Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of theiPhone?

Carl wrote:
> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.

Your analogy was asinine.

Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling its
network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If they
tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
commoditized as mobile phones. And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as
advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be
well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year).


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.
>
> Your analogy was asinine.
>
> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
> Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling its
> network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If they
> tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
> commoditized as mobile phones.

This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
Verizon network. I was on Nevada 431, the road that connects North Lake
Tahoe to Reno over Mount Rose. There was CDMA coverage on Verizon, and
roaming onto Verizon by Sprint, but there was no AT&T or T-Mobile
coverage. I was stopped at a snowplay area and was on the phone, and
talking to someone who had no signal on his AT&T phone, and he was using
his friend's Sprint phone. 431 is a fairly major state highway for
Nevada, it's not some back-country Forest Service Road. Similarly, up at
the Mount Rose Ski Area, you can only get coverage on AMPS, there is no
CDMA or GSM at the lodge (though at the top of the mountain you can get
CDMA coverage.

> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as
> advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be
> well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year).

In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms of
retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs, so the
AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less subscribers.

See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"

"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47714362$0$84207$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Tinman wrote:
>> Carl wrote:
>>> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.
>>
>> Your analogy was asinine.
>>
>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
>> Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling
>> its network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If
>> they tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
>> commoditized as mobile phones.
>
> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the Verizon
> network. I was on Nevada 431, the road that connects North Lake Tahoe to
> Reno over Mount Rose. There was CDMA coverage on Verizon, and roaming onto
> Verizon by Sprint, but there was no AT&T or T-Mobile coverage. I was
> stopped at a snowplay area and was on the phone, and talking to someone
> who had no signal on his AT&T phone, and he was using his friend's Sprint
> phone. 431 is a fairly major state highway for Nevada, it's not some
> back-country Forest Service Road. Similarly, up at the Mount Rose Ski
> Area, you can only get coverage on AMPS, there is no CDMA or GSM at the
> lodge (though at the top of the mountain you can get CDMA coverage.
>
>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some assert
>> (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T by the end of
>> this year).
>
> In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms of
> retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs, so the
> AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less subscribers.
>
> See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"
>
So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-) And one point to you,
tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing part of your
point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more to Verizon because
their network is superior, not because of the phones they offer. All of my
posts have been about service over price and that too many people shop price
over service.

You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but many,
including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the premium for it.
So, name-call if you will, but my position is clear and I believe in the
correctness of it, including that of my analogy, a tough one to form,
admittedly, but the best I could come up with on the spot.

Carl wrote:
> "SMS ???. ?" wrote:
>> Tinman wrote:
>>>
>>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to
>>> cellphones. Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better
>>> phones; it's selling its network and it's not priced that much
>>> higher than the competition. If they tried to truly go high-end
>>> they would likely fail in an industry as commoditized as mobile
>>> phones.
>>
>> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
>> Verizon network...
<snippola>

This past week I had another chance to see no advantage to Verizon's
network. In Lake Havasu City, AZ I was able to get Sprint (both CDMA and
iDEN) as well as AT&T. Zero, and I do mean zero, native Verizon coverage so
all Verizon users must roam on Sprint.

Whatever network advantage Verizon may have, or had, is negligible to most
people and isn't worth it to me especially if it comes with crippled
handsets too.


>>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some
>>> assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T
>>> by the end of this year).
>>
>> In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms
>> of retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs,
>> so the AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less
>> subscribers. See
>> "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"

That data was from Q4 2006--ancient news. It merely relates to "Retail
subscribers." Only you and a few others thought that meant anything, and in
your case entirely to tease Navas. But the fact remains there are more
people--right now--using AT&T's network than Verizon's. You predicted that
Verizon would be well ahead of AT&T by now and that didn't happen. (And for
the record Q4 2006 actually saw AT&T's Cingular add more net subscribers
than Verizon.)

Moreover, 2007, particularly after the iPhone's announcement and even more
so after its release has seen AT&T increase subs at a record pace. And last
I checked, back in November of *this* year, AT&T was still the largest
carrier in the U.S. (65.7 mil Vs. Verizon's 63.7 mil)

Either way you were wrong in your prediction.


>>
> So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-)

It was asinine.


> And one point
> to you, tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing
> part of your point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more
> to Verizon because their network is superior, not because of the
> phones they offer.

Just like the same brand of jeans is somehow better if bought at Macy's
instead of Target?

Either way Verizon is not high-end, and that's what you originally asserted.


> All of my posts have been about service over price
> and that too many people shop price over service.
>

Not quite. This is what you actually wrote:
"I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?"

Yes, the can-you-hear-me-now dweeb exudes high end!

Seriously though, why is that guy still around? The ads are painful to watch
lately. And this isn't due to Verizon per se: the ads themselves seem
horrible.


> You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but
> many, including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the
> premium for it.

Good thing you weren't where I was this week: you'd have had zero native
Verizon coverage. And we wouldn't want you to have to slum it and uses
Sprint's now would we? <snerk>

I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and never once
did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed after hesitantly
switching to AT&T for my main phone this past summer I have been very
impressed with AT&T's coverage--no problem for me whatsoever.

Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on that
one big-time.


--
Mike

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in message
news:5te57eF1arpb6U1@mid.individual.net...
> Carl wrote:
>> "SMS ???. ?" wrote:
>>> Tinman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to
>>>> cellphones. Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better
>>>> phones; it's selling its network and it's not priced that much
>>>> higher than the competition. If they tried to truly go high-end
>>>> they would likely fail in an industry as commoditized as mobile
>>>> phones.
>>>
>>> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
>>> Verizon network...
> <snippola>
>
> This past week I had another chance to see no advantage to Verizon's
> network. In Lake Havasu City, AZ I was able to get Sprint (both CDMA and
> iDEN) as well as AT&T. Zero, and I do mean zero, native Verizon coverage
> so all Verizon users must roam on Sprint.
>
> Whatever network advantage Verizon may have, or had, is negligible to most
> people and isn't worth it to me especially if it comes with crippled
> handsets too.
>
>
>>>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some
>>>> assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T
>>>> by the end of this year).
>>>
>>> In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms
>>> of retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs,
>>> so the AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less
>>> subscribers. See
>>> "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"
>
> That data was from Q4 2006--ancient news. It merely relates to "Retail
> subscribers." Only you and a few others thought that meant anything, and
> in your case entirely to tease Navas. But the fact remains there are more
> people--right now--using AT&T's network than Verizon's. You predicted that
> Verizon would be well ahead of AT&T by now and that didn't happen. (And
> for the record Q4 2006 actually saw AT&T's Cingular add more net
> subscribers than Verizon.)
>
> Moreover, 2007, particularly after the iPhone's announcement and even more
> so after its release has seen AT&T increase subs at a record pace. And
> last I checked, back in November of *this* year, AT&T was still the
> largest carrier in the U.S. (65.7 mil Vs. Verizon's 63.7 mil)
>
> Either way you were wrong in your prediction.
>
>
>>>
>> So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-)
>
> It was asinine.
>
>
>> And one point
>> to you, tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing
>> part of your point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more
>> to Verizon because their network is superior, not because of the
>> phones they offer.
>
> Just like the same brand of jeans is somehow better if bought at Macy's
> instead of Target?
>
> Either way Verizon is not high-end, and that's what you originally
> asserted.
>
>
>> All of my posts have been about service over price
>> and that too many people shop price over service.
>>
>
> Not quite. This is what you actually wrote:
> "I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?"
>
> Yes, the can-you-hear-me-now dweeb exudes high end!
>
> Seriously though, why is that guy still around? The ads are painful to
> watch lately. And this isn't due to Verizon per se: the ads themselves
> seem horrible.
>
>
>> You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but
>> many, including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the
>> premium for it.
>
> Good thing you weren't where I was this week: you'd have had zero native
> Verizon coverage. And we wouldn't want you to have to slum it and uses
> Sprint's now would we? <snerk>
>
> I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and never once
> did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed after hesitantly
> switching to AT&T for my main phone this past summer I have been very
> impressed with AT&T's coverage--no problem for me whatsoever.
>
> Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on
> that one big-time.
>
>
Here's the 2007 JD Power review of all cell phone providers. Sprint scored
the lowest in all rated areas and in all sections of the country. Guess who
scored highest (though granted with not 100% consistency)?
http://www.jdpower.com/telecom/ratin...ings-(volume-2).

Here's PC Magazine's survey of 8000 readers:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2017602,00.asp. Sprint again managed to
get the lowest overall score. Guess again who got the highest?

Here's one more just to put the icing on the cake:
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/el...l-phone-plans/

I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent magazine
article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of Sprint being the one
service provider to avoid. I have seen talk in other newsgroups of Sprint
possibly going out of business and possibly being absorbed by Verizon. None
of what I've read speaks well for Sprint. So you guys can cite your own
one-man-in-one-mysterious-spot experiences and feel better about yourselves
I suppose, but the facts don't support you.

Here's just one more, to drive the point home:
http://www.letstalk.com/reviews/reviewhome.htm. I'm sure the results are
predicitable by this time.

The one place we agree on is that I have been considering switching to AT&T
over the iPhone fiasco. Though the truth is I wanted a phone that did
internet access well AND had PDA capabilities, which iPhone does not. I m
not a text messager or someone who spends their time watching movies on
their phone. I eventually discovered the 8xxx series Blackberry and fell in
love with the 8130 Pearl. I bought it outright without extending my Vz
contract 'cause I need to see what changes iPhone will bring about in the
next few months/year and din't want to be locked in.

At 25 Dec 2007 21:55:37 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> Seriously though, why is that guy still around? The ads are painful to
watch
> lately. And this isn't due to Verizon per se: the ads themselves seem
> horrible.


Actually I find the "pony" ad hysterical.. (the girl who gets the pony for
a gift while her friends rceived Verizon phones.) For some reason that ad
breaks me up.

Carl wrote:

> You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but many,
> including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the premium for it.
> So, name-call if you will, but my position is clear and I believe in the
> correctness of it, including that of my analogy, a tough one to form,
> admittedly, but the best I could come up with on the spot.

The premium, if any, is small. Verizon offers a large number of
corporate discounts, available to most customers.

While the SERO discount on Sprint is even better, and available to
everyone, the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on
Verizon in areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor
coverage).

Also, PagePlus prepaid, a Verizon MVNO, offers rates as low as 5.3¢ per
minute. For users that want AT&T wireless because of the selection of
GSM phones, but also want better coverage when traveling outside urban
areas, it makes sense to keep a prepaid PagePlus phone active for when
they travel outside GSM coverage areas.

Carl wrote:

> I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent magazine
> article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of Sprint being the one
> service provider to avoid. I have seen talk in other newsgroups of Sprint
> possibly going out of business and possibly being absorbed by Verizon.

Verizon would only acquire Sprint if it were at a fire sale price. No
doubt they'd like the increase in subscribers, but they have no need for
most of Sprint's network infrastructure and don't want to assume all
those expensive store leases.

Tinman wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>> "SMS ???. ?" wrote:
>>> Tinman wrote:
>>>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to
>>>> cellphones. Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better
>>>> phones; it's selling its network and it's not priced that much
>>>> higher than the competition. If they tried to truly go high-end
>>>> they would likely fail in an industry as commoditized as mobile
>>>> phones.
>>> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
>>> Verizon network...
> <snippola>
>
> This past week I had another chance to see no advantage to Verizon's
> network. In Lake Havasu City, AZ I was able to get Sprint (both CDMA and
> iDEN) as well as AT&T. Zero, and I do mean zero, native Verizon coverage so
> all Verizon users must roam on Sprint.
>
> Whatever network advantage Verizon may have, or had, is negligible to most
> people and isn't worth it to me especially if it comes with crippled
> handsets too.
>
>
>>>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some
>>>> assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T
>>>> by the end of this year).
>>> In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms
>>> of retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs,
>>> so the AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less
>>> subscribers. See
>>> "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"
>
> That data was from Q4 2006--ancient news. It merely relates to "Retail
> subscribers." Only you and a few others thought that meant anything, and in
> your case entirely to tease Navas. But the fact remains there are more
> people--right now--using AT&T's network than Verizon's.

LOL, I didn't do it to tease Navas, I've had him filtered for so long
that I'd largely forgotten about him other than the annoyance of reading
other people's retorts to his periodic postings of the Cingular charter
into the AT&T newsgroup.

There are three metrics that analysts use when comparing carriers:

1. Retail postpaid subscribers
Verizon: 59.4 million
AT&T: 52.7 million
2. ARPU
Verizon: $52.17
AT&T: $50.82
3. Retail PostPaid Churn
Verizon: 0.96%
AT&T: 1.3%

It's true that AT&T has a lot more MVNO's using it's network, which
boosts the total number of users on their network, but the fact remains
that they now have far fewer retail postpaid subscribers than Verizon.
The lower quality, lower revenue MVNO customers (TracFone, SpeakOut,
Net10, etc) give AT&T the edge in total users. Verizon doesn't pursue
the wholesale business like AT&T and Sprint.

> Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on that
> one big-time.

It doesn't seem that way. They still have higher ARPU, more subscribers,
and lower churn than AT&T. Clearly Verizon considered the terms Apple
wanted as being financially undesirable, despite the hype that they
would have gained with the iPhone. Also, Verizon is very big with
corporate customers, that could not use the iPhone on any network, and
need PDA type phones with more functionality than the iPhone.

SMS 斯蒂文• � wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>> =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in news:476bf2a7$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>>
>>> superior coverage.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't been to Myrtle Beach, have you?.....(c;
>
> I'm sure that there are numerous small cities and towns where Verizon
> isn't great, but for the metro areas where most of the customers are,
> they are much better in almost every case. I guess I'm a little skewed
> because in the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon is so much better than
> the other carriers in terms of coverage. The other carriers are simply
> unusable in many of the less urban parts of the Bay Area.

I should also point out that for many Verizon subscribers, one of the
biggest advantages is not their native network, but the ability to roam
on many of the smaller rural networks that moved from TDMA/AMPS to
CDMA/AMPS. I use one of them all the time, the Golden State Cellular
network in Northern California.

While it's true that the major carriers will be turning off AMPS in
urban areas, the rural carriers will keep AMPS up and running "for the
foreseeable future" because their customers are highly dependent on
AMPS. Verizon even just introduced a new tri-mode phone, the LG VX-5400.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:47728ed8$0$84180$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> While it's true that the major carriers will be turning off AMPS in
> urban areas, the rural carriers will keep AMPS up and running "for the
> foreseeable future" because their customers are highly dependent on
> AMPS. Verizon even just introduced a new tri-mode phone, the LG VX-
5400.
>
>

"Cellular Coverage Certifications
Cellular licensees that intend to discontinue analog service after
February 18, 2008 are permitted, in lieu of making a revised Cellular
Geographic Service Area (CGSA) showing, to file a certification stating
that the discontinuance of analog service will not result in any loss of
wireless coverage throughout an affected CGSA."

These words are from the FCC website on Cellular. If any of them turn
off AMPS in 2008, I'd bet they could be busted on grounds that turning
off AMPS WILL "result in any loss of wireless coverage throughout an
affected CGSA".

I don't know of a single carrier that could say that, in truth, in the
rural areas of America. They'd have to go on a major erection binge to
fill in the holes between the AMPS towers 10 miles apart putting up
little towers 4 miles apart to use with the toyphones.

Sure would be fun to see that tested in court with very rich rural AMPS
users like big Texas ranchers, oil companies, etc. to keep AMPS turned
on. Just the loss of all but the very latest OnStar-equipped digital
cars would be enough to make filing a statement that there was no effect
a TOTAL LIE.

Nice try, though....(c;


Larry
--

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9A129F670AC9Anoonehomecom@
208.49.80.253:

> Nice try, though....(c;
>

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ind...ts&id=cellular

Here is where all 11 reports are for your reading. Verizon, ATT/Cing,
Alltel, Dobson want out. 3 of the reports are from AMPS users, including
Onstar and the Alarm Company lobby. The AMPS traffic is low, less than 1%
Alltel says, but the majority users like Onstar and Alarm systems are using
AMPS for signalling that digital cannot do. These systems don't "use"
airtime, only pay for it and give it back, unless something bad happens.
Is it any wonder only 1% are AMPS calls?

Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?

Larry wrote:

> "Cellular Coverage Certifications
> Cellular licensees that intend to discontinue analog service after
> February 18, 2008 are permitted, in lieu of making a revised Cellular
> Geographic Service Area (CGSA) showing, to file a certification stating
> that the discontinuance of analog service will not result in any loss of
> wireless coverage throughout an affected CGSA."
>
> These words are from the FCC website on Cellular. If any of them turn
> off AMPS in 2008, I'd bet they could be busted on grounds that turning
> off AMPS WILL "result in any loss of wireless coverage throughout an
> affected CGSA".

Yeah, and what are the penalties for lying about this going to be, and
who is going to enforce this rule in the Bush FCC?

> I don't know of a single carrier that could say that, in truth, in the
> rural areas of America. They'd have to go on a major erection binge to
> fill in the holes between the AMPS towers 10 miles apart putting up
> little towers 4 miles apart to use with the toyphones.

In reality they could not put up enough towers even if they wanted to,
since many of the areas where AMPS service is now available are in areas
where more towers for digital would not be permitted.

I could tell the FCC a dozen areas just in the San Francisco Bay Area
where AMPS is the only coverage, and many of those are not off in the
woods somewhere. Of course once AMPS is shut down, how am I going to
prove to the FCC that there used to be coverage where there is now none?

> Sure would be fun to see that tested in court with very rich rural AMPS
> users like big Texas ranchers, oil companies, etc. to keep AMPS turned
> on. Just the loss of all but the very latest OnStar-equipped digital
> cars would be enough to make filing a statement that there was no effect
> a TOTAL LIE.

That's not a good example because much of the loss of OnStar coverage is
in urban areas where there is digital coverage that older OnStar cars
cannot use.

It's also possible that the urban carriers that also have AMPS networks
in rural settings will just quietly leave the rural portions turned on
in order to remain in compliance, but they understandably don't want to
get into the position of saying which areas will remain on and which
will be turned off.

Of course if they simply switch off all the AMPS, who's going to be able
to prove that their used to be coverage in areas where there is now no
coverage? AFAIK, no one is out there documenting all the AMPS only areas
in the country.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
in news:4772c8e9$0$84248$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Of course if they simply switch off all the AMPS, who's going to be able
> to prove that their used to be coverage in areas where there is now no
> coverage? AFAIK, no one is out there documenting all the AMPS only areas
> in the country.
>
>

I got interested in this thread and read through as many of the 11 parts
on:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ind...ts&id=cellular
as I could.

It's interesting to note you can read ALL of the comments from the various
company lawyers EXCEPT VERIZON, of course. One Verizon document has major
areas blacked out and looks like some kind of secret CIA document released
under pressure. The latest Verizon document is mysteriously MISSING and
refuses to load at all.

Why does this not surprise me that we cannot read what Verizon says......??
Why doesn't the FCC want us to see what Verizon says? Why the secrecy and
blackouts? Assholes.

Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?

Larry wrote:
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9A129F670AC9Anoonehomecom@
> 208.49.80.253:
>
>> Nice try, though....(c;
>>
>
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ind...ts&id=cellular
>
> Here is where all 11 reports are for your reading. Verizon, ATT/Cing,
> Alltel, Dobson want out. 3 of the reports are from AMPS users, including
> Onstar and the Alarm Company lobby. The AMPS traffic is low, less than 1%
> Alltel says, but the majority users like Onstar and Alarm systems are using
> AMPS for signalling that digital cannot do.


I guess all of the remote metering that uses CDMA on VZWs network that
the local power utility uses in my area doesn't really work?


These systems don't "use"
> airtime, only pay for it and give it back, unless something bad happens.
> Is it any wonder only 1% are AMPS calls?
>
> Larry

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:O5idnZGxk_VNUe_anZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com:

> I guess all of the remote metering that uses CDMA on VZWs network that
> the local power utility uses in my area doesn't really work?
>

Does it use CDMA or EVDO? I suspect 1X or EVDO....

Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?

On 2007-12-26, SMS ???? ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 1. Retail postpaid subscribers
> Verizon: 59.4 million
> AT&T: 52.7 million
> 2. ARPU
> Verizon: $52.17
> AT&T: $50.82

Of course the postpaid subscriber numbers and ARPU numbers are apples
and oranges. The ARPU number for AT&T isn't the average for those 52.7
million postpaid subscribers, it is the average revenue from all 65.7
million subscribers of any description, including the 13 million you
excluded as "lower quality".

>> Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on that
>> one big-time.
>
> It doesn't seem that way. They still have higher ARPU, more subscribers,
> and lower churn than AT&T. Clearly Verizon considered the terms Apple
> wanted as being financially undesirable, despite the hype that they
> would have gained with the iPhone. Also, Verizon is very big with
> corporate customers,

Yet, despite all that, AT&T's total revenue from providing phone service
is higher than Verizon's ($9.9 billion in the last quarter, compared to
$9.7 billion for Verizon). The total number of AT&T subscribers (not
just the numbers you cherry-picked) is enough higher than Verizon to
more than cancel the small advantage in ARPU which Verizon has.

Verizon did, however, substantially exceed AT&T's revenue from non-service
business, i.e. mostly selling phones and accessories. Verizon's near-monopoly
on phones used with their service has certainly been profitable.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> Yet, despite all that, AT&T's total revenue from providing phone service
> is higher than Verizon's ($9.9 billion in the last quarter, compared to
> $9.7 billion for Verizon).

LOL, don't look just at revenue, look at income.

AT&T had income of $1.93 billion on revenue of $10.937 billion in their
wireless business.
"http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.pdf"

Verizon had income of $3.06 billion on revenue of 11.262 billion in
their domestic wireless business.
"http://investor.verizon.com/sec/sec_frame.aspx?FilingID=5502020"

I think that it's pretty clear that concentrating on retail postpaid
subscribers, rather than dropping your pants on wholesale pricing, is
beneficial in terms of both revenue and income. AT&T views Tracfone,
Net10, etc., as pure upside from customers that would otherwise not be
on AT&T at all, while Verizon appears to believe that it's better to
write off those customers because they will cut into retail sales.

Of course my favorite prepaid MVNO, PagePlus, is probably not making
Verizon too happy, but they are so small that they don't have much of an
effect on the financials.

At 26 Dec 2007 15:22:00 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• � wrote:


> LOL, don't look just at revenue, look at income.
>
> AT&T had income of $1.93 billion on revenue of $10.937 billion
> in their wireless business.
> "http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.pdf"
>
> Verizon had income of $3.06 billion on revenue of 11.262 billion
> in their domestic wireless business.
> "http://investor.verizon.com/sec/sec_frame.aspx?FilingID=5502020"
>
> I think that it's pretty clear that concentrating on retail
> postpaid subscribers, rather than dropping your pants on wholesale
> pricing, is beneficial in terms of both revenue and income.


That assumes that all else is equal, and as you know, it isn't. Arguably,
AT&T's revenue AND income would be worse without their wholesale business.
MVNOs certainly drag ARPU down a little, but it's a very profitable
business since you push the expense of accounting, handset subsidies and
support onto the MVNO. The network and capacity are already sitting there-
Dire Straits' "Money For Not in'" comes to mind... ;-) The trick isto
insure that wholesale (or prepaid) doesn't cannabalize the core postpaid
retail business.


> AT&T views Tracfone, Net10, etc., as pure upside from customers
> that would otherwise not be on AT&T at all,


Which it is...


> while Verizon appears to believe that it's better to write off
> those customers because they will cut into retail sales.

But again, all else is not equal. Verizon can afford to eschew wholesale
by riding on the perceived strength of "The Network" and protects it from
being devalued by wholesale. If AT&T dumped the wholesale business what it
get them except less revenue and income?


> Of course my favorite prepaid MVNO, PagePlus, is probably not making
> Verizon too happy, but they are so small that they don't have much
> of an effect on the financials.


Do you really think Verizon couldn't stop Page Plus if they were truly
unhappy with PP's pricing? The simple threat of not renewing PP's MVNO
contract would be all it takes to make them adjust their pricing.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 26 Dec 2007 15:22:00 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• � wrote:
>
>> LOL, don't look just at revenue, look at income.
>>
>> AT&T had income of $1.93 billion on revenue of $10.937 billion
>> in their wireless business.
>> "http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.pdf"
>>
>> Verizon had income of $3.06 billion on revenue of 11.262 billion
>> in their domestic wireless business.
>> "http://investor.verizon.com/sec/sec_frame.aspx?FilingID=5502020"
>>
>> I think that it's pretty clear that concentrating on retail
>> postpaid subscribers, rather than dropping your pants on wholesale
>> pricing, is beneficial in terms of both revenue and income.
>
> That assumes that all else is equal, and as you know, it isn't. Arguably,
> AT&T's revenue AND income would be worse without their wholesale business.

Yes, but arguably Verizon's income would be worse if they decided to
aggressively enter the wholesale business.

You can't assume that. Verizon certainly would have chosen to
aggressively compete in the wholesale business if it believed that it
would increase its income. Clearly Verizon's position is based on their
belief that wholesaling would hurt their brand and that even if
wholesaling increased revenue it would come at the expense of income.

Sprint and AT&T have the attitude of having nothing to lose by
wholesaling to anyone that wants to start up an MVNO. They are the two
worst-rated carriers. Everything is upside, and their is no branding
left to hurt.

"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent magazine
> article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of Sprint being the
> one service provider to avoid.

The problem is that all the articles you linked are surveys of customer
service, not network coverage. I think most of us would agree that customer
service is the least important factor to consider when making a purchase.
I've had the best experience with buisnesses that provide no customer
service at all -- for example, newegg.

~None

"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
> areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).

Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode.

~None

Carl wrote:
> "Tinman" wrote:
>>
>> I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and
>> never once did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed
>> after hesitantly switching to AT&T for my main phone this past
>> summer I have been very impressed with AT&T's coverage--no problem
>> for me whatsoever. Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone.
>> Verizon blew it
>> on that one big-time.
>>
>>
> Here's the 2007 JD Power review of all cell phone providers. Sprint
> scored the lowest in all rated areas and in all sections of the
> country. Guess who scored highest (though granted with not 100%
> consistency)?

I wrote about network coverage gaps and you came back about customer
service? How would Verizon's customer service have helped me in an area that
has no--again, no--Verizon coverage? <shakes head>


>
> I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent
> magazine article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of
> Sprint being the one service provider to avoid. I have seen talk in
> other newsgroups of Sprint possibly going out of business and
> possibly being absorbed by Verizon. None of what I've read speaks
> well for Sprint. So you guys can cite your own
> one-man-in-one-mysterious-spot experiences and feel better about
> yourselves I suppose, but the facts don't support you.

Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that
he claimed had only Verizon coverage. You said nothing. Others brought up
true-life experiences with Sprint, covering a much larger area, and you
whine? Grow up already, no one insulted one of your family--it's cellphone
carrier, that's all.

Again: I have had no problems with Sprint, for more than seven years now, as
far as coverage, phone selection, call quality, and pricing are concerned.
Yes customer service sucks but that doesn't make the other carriers "great."
They just happen to suck less in an industry that sucks a lot. But you know
what? I don't call customer service very often, so it doesn't effect me
much--certainly not enough to pay more money for it.

I've now had AT&T for nearly six months with no problems either. Since I
have had no problems with either Sprint or AT&T I fail to see why I should
be impressed with Verizon when they have zero coverage in at least one area
that I am in all of the time, and they passed up the only phone that could
have possibly gotten me to switch.


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:

> Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that
> he claimed had only Verizon coverage.

Hardly remote. These are major state highways we're talking about, not
some back-country trails or Forest Service roads. It's not just in one
place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at the
carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.

The best option for AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers that are traveling
outside metro areas is to bring along a prepaid CDMA/AMPS phone so they
have a much better chance of obtaining coverage.

For 21¢ per month, and as low as 25¢ per minute you can have a phone
that can use the American Roaming Network (outgoing only). For $2.31
per month, and as low as 5.3¢ per minute, you can have a PagePlus account.

none wrote:
> "SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>> the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
>> areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).
>
> Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode.

It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.

SMS ???. ? wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>> Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote
>> area that he claimed had only Verizon coverage.
>
> Hardly remote

More remote than the areas Elmo and I brought up.


>. These are major state highways we're talking about, not
> some back-country trails or Forest Service roads.

I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV 431. It's
not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway that runs through
many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it into Reno proper.

My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless for most
everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the exact same areas,
in the exact same timeframes, as you. Still I refuted the last anecdotal
report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.


> It's not just in one
> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
> with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at
> the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.

Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
roaming--on Sprint. <g>


>
> The best option for AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers that are traveling
> outside metro areas is to bring along a prepaid CDMA/AMPS phone so
> they have a much better chance of obtaining coverage.
>
> For 21¢ per month, and as low as 25¢ per minute you can have a phone
> that can use the American Roaming Network (outgoing only). For $2.31
> per month, and as low as 5.3¢ per minute, you can have a PagePlus
> account.

You too are being a little overly dramatic with the "need two phones"
nonsense. I travel frequently, live in the desert southwest, and have never
had coverage issues with either CDMA-only, or GSM-only during the last 2+
years of using nothing but digital. In fact I've carried my Sprint phone
with me for the last six months "just in case" and never needed it, not even
once.

Wake up, it's not 2000 anymore.


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:

> I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV 431. It's
> not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway that runs through
> many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it into Reno proper.

It's one of the major routes between Lake Tahoe and Reno. The other
route is down through Carson City then 50 over Spooner Summit, also a
windy mountain road.

> My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless for most
> everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the exact same areas,
> in the exact same timeframes, as you.

It's naive to believe that the areas where I noted lack of coverage are
somehow the only such areas in existence. Amusingly, looking at the AT&T
coverage map, they do claim to cover most of 431. The area where they
have a gap is where the road goes through Mount Rose Meadows, but
ironically that's where both the snow play area, snowmobile area, and
skiing/snowshoeing areas are located.

> Still I refuted the last anecdotal
> report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.

Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg"

>> It's not just in one
>> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
>> with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at
>> the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.
>
> Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
> roaming--on Sprint. <g>

It shows up with complete digital coverage. It doesn't say whether it's
roaming or native, not that I would care. Actually when you switch the
coverage type to InPulse from Voice & Messaging, the coverage goes away,
so that's a good clue that it's not native coverage.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:47741390$0$84235$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Tinman wrote:
>
>> I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV
>> 431. It's not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway
>> that runs through many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it
>> into Reno proper.
>
> It's one of the major routes between Lake Tahoe and Reno. The other
> route is down through Carson City then 50 over Spooner Summit, also a
> windy mountain road.
>
>> My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless
>> for most everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the
>> exact same areas, in the exact same timeframes, as you.
>
> It's naive to believe that the areas where I noted lack of coverage
> are somehow the only such areas in existence. Amusingly, looking at
> the AT&T coverage map, they do claim to cover most of 431. The area
> where they have a gap is where the road goes through Mount Rose
> Meadows, but ironically that's where both the snow play area,
> snowmobile area, and skiing/snowshoeing areas are located.
>
>> Still I refuted the last anecdotal
>> report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.
>
> Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg"
>
>>> It's not just in one
>>> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
>>> with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at
>>> the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.
>>
>> Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
>> roaming--on Sprint. <g>
>
> It shows up with complete digital coverage. It doesn't say whether
> it's roaming or native, not that I would care. Actually when you
> switch the coverage type to InPulse from Voice & Messaging, the
> coverage goes away, so that's a good clue that it's not native
> coverage.
>

Steve, you've turned into the Verizon version of Navas. Maybe not quite as
obnoxious, but every bit as rabid and blinded by brand. You've been like
that for years and just like Navas refuse to admit it. I've seen you take
vindictive actions against other carriers on the internet because of
opinions that didn't advance your own Verizon agenda.

Be better than Navas and at least admit it. If not, you end up being no
better a source of information than he is, which is a poor place to be in.

TO be a troll or not be a troll- the decision is yours.

"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
> phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.

Roaming only works on every digital s