NEWS: Sprint axes 4,000 jobs, closes 125 stores

The serious woes of Sprint continue, just as I predicted...

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/18/sprint_job_cuts/>

Workers tumble through gaping subscriptions hole

US mobile phone provider Sprint Nextel said today it will slash
around 4,000 jobs and close about eight per cent of its stores, in an
attempt to claw back costs in the face of a haemorrhaging customer
base.

THE FIRM ADMITTED IN A STATEMENT THAT IT HAS BEEN HIT BY AN INABILITY
TO ATTRACT NEW SUBSCRIBERS TO ITS SERVICE. [emphasis added]

Sprint - which recorded a total subscriber base of 53.8 million at
the end of 2007 - said in a statement that 125 stores and some 4,000
retail outlets throughout the US would be closed, in a cost-cutting
exercise that could save the struggling firm $700 to $800m by the end
of the year.

Sprint said 683,000 post-paid subscribers and 202,000 prepaid
subscribers had done a runner in the last quarter (Q4) alone.

According to Reuters, the firm has been squeezed by bigger rivals
such as AT&T. It has also been hindered by customer service and
network problems, as well as feeling the pinch from the credit crunch
crisis.

The company said that it picked up 500,000 new subscribers through
its wholesale channels in the last quarter, and recorded growth of
256,000 Boost Unlimited users and net additions of 20,000 subscribers
in its affiliate channels.

Shares in Sprint have plummeted more than 25 per cent on Wall Street.
The wireless telecom firm is due to deliver its Q4 results on 28
February.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Jan 18, 6:10 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> The serious woes of Sprint continue, just as I predicted...
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/18/sprint_job_cuts/>
>
> Workers tumble through gaping subscriptions hole
>
> US mobile phone provider Sprint Nextel said today it will slash
> around 4,000 jobs and close about eight per cent of its stores, in an
> attempt to claw back costs in the face of a haemorrhaging customer
> base.
>
> THE FIRM ADMITTED IN A STATEMENT THAT IT HAS BEEN HIT BY AN INABILITY
> TO ATTRACT NEW SUBSCRIBERS TO ITS SERVICE. [emphasis added]
>
> Sprint - which recorded a total subscriber base of 53.8 million at
> the end of 2007 - said in a statement that 125 stores and some 4,000
> retail outlets throughout the US would be closed, in a cost-cutting
> exercise that could save the struggling firm $700 to $800m by the end
> of the year.
>
> Sprint said 683,000 post-paid subscribers and 202,000 prepaid
> subscribers had done a runner in the last quarter (Q4) alone.

Runner as in ran away ??

>
> According to Reuters, the firm has been squeezed by bigger rivals
> such as AT&T. It has also been hindered by customer service and
> network problems, as well as feeling the pinch from the credit crunch
> crisis.
>
> The company said that it picked up 500,000 new subscribers through
> its wholesale channels in the last quarter, and recorded growth of
> 256,000 Boost Unlimited users and net additions of 20,000 subscribers
> in its affiliate channels.

New users subjected to the "Network Gremlins" message. This must be
the first thing they teach in 3rd world computer classes today,
instead of "Hello World\n"....printf ("Network Gremlins")

>
> Shares in Sprint have plummeted more than 25 per cent on Wall Street.
> The wireless telecom firm is due to deliver its Q4 results on 28
> February.

Who wants to hook into a network of hokey 2.5G technology with no path
for broadband video ??

I don't quite understand why followups were set to alt.cellular.cingular
only, unless John expects the denizens of the AT&T newsgroup to circle the
rotting corpse of Sprint and start dancing for joy.

On 2008-01-19, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> According to Reuters, the firm has been squeezed by bigger rivals
> such as AT&T. It has also been hindered by customer service and
> network problems, as well as feeling the pinch from the credit crunch
> crisis.

I didn't see the network problems, but I did have some rather irritating
customer service issues. It's a damned shame.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awtdEXcif_Tk&refer=home>

Sprint Nextel Corp., the third-biggest wireless carrier in the U.S.,
fell the most in more than 25 years in New York trading after losing
more subscribers than analysts estimated and announcing plans to fire
4,000 workers.

Sprint fell 25 percent, the most since at least July 1980. The
company said today that about 683,000 contract customers left last
quarter, more than the 200,000 estimate of Robert W. Baird & Co.'s
William Power.

The subscriber slump brings defections to 1.2 million in 2007,
forcing Chief Executive Officer Daniel Hesse to get rid of about
one-fifth of Sprint's retail locations. Hesse replaced Gary Forsee in
December, taking charge of a company that has struggled to absorb the
$36 billion purchase of Nextel and offer phones to compete with Apple
Inc.'s iPhone, sold by AT&T Inc.

``The subscriber numbers look pretty ugly,'' said Power, who is based
in Dallas and has a neutral rating on Sprint shares. ``It's not
getting better.''

Before the Nextel acquisition in 2005, the companies' combined market
value was about $70 billion, according to Bloomberg data. Today,
Sprint is worth about $24 billion, a drop of almost two-thirds.

[MORE]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:38:33 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
<slrnfp2hk1.q5v.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>:

>I don't quite understand why followups were set to alt.cellular.cingular
>only, unless John expects the denizens of the AT&T newsgroup to circle the
>rotting corpse of Sprint and start dancing for joy.

Accidental -- sorry.

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

<http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200801181120DOWJONESDJONLINE000751_FORTUNE5.htm>

Job cuts, while a step in the right direction for Sprint Nextel Corp.
(S), aren't going to save the flagging wireless carrier.

The Reston, Va., company - under new Chief Executive Dan Hesse -
needs to take more drastic moves to revitalize its reputation,
analysts say. Specifically, it needs to simplify its multiple brands
and services, consolidate its two networks into one, and nab hot
handsets that can recapture some buzz. The steps become more
necessary as the wireless market crowds and consumer spending
weakens.

[MORE]

On Jan 18, 6:47 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awtdEXcif_Tk&refe...>
>
> Sprint Nextel Corp., the third-biggest wireless carrier in the U.S.,
> fell the most in more than 25 years in New York trading after losing
> more subscribers than analysts estimated and announcing plans to fire
> 4,000 workers.
>
> Sprint fell 25 percent, the most since at least July 1980. The
> company said today that about 683,000 contract customers left last
> quarter, more than the 200,000 estimate of Robert W. Baird & Co.'s
> William Power.
>
> The subscriber slump brings defections to 1.2 million in 2007,
> forcing Chief Executive Officer Daniel Hesse to get rid of about
> one-fifth of Sprint's retail locations. Hesse replaced Gary Forsee in
> December, taking charge of a company that has struggled to absorb the
> $36 billion purchase of Nextel and offer phones to compete with Apple
> Inc.'s iPhone, sold by AT&T Inc.
>
> ``The subscriber numbers look pretty ugly,'' said Power, who is based
> in Dallas and has a neutral rating on Sprint shares. ``It's not
> getting better.''
>
> Before the Nextel acquisition in 2005, the companies' combined market
> value was about $70 billion, according to Bloomberg data. Today,
> Sprint is worth about $24 billion, a drop of almost two-thirds.
>
> [MORE]

Lucifer would give out executive bonuses for that kind of stock
performance...

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:48i2p39ha7oa9u946om0acp0qpasohofqf@4ax.com:

> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...1181120DOWJONE
> SDJONLINE000751_FORTUNE5.htm

"That is because consumers can't understand or don't relate to the ads,
Passikoff said, adding that Sprint needs to more clearly communicate the
advantages of its services.

"It's not about eyeballs anymore," he said."

I don't think any of them actually understand what's wrong with Sprint....

People want a SELLphone that WORKS when they press SEND, not sit there and
blink. Sprint really sucks outside the major metro areas, here.....

The other problem is to take the dog collars off the employees answering
the phones and let THEM make the customers happy when they dial 611. A
customer with a little concession to make him happy is MUCH more profitable
than a customer standing in line at Alltel waiting the churn!

Stupids......LESS ADVERTISING.....MORE INFRASTRUCTURE!

At least they could do is change the PRLs to allow roaming onto Alltel and
Verizon in the DEAD ZONES in SC until they get the towers completed....

They bought Nextel, which has NEVER worked good here. Even the
construction boys with no-dialing walkie talkies can't be called by their
bosses.......for twice the money.

Nextel was a big mistake.

John Navas wrote:
> <http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200801181120DOWJONESDJONLINE000751_FORTUNE5.htm>
>
> Job cuts, while a step in the right direction for Sprint Nextel Corp.
> (S), aren't going to save the flagging wireless carrier.
>
> The Reston, Va., company - under new Chief Executive Dan Hesse -
> needs to take more drastic moves to revitalize its reputation,
> analysts say. Specifically, it needs to simplify its multiple brands
> and services, consolidate its two networks into one, and nab hot
> handsets that can recapture some buzz. The steps become more
> necessary as the wireless market crowds and consumer spending
> weakens.
>
> [MORE]
>

They seem to be doing their best to kill off the nextel customers. Last
week I was in the third location I visit that dropped them and went with
VZW. In each case they said sprint raised the price and eliminated a
bucket of minutes and required multiple small buckets which just makes
it tedious for the end user to track and pretty much guarantees overages.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:57:38 +0000, larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A29EA309D2BFnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:

>They bought Nextel, which has NEVER worked good here. Even the
>construction boys with no-dialing walkie talkies can't be called by their
>bosses.......for twice the money.
>
>Nextel was a big mistake.

True, as was obvious to many experts outside Sprint from the beginning.
"Be careful what you wish for."

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

Believe it or not, I'd really rather not see Sprint go belly-up.

I'm sure competition is a major reason VZW still offers decent
value-for-money. Not a bargain, mind you, but at least a fairly decent
package.

Around here (NW suburb of NYC), Nextel is considered to be a "work phone" or
"electronic leash" for PTT with mediocre phone capabilities, T-Mo is for
kids, and Sprint is hardly on the map. Very few people I know have Cingular,
though I know they are huge too.

Dean

It was Nextel that took over Sprint to find the way out but fail.


"larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A29EA309D2BFnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:48i2p39ha7oa9u946om0acp0qpasohofqf@4ax.com:
>
>> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...1181120DOWJONE
>> SDJONLINE000751_FORTUNE5.htm
>
> "That is because consumers can't understand or don't relate to the ads,
> Passikoff said, adding that Sprint needs to more clearly communicate the
> advantages of its services.
>
> "It's not about eyeballs anymore," he said."
>
> I don't think any of them actually understand what's wrong with Sprint....
>
> People want a SELLphone that WORKS when they press SEND, not sit there and
> blink. Sprint really sucks outside the major metro areas, here.....
>
> The other problem is to take the dog collars off the employees answering
> the phones and let THEM make the customers happy when they dial 611. A
> customer with a little concession to make him happy is MUCH more
> profitable
> than a customer standing in line at Alltel waiting the churn!
>
> Stupids......LESS ADVERTISING.....MORE INFRASTRUCTURE!
>
> At least they could do is change the PRLs to allow roaming onto Alltel and
> Verizon in the DEAD ZONES in SC until they get the towers completed....
>
> They bought Nextel, which has NEVER worked good here. Even the
> construction boys with no-dialing walkie talkies can't be called by their
> bosses.......for twice the money.
>
> Nextel was a big mistake.

On Jan 19, 12:57*pm, larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> People want a SELLphone that WORKS when they press SEND, not sit there and
> blink. *Sprint really sucks outside the major metro areas, here.....
>

Just one guy's experience, but fwiw:

I live in northeast Ohio, and I travel in/around Toledo, Cleveand,
Columbus, Cincinnati, Cambridge, and tiny little towns in between that
don't make most maps. I travel to Chicago, New York, South Florida,
Houston, and the US Virgin Islands.

My family's phone and data services have never failed us. Not even
once. For three years.

Todd W.

Agreed. I travel around the country and use Sprint voice and data service
and never have a problem. The only problem that Sprint has is its customer
service.


"Todd Wade" <waveright@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:092c13b1-fbd5-42a8-a435-12d7d602f3d8@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 19, 12:57 pm, larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> People want a SELLphone that WORKS when they press SEND, not sit there and
> blink. Sprint really sucks outside the major metro areas, here.....
>

Just one guy's experience, but fwiw:

I live in northeast Ohio, and I travel in/around Toledo, Cleveand,
Columbus, Cincinnati, Cambridge, and tiny little towns in between that
don't make most maps. I travel to Chicago, New York, South Florida,
Houston, and the US Virgin Islands.

My family's phone and data services have never failed us. Not even
once. For three years.

Todd W.

Sprint has the same ventors cell sites as Verizon. The different can be the
handsets. Cheap phones have more problems than the good one. Customer
service couldn't help much on poor phones. The best way can be get a better
phone.



"Jar-Jar Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I9Mkj.1159$Ca7.1055@newsfe07.phx...
> Agreed. I travel around the country and use Sprint voice and data service
> and never have a problem. The only problem that Sprint has is its customer
> service.
>
>
> "Todd Wade" <waveright@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:092c13b1-fbd5-42a8-a435-12d7d602f3d8@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 12:57 pm, larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> People want a SELLphone that WORKS when they press SEND, not sit there
>> and
>> blink. Sprint really sucks outside the major metro areas, here.....
>>
>
> Just one guy's experience, but fwiw:
>
> I live in northeast Ohio, and I travel in/around Toledo, Cleveand,
> Columbus, Cincinnati, Cambridge, and tiny little towns in between that
> don't make most maps. I travel to Chicago, New York, South Florida,
> Houston, and the US Virgin Islands.
>
> My family's phone and data services have never failed us. Not even
> once. For three years.
>
> Todd W.
>

"Uno" <Uno@Max.com> wrote in message
newsLOkj.2060$Rg1.1712@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Sprint has the same ventors cell sites as Verizon. The different can be
> the handsets. Cheap phones have more problems than the good one. Customer
> service couldn't help much on poor phones. The best way can be get a
> better phone.
>


"same ventors cell sites as Verizon"???????????????

This is VERY wrong!! Please don't make statements you obviously know
absolutely nothing about.

Sprint may use VZW as a roaming partner, but in a Sprint native area,
Sprint most certainly operates their own infrastructure. There may be some
site collocation, but even in this case, it's separate antennas and
electronics.

Sprint operates entirely 1900Mhz (PCS). VZW operates primarily in the
original
800Mhz (cellular) band - and uses 1900 in some areas where they don't have
an 800
license - or possibly as capacity relief in large metro.

Sprint use ventor equipment from Lucent, Nortel and Motorola which supply to
Verizon. They may use different frequency bands but they are almost the same
kind of equipments.


"Ness-Net" <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
news:IKidnXZfss4uYA7anZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> "Uno" <Uno@Max.com> wrote in message
> newsLOkj.2060$Rg1.1712@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Sprint has the same ventors cell sites as Verizon. The different can be
>> the handsets. Cheap phones have more problems than the good one. Customer
>> service couldn't help much on poor phones. The best way can be get a
>> better phone.
>>
>
>
> "same ventors cell sites as Verizon"???????????????
>
> This is VERY wrong!! Please don't make statements you obviously know
> absolutely nothing about.
>
> Sprint may use VZW as a roaming partner, but in a Sprint native area,
> Sprint most certainly operates their own infrastructure. There may be some
> site collocation, but even in this case, it's separate antennas and
> electronics.
>
> Sprint operates entirely 1900Mhz (PCS). VZW operates primarily in the
> original
> 800Mhz (cellular) band - and uses 1900 in some areas where they don't have
> an 800
> license - or possibly as capacity relief in large metro.
>

This is complete BS. Or you haven't a clue
You choose. (I vote #2)

It's like saying both a Porsche and a Kia have
Goodyear tires, so they must run the same...

Or.... that Apple and Dell both use Intel chips...

1st - Verizon is a legacy 'cellular' carrier in many markets.
(Or shall I say GTE, AirTouch, and the other companies)
They have been providing service since the middle / late 80's in
many of their markets. The 'PCS' licenses came along years later.
Sprint is a PCS carrier.

Yes, parity may have been achieved in many markets, but overall, the
legacy 800 carriers (AT&T / VZW, etc) have the best overall coverage
nationwide and out in the boonies.

Physics. Wave propagation. 800 works better than 1900 - period.
It's just that simple. Longer wavelengths penetrate better. Longer
wavelengths carry further.



"Uno" <Uno@Max.com> wrote in message
news:2dTkj.819$uE.254@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net.. .
> Sprint use ventor equipment from Lucent, Nortel and Motorola which supply
> to Verizon. They may use different frequency bands but they are almost the
> same kind of equipments.
>

This is no BS. Sprint has the same quality cellular equipments from the same
quality CDMA telecom supplyers.


"Ness-Net" <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
news:b9-dnVadcczsmAnanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@giganews.com...
> This is complete BS. Or you haven't a clue
> You choose. (I vote #2)
>
> It's like saying both a Porsche and a Kia have
> Goodyear tires, so they must run the same...
>
> Or.... that Apple and Dell both use Intel chips...
>
> 1st - Verizon is a legacy 'cellular' carrier in many markets.
> (Or shall I say GTE, AirTouch, and the other companies)
> They have been providing service since the middle / late 80's in
> many of their markets. The 'PCS' licenses came along years later.
> Sprint is a PCS carrier.
>
> Yes, parity may have been achieved in many markets, but overall, the
> legacy 800 carriers (AT&T / VZW, etc) have the best overall coverage
> nationwide and out in the boonies.
>
> Physics. Wave propagation. 800 works better than 1900 - period.
> It's just that simple. Longer wavelengths penetrate better. Longer
> wavelengths carry further.
>
>
>
> "Uno" <Uno@Max.com> wrote in message
> news:2dTkj.819$uE.254@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net.. .
>> Sprint use ventor equipment from Lucent, Nortel and Motorola which supply
>> to Verizon. They may use different frequency bands but they are almost
>> the same kind of equipments.
>>
>

Number 2 it is then...

I am not contending that anyone's "equipments" are inferior.
(English is your second language huh??)

Or anyone's "equipments" is superior for that matter. What IS
fact is that it doesn't really matter in this discussion.

YOU stated that "Sprint has the same "ventors" cell sites as Verizon.
The different can be the handsets."

Translation: because Sprint and Verizon use the same infrastructure
equipment vendors, they are essentially the same and therefore any
user or coverage problems must be primarily in the users handset.

This is simply preposterous and I was pointing out various reasons why.
It is obvious you will continue your inane argument, so there is no point
in my continuing further.

Or, you may choose to actually see the fact(s)...


"Uno" <Uno@Max.com> wrote in message
news:%eUkj.685$hI1.568@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> This is no BS. Sprint has the same quality cellular equipments from the
> same quality CDMA telecom supplyers.
>

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-01-21, Uno <Uno@Max.com> wrote:
> This is no BS. Sprint has the same quality cellular equipments from the same
> quality CDMA telecom supplyers.

Heh. So why didn't you use T-Mo or AT&T?

Look guys, I believe this may be another iPhone shill. He's not as
entertaining as the others.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

In article <apf2p3p0pedukel8a5b1tnn7tlp1tor3nt@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> quoted:
> Sprint said 683,000 post-paid subscribers and 202,000 prepaid
> subscribers had done a runner in the last quarter (Q4) alone.

OK, so 885000 left...

....
> The company said that it picked up 500,000 new subscribers through
> its wholesale channels in the last quarter, and recorded growth of
> 256,000 Boost Unlimited users and net additions of 20,000 subscribers
> in its affiliate channels.

and 776000 came. That would be a net loss of 109000. Is that really
enough to be such a crisis?

--
--Tim Smith

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:23:38 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
: On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:11:52 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com>
: wrote:
:
: >I live in northeast Ohio, and I travel in/around Toledo, Cleveand,
: >Columbus, Cincinnati, Cambridge, and tiny little towns in between that
: >don't make most maps. I travel to Chicago, New York, South Florida,
: >Houston, and the US Virgin Islands.
: >
: >My family's phone and data services have never failed us. Not even
: >once. For three years.
:
: You are obviously always near major metro areas where the cell site
: density is higher!

I've heard that the word on Sprint is that you can use it in rural areas as
long as you stay within three miles of an Interstate highway. There are some
coverage maps that tend to support that theory. Mississippi is (or was) a case
in point. Verizon is virtually absent there, but they apparently let you roam
onto Sprint. When I visited there a couple of years ago, Verizon's roaming map
showed coverage pretty much confined to where the Interstates were.

Bob

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-01-21, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:

> You are obviously always near major metro areas where the cell site
> density is higher!

I think that theory used to be true of Sprint and T-Mo but is not as true
these days.

Examples: In the Cleveland Market, VoiceStream launched late (2001-2002), as
T-Mobile, much later than most of their other markets (they only had a few
demo units branded with the VoiceStream logo, they'd mostly switched over
already). But to make up for that, they had coverage EVERYWHERE east of
Cleveland, including my parents' house in Montville Township, Ohio. The
nearest county seats, Painesville (Lake County) and Chardon (Geauga County),
are both 10-13 miles away and are both small towns, and that part of Northeast
Ohio is completely rural. T-Mo was even able to give my kid brother a phone
with a number local to Montville when they launched.

Here, in the Victor Valley, Sprint has coverage at my old house on the edge
of town, just past the end of Verizon's coverage. The tower is in a spot
in the northeast corner of town where I'd be surprised if ANYONE lives (maybe
1,000 people?) T-Mo has coverage out there too.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

On Jan 21, 11:23*pm, Pegleg <Peg...@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:11:52 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks" <jar...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I live in northeast Ohio, and I travel in/around Toledo, Cleveand,
> >Columbus, Cincinnati, Cambridge, and tiny little towns in between that
> >don't make most maps. I travel to Chicago, New York, South Florida,
> >Houston, and the US Virgin Islands.
>
> >My family's phone and data services have never failed us. Not even
> >once. For three years.
>
> You are obviously always near major metro areas where the cell site
> density is higher!

You didnt even read what I wrote. Particularly, the part about

> tiny little towns in between that don't make most maps

I camp in central ohio, and the population within a 50 mile radius is
probably less than 100,000. Yet I can connect my EVDO data connection
and work like I was connected to my DSL connection at home.

You must have also missed the part that says:

> the US Virgin Islands

Which happens to be over 1,000 miles from a major metro area.

So, obviously, I'm frequently no where near a major metro area and
Sprint's voice and data services work. Always.

Todd W.

Pegleg wrote:
> You are obviously always near major metro areas where the cell site
> density is higher!

Golly, I didn't know that ten years ago almost everywhere in the state
of Missouri was a major metro. I'm sure the "density" is much higher
now.

Dean wrote:
> Believe it or not, I'd really rather not see Sprint go belly-up.
>
> I'm sure competition is a major reason VZW still offers decent
> value-for-money. Not a bargain, mind you, but at least a fairly decent
> package.

Sprint has thus far avoided getting into a real price war, other than
its SERO program which not many people know about. They may want to
think about going low-overhead and not having _any_ standalone stores,
and then competing agressively on price.

One big problem for Sprint is that they are so heavily dependent on
Verizon for roaming in areas where Sprint has no presence.

If Sprint's market value and market share continue to fall, then they'd
make a good acquisition candidate for Verizon, but not at the current
valuation.

> Around here (NW suburb of NYC), Nextel is considered to be a "work phone" or
> "electronic leash" for PTT with mediocre phone capabilities, T-Mo is for
> kids, and Sprint is hardly on the map. Very few people I know have Cingular,
> though I know they are huge too.

Remember, Cingular had no NYC network until they partnered with
Voicestream/T-Mobile back in the 1990's, and did an agreement where
T-Mobile got to use Cingular's western 1900 MHz GSM network, and
Cingular got to use T-Mobile's NYC network. At the same time, AT&T
Wireless was suffering from huge capacity problems in NYC with their
TDMA network, and was hemorrhaging customers to Verizon, which had the
advantage of CDMA technology which can carry a lot more voice calls in
the same bandwidth. These are the reasons why Cingular and AT&T are
relatively weak in the NYC area, even though they've since solved their
capacity issues.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:52:37 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <47977037$0$84160$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>... At the same time, AT&T
>Wireless was suffering from huge capacity problems in NYC with their
>TDMA network, and was hemorrhaging customers to Verizon, which had the
>advantage of CDMA technology which can carry a lot more voice calls in
>the same bandwidth. ...

Total nonsense (on all counts).

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <p518q3hejm1m9u18h1cvoq2fag1q770n3p@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:52:37 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <47977037$0$84160$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>> ... At the same time, AT&T
>>> Wireless was suffering from huge capacity problems in NYC with their
>>> TDMA network, and was hemorrhaging customers to Verizon, which had the
>>> advantage of CDMA technology which can carry a lot more voice calls in
>>> the same bandwidth. ...
>> Total nonsense (on all counts).
>
> Rubbish.
>

Indeed it is.

The capacity problems of the old AT&T Wireless were legendary in New
York City. Ironically, coverage was excellent (as you'd expect from an
800 MHz carrier in a densely populated area), but they couldn't provide
enough capacity with their TDMA network.

It's interesting to read news stories from a few years back, with the
hindsight we have now. I.e., the 1999 story from the New York Daily News
mentions that Bell Atlantic Digital (which was operating a CDMA network)
did not suffer from high numbers of dropped calls or blocked calls. Bell
Atlantic eventually morphed into Verizon.

I had Cellular One (whose Bay Area network was taken over by AT&T) back
then, and tried using it in NYC on visits for trade shows (PC Expo) and
it was about hopeless during the day. Thankfully there were plenty of
pay phones back then!


-----------------------------------------------------
From 1999, Daily News:

"The kind of performance we got in Manhattan was unusual in that we
found a high number of blocked calls, a high number of dropped calls" on
all systems but Bell Atlantic Digital, Singer said. The cause? Although
consumers have not yet caught on, industry insiders know very well what
the problem is.

"AT&T and other carriers were caught having inadequate networks, which
meant that as demand increased, net capacity couldn't keep up," said
Herschel Shosteck, president and CEO of Herschel Shosteck Associates
Ltd., an international wireless consultant based near Washington.

-----------------------------------------------------

From 2002, New York Times

"Frustrated customers have few places to turn if their carriers fail to
respond to their complaints. In New York, several cellphone users are
suing AT&T Wireless over its Digital One Rate plan, accusing the company
of false advertising because they were consistently unable to get
service in their home calling areas. ''AT&T came out with the plan
prematurely, before the network was up to handle the demand,'' said
Jacqueline Sailer, a lawyer for the plaintiffs."

-----------------------------------------------------


Wait, did Navas provide any citations to prove his "total nonsense"
theory? LOL.

At 02 Feb 2008 05:19:26 -0800 SMS wrote:
> I.e., the 1999 story from the New York Daily News mentions that Bell
> Atlantic Digital (which was operating a CDMA network) did not suffer
> from high numbers of dropped calls or blocked calls. Bell Atlantic
> eventually morphed into Verizon.


To be fair, the article you quoted makes no mention of the technologies
involved.

Bell Atlantic was CDMA, but that isn't necessarily the reason they had
fewer capacity problems- ATTWS' Digital One Rate was hugely successful- it
was the first nationwide no-roam plan ever offered, and AT&T could've just
as easily had capacity problems due to the "AOL Effect"- signing up too
many new customers with not enough infrastructure to support them. BA
might have had fewer dropped calls due to simply being less popular, just
like an overpriced, unpopular restaurant always has extratables! ;-)


> Wait, did Navas provide any citations to prove his "total nonsense"
> theory? LOL.


No, but again, you didn't provide any to suggest advantages of CDMA over
TDMA were the cause of the "inadequate network" either.