT&T has even stated the
> reasons for their low margins, and has said that margins will improve
> once they are able to make fewer capital investments. Other than one
> person out in the Pacific Ocean on a boat, no one in the U.S. has
> experienced "extended range GSM" because no U.S. GSM carriers have
> deployed it.
>
> > 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.
>
> The reasons for Sprint's problems are well known, and are unrelated to
> CDMA or GSM. Poor customer service, poor coverage (though better than
> AT&T's thanks to off-network roaming on Verizon), and a poor handset
> selection. The last one _would_ have been made simpler if they were a
> GSM operator, but Verizon has done well in handset selection, and is
> able to leverage all the Korean CDMA handsets as well as getting CDMA
> versions of other popular handsets. It wasn't that many years ago when
> everyone was complaining about Verizon's handset selection, and claiming
> that Sprint had better choices.
>
> Eventually CDMA 2000 _and_ GSM will be EOL, and voice calls will be
> carried over some version of CDMA or LTE technology.

There's still a good reason verizon and sprint phones don't work in
Europe or Japan or Korea...JG

jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote:

> There's still a good reason verizon and sprint phones don't work in
> Europe or Japan or Korea...JG

Verizon phones work just fine in Korea.

They also worked in Taiwan when I was there in 2002.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:479fb43e$0$84237$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> There's still a good reason verizon and sprint phones don't work in
>> Europe or Japan or Korea...JG
>
> Verizon phones work just fine in Korea.

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> They also worked in Taiwan when I was there in 2002.
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:479fb43e$0$84237$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> There's still a good reason verizon and sprint phones don't work in
>>> Europe or Japan or Korea...JG
>> Verizon phones work just fine in Korea.
>

CDMA is really spreading across Asia. I think it's because the
population density is so high that bandwidth utilization has become very
important, and CDMA is much more efficient than GSM.

Still, when traveling in Taiwan, I use prepaid GSM because it's much
cheaper than roaming on CDMA. If I had AT&T or T-Mobile GSM I would
still choose to use prepaid GSM in Taiwan.

The other poster, jgrove24, is particularly misinformed about Korea,
because it's actually GSM phones that don't work at all in Korea.

On Jan 29, 6:56 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> > They also worked in Taiwan when I was there in 2002.
>
> > "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:479fb43e$0$84237$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net.. .
> >> jgrov...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> There's still a good reason verizon and sprint phones don't work in
> >>> Europe or Japan or Korea...JG
> >> Verizon phones work just fine in Korea.
>
> CDMA is really spreading across Asia. I think it's because the
> population density is so high that bandwidth utilization has become very
> important, and CDMA is much more efficient than GSM.
>
> Still, when traveling in Taiwan, I use prepaid GSM because it's much
> cheaper than roaming on CDMA. If I had AT&T or T-Mobile GSM I would
> still choose to use prepaid GSM in Taiwan.
>
> The other poster,jgrove24, is particularly misinformed about Korea,
> because it's actually GSM phones that don't work at all in Korea.

Japan and Europe are the standard, with lots of features only
available on viewgraphs here...JG

On 2008-01-30, jgrove24@hotmail.com <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 6:56 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> The other poster,jgrove24, is particularly misinformed about Korea,
>> because it's actually GSM phones that don't work at all in Korea.
>
> Japan and Europe are the standard, with lots of features only
> available on viewgraphs here...JG

Unfortunately, GSM phones don't work in Japan either. I think
Korean CDMA phones might roam in Japan, but I think that service
is DCS rather than PCS and US phones don't support the band.

Dennis Ferguson

Is Japan entirely CDMA?

"Dennis Ferguson" <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:slrnfq20o3.4r.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com...
> On 2008-01-30, jgrove24@hotmail.com <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 6:56 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> The other poster,jgrove24, is particularly misinformed about Korea,
>>> because it's actually GSM phones that don't work at all in Korea.
>>
>> Japan and Europe are the standard, with lots of features only
>> available on viewgraphs here...JG
>
> Unfortunately, GSM phones don't work in Japan either. I think
> Korean CDMA phones might roam in Japan, but I think that service
> is DCS rather than PCS and US phones don't support the band.
>
> Dennis Ferguson

Jar-Jar Binks wrote:
> Is Japan entirely CDMA?

No.

Here's a good web site on the subject:
"http://euc.jp/misc/cellphones.en.html"

On 2008-01-31, Jar-Jar Binks <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
> Is Japan entirely CDMA?

No. I think the original digital standard there was a TDMA variant
called PDC. These days I think all the companies now support 3G UMTS,
so you can also roam with a (European) 3G phone. No GSM though.

Dennis Ferguson

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Dennis Ferguson posted:
> On 2008-01-31, Jar-Jar Binks <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Is Japan entirely CDMA?
> No. I think the original digital standard there was a TDMA variant
> called PDC. These days I think all the companies now support 3G UMTS,
> so you can also roam with a (European) 3G phone. No GSM though.

Close, but not quite correct. There is no GSM in Japan, but not "all
companies" support UMTS.

NTT DoCoMo, Softbank, and TU-KA all have PDC networks. PDC is 2G and
pretty much unique to Japan.

Willcom has a PHS network. IIRC, PHS is also used by a carrier in Taiwan.

There is a CDMA carrier in Japan (au), with both 2G and 3G CDMA. au
operates on different frequencies than North American CDMA phones.
Consequently, North American CDMA phones can NOT roam in Japan. Some CDMA
phones in other countries can roam in Japan.

NTT DoCoMo and Softbank have W-CDMA networks, however only Softbank's is
based upon the current UMTS specification. NTT DoCoMo is based upon an
earlier version. European 3G phones should roam on Softbank's network,
but there may be difficulties in roaming on NTT DoCoMo's FOMA network.

The bottom line is that most US phones do NOT roam in Japan. Only a phone
with UMTS in the 2100 band will roam in Japan. IIRC, T-Mobile and AT&T
each have one smartphone that has that.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.