Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > Cellular Communications > US Networks > alt.cellular.verizon
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2006, 06:31 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.

See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
graphical form.

There are graphs for the following:

Market Share
Market Share over Time
Market Share Change over Time
ARPU
ARPU Over Time
Churn
Churn Over Time

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2006, 07:51 PM
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>
> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
> graphical form.
>
> There are graphs for the following:
>
> Market Share
> Market Share over Time
> Market Share Change over Time
> ARPU
> ARPU Over Time
> Churn
> Churn Over Time


The text format you posted here is incomplete.

It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
share goes.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0



Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2006, 09:08 PM
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

In alt.cellular.verizon Pegleg <brian.pegleg.jones@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
>>market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
>>of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
>>100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>>share goes.

>
> Agreed that there are other carriers.
>
> But is the "other" category significant enough to really matter or
> consider?


I am sure that over the nation, it is several percent. Supplying this value
shows a clear change in relationship between the remaining values. In
particular, it affects the way you compare the top three carriers.
Statistically, it is not irrelavent ... and he is supplying statistics,
correct?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0



Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2006, 09:18 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

>
> It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100%

for
> market share when that is simply not true.


While I enjoy these quarterly posts of Steven's, I agree 100% with you,
Tom.

> That is like saying that the total
> of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this

year is
> 100% of all the candidates.


Although that would probably be statistically more correct than Steven's
chart- Dems & GOP's probably make a larger total "market share" of
candidates than the big 5 wireless guys do of total wireless subscribers.
While there are no successful regional political parties, there are
successful regional wireless companies!

> There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
> share goes.


Agreed, but that would make Steven's job a lot harder!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2006, 11:40 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:18:43 -0700, Todd Allcock
<ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<4553937c$0$12073$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:

>At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:


>> There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>> share goes.

>
>Agreed, but that would make Steven's job a lot harder!


And a lot more meaningful, but of course that's not his purpose.

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

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2006, 11:41 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<KEL4h.2583$Yy1.1124@textfe.usenetserver.com>:

>In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>>
>> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
>> graphical form.
>>
>> There are graphs for the following:
>>
>> Market Share
>> Market Share over Time
>> Market Share Change over Time
>> ARPU
>> ARPU Over Time
>> Churn
>> Churn Over Time

>
>The text format you posted here is incomplete.
>
>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
>market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
>of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
>100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>share goes.


Of course, but then his objective isn't objective.

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

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2006, 11:56 PM
Jackzwick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

In article <45537416$0$88654$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>
> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
> graphical form.
>
> There are graphs for the following:
>
> Market Share
> Market Share over Time
> Market Share Change over Time
> ARPU
> ARPU Over Time
> Churn
> Churn Over Time


Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.

And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
will have more customers than Cingular.

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-09-2006, 11:57 PM
Jackzwick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

In article <8NM4h.2589$Yy1.1938@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In alt.cellular.verizon Pegleg <brian.pegleg.jones@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> > <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
> >>market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the
> >>total
> >>of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year
> >>is
> >>100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as
> >>market
> >>share goes.

> >
> > Agreed that there are other carriers.
> >
> > But is the "other" category significant enough to really matter or
> > consider?

>
> I am sure that over the nation, it is several percent. Supplying this value
> shows a clear change in relationship between the remaining values. In
> particular, it affects the way you compare the top three carriers.
> Statistically, it is not irrelavent ... and he is supplying statistics,
> correct?


Still trying to CYA for Sprint?

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:14 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
> market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
> of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
> 100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
> share goes.


The other carriers are so small that it's lost in the noise. But the
other problem is that companies like U.S. Cellular are not reporting
their results.

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:18 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

Jackzwick wrote:

> Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.


Sprint is in serious trouble. It's really too bad as they actually are
pretty good, with their off-network roaming and their extensive data
network. They actually do have better coverage in terms of area, when
you include roaming, than Cingular or Verizon, though in the metro areas
where Sprint has coverage, their coverage is worse than Verizon or Cingular.

> And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
> will have more customers than Cingular.


We'll see. If the trends continue that will be the case, but things can
change.

Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:24 AM
Scott
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:i2f7l25i0oq8rltvobe63b06mi36emuc11@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:18:43 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <ElecConnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
> <4553937c$0$12073$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>
>>At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

>
>>> There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>>> share goes.

>>
>>Agreed, but that would make Steven's job a lot harder!

>
> And a lot more meaningful, but of course that's not his purpose.
>


Quit whining, Novice. He forgot more about the industry today than you
have ever been able to learn.

Oh wait- you're John Navas. You never learn. You simply regurgitate
whatever you find through Google. Sorry- my bad.

Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 12:26 AM
Scott
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:h3f7l21m2q2rjee9u0q3bdt1v9c0gcekeg@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <KEL4h.2583$Yy1.1124@textfe.usenetserver.com>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>>>
>>> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
>>> graphical form.
>>>
>>> There are graphs for the following:
>>>
>>> Market Share
>>> Market Share over Time
>>> Market Share Change over Time
>>> ARPU
>>> ARPU Over Time
>>> Churn
>>> Churn Over Time

>>
>>The text format you posted here is incomplete.
>>
>>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total
>>100% for market share when that is simply not true. That is like
>>saying that the total of the democratic and republican candidates that
>>ran for office this year is 100% of all the candidates. There should
>>be an OTHER column, as far as market share goes.

>
> Of course, but then his objective isn't objective.
>



Really? You are incapable of being objective and yet you point out the
flaw in others.

Stones- glass houses... do you get the picture, or should I be much
simpler about it for your dinosaur brain to process?

Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 04:52 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

Scott wrote:

> Really? You are incapable of being objective and yet you point out the
> flaw in others.
>
> Stones- glass houses... do you get the picture, or should I be much
> simpler about it for your dinosaur brain to process?


The data is what it is. I honestly don't know what he's so upset about.
Cingular is no longer losing market share, and their churn, while up a
little, is still a lot lower than it was a year ago. Their ARPU has been
recovering as well, and the only reason that it lags Verizon is that the
high speed Cingular data network is not yet fully deployed, so they
don't have as many high-revenue data customers as Verizon does to drive
up the average. I think that within six months, as Cingular completes
their HSDPA network, that Cingular's ARPU will be about equal to
Verizon's--it's not that long ago that Cingular had a slightly higher ARPU.

As I explained, the data for the very small carriers is often not
available in a timely manner. U.S. Cellular has had big problems
reporting their results, though they seem to be caught up except for the
third quarter of 2006. I have all the U.S. Cellular and Dobson data
entered other than the final data for 3Q2006 (still no 3Q2006 ARPU).

So to make people happy, I've updated the site for the top seven
carriers, but with the ARPU for US Cellular for 3Q2006 as an estimate
for now.

I'm not doing anything for the carriers smaller than Dobson, as these
tiny carriers will not affect the market share numbers of the other
carriers in a material way.

Thanks for all the interest. The number of hits on this page has been
extremely high, as a compilation of this data is not available anywhere
else.

"http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/"

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 04:55 AM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>> It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100%

> for
>> market share when that is simply not true.

>
> While I enjoy these quarterly posts of Steven's, I agree 100% with you,
> Tom.
>
>> That is like saying that the total
>> of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this

> year is
>> 100% of all the candidates.

>
> Although that would probably be statistically more correct than Steven's
> chart- Dems & GOP's probably make a larger total "market share" of
> candidates than the big 5 wireless guys do of total wireless subscribers.


Probably not. All the small carriers put together are well under 5% of
total subscribers.

In any case, I've added number 6 and 7, snd the remaining carriers are
now less than 2% of the total subscribers.

Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 05:28 AM
Jackzwick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

In article <4553c54f$0$88633$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Jackzwick wrote:
>
> > Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.

>
> Sprint is in serious trouble. It's really too bad as they actually are
> pretty good, with their off-network roaming and their extensive data
> network. They actually do have better coverage in terms of area, when
> you include roaming, than Cingular or Verizon, though in the metro areas
> where Sprint has coverage, their coverage is worse than Verizon or Cingular.
>
> > And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
> > will have more customers than Cingular.

>
> We'll see. If the trends continue that will be the case, but things can
> change.


Duh, where do you think Sprint gets the offnetwork coverage from? - Most
of it is Verizon !!!

Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 03:30 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

Jackzwick wrote:

> Duh, where do you think Sprint gets the offnetwork coverage from? - Most
> of it is Verizon !!!


The issue here is that Verizon has eliminated a lot of off-network
roaming with America's Choice II that existed in the original America's
Choice plan, while Sprint has retained this off-network roaming. It's
roaming that I used extensively on my old America's Choice plan, that
new Verizon customers don't get, but that new Sprint customers do get.

On the other hand, Sprint doesn't let you roam onto Verizon's network in
areas where Sprint has its own network, and usually Sprint's network is
much worse than Verizon's network, due to several factors, but
especially due to the 1900 MHz versus 800 MHz spectrum.

Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 04:16 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

SMS wrote:
> Jackzwick wrote:
>
>> Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.

>
> Sprint is in serious trouble. It's really too bad as they actually are
> pretty good, with their off-network roaming and their extensive data
> network. They actually do have better coverage in terms of area, when
> you include roaming, than Cingular or Verizon, though in the metro areas
> where Sprint has coverage, their coverage is worse than Verizon or
> Cingular.
>
>> And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
>> will have more customers than Cingular.

>
> We'll see. If the trends continue that will be the case, but things can
> change.


Following up on my own post, if you look at the raw total numbers of new
addtions, it's been falling for the last two quarters, by a significant
amount. Cingular's number of new additions has fallen for four quarters,
100,000 to 200,000 less every quarter, while Verizon has been increasing
their new additions by about 100,000 each quarter. At the present rates,
it would take about ten more quarters to close the gap.

What's more likely is that during the next few years is that there is
CDMA consolidation, similar to the AT&T Wireless/Cingular consolidation.
Verizon may end up buying a company like Alltel, which is not doing so
well financially.

Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 04:25 PM
Mij Adyaw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

Sprint coverage in Metro areas is as good or better than Cingular or
Verizon. Zwickie needs to recheck his facts.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4554a5e5$0$88627$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> SMS wrote:
>> Jackzwick wrote:
>>
>>> Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.

>>
>> Sprint is in serious trouble. It's really too bad as they actually are
>> pretty good, with their off-network roaming and their extensive data
>> network. They actually do have better coverage in terms of area, when you
>> include roaming, than Cingular or Verizon, though in the metro areas
>> where Sprint has coverage, their coverage is worse than Verizon or
>> Cingular.
>>
>>> And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
>>> will have more customers than Cingular.

>>
>> We'll see. If the trends continue that will be the case, but things can
>> change.

>
> Following up on my own post, if you look at the raw total numbers of new
> addtions, it's been falling for the last two quarters, by a significant
> amount. Cingular's number of new additions has fallen for four quarters,
> 100,000 to 200,000 less every quarter, while Verizon has been increasing
> their new additions by about 100,000 each quarter. At the present rates,
> it would take about ten more quarters to close the gap.
>
> What's more likely is that during the next few years is that there is CDMA
> consolidation, similar to the AT&T Wireless/Cingular consolidation.
> Verizon may end up buying a company like Alltel, which is not doing so
> well financially.





Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 06:35 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Sprint coverage in Metro areas is as good or better than Cingular or
> Verizon. Zwickie needs to recheck his facts.


Nope, it was me that wrote that. Sprint's coverage is significantly
worse in metro areas, just look at the results of the independent surveys.

Part of the reason is due to the fact that they operate at 1900 MHz.
This means that they need more towers to cover a given area, and that
signal penetration into big-box type buildings is worse.

At least in California, Sprint has serious problems in the metro areas.
In fact they actually will let people out of their contracts without a
termination fee if their service doesn't provide coverage at the
subscriber's home.

I was talking to someone at work, who had Sprint for years, and NEVER
had coverage at her house. She didn't worry about it because she did
have coverage most other places, but eventually when her kids went off
to college, she wanted a service that she could use from home with
mobile to mobile, so she switched carriers to Cingular.

One of the other reasons that Sprint has such issues, also related to
1900 MHz, is the NIMBY attitude of many neighborhoods to cell towers.
When the residents are fighting towers, they always bring up the
argument, "hey Verizon and Cingular have coverage without a tower
there." They put T-Mobile and Sprint in a tough situation, because the
carrier has to admit the reason why they need more towers than the
competition, but the attitude of the planning commissions is often,
"hey, that's not our problem."

Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:37 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:30:19 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45549b0c$0$88619$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Jackzwick wrote:
>
>> Duh, where do you think Sprint gets the offnetwork coverage from? - Most
>> of it is Verizon !!!

>
>The issue here is that Verizon has eliminated a lot of off-network
>roaming with America's Choice II that existed in the original America's
>Choice plan, while Sprint has retained this off-network roaming. It's
>roaming that I used extensively on my old America's Choice plan, that
>new Verizon customers don't get, but that new Sprint customers do get.
>
>On the other hand, Sprint doesn't let you roam onto Verizon's network in
>areas where Sprint has its own network, and usually Sprint's network is
>much worse than Verizon's network, due to several factors, but


Fewer towers.

>especially due to the 1900 MHz versus 800 MHz spectrum.


Not a real issue.

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

Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:39 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:52:01 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45540572$0$88687$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> Really? You are incapable of being objective and yet you point out the
>> flaw in others.
>>
>> Stones- glass houses... do you get the picture, or should I be much
>> simpler about it for your dinosaur brain to process?

>
>The data is what it is. I honestly don't know what he's so upset about.


Not upset at all. My forecast is proving out. Yours, not so much.

>Thanks for all the interest. The number of hits on this page has been
>extremely high, ...


Double digits?

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

Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:40 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:25:26 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@TheBitBucket.com>
wrote in <WJ15h.39295$3y3.14634@newsfe07.phx>:

>Sprint coverage in Metro areas is as good or better than Cingular or
>Verizon. ...


In some areas, yes, but in other areas, no. On balance overall, Sprint
is well behind both Cingular and Verizon on native network coverage.

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

Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 09:41 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:35:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4554c65a$0$88700$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> Sprint coverage in Metro areas is as good or better than Cingular or
>> Verizon. Zwickie needs to recheck his facts.

>
>Nope, it was me that wrote that. Sprint's coverage is significantly
>worse in metro areas, just look at the results of the independent surveys.
>
>Part of the reason is due to the fact that they operate at 1900 MHz.
>This means that they need more towers to cover a given area, and that
>signal penetration into big-box type buildings is worse.


That's nonsense, as I've shown before. The only significant factor in
urban areas is the number and placement of towers, not frequency.

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

Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2006, 10:35 PM
Nessnet
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

#1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.

#2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...


"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:ues9l25ha2a5jr7vkl8slo1acfvuaob9qq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:35:04 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4554c65a$0$88700$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>>> Sprint coverage in Metro areas is as good or better than Cingular or
>>> Verizon. Zwickie needs to recheck his facts.

>>
>>Nope, it was me that wrote that. Sprint's coverage is significantly
>>worse in metro areas, just look at the results of the independent surveys.
>>
>>Part of the reason is due to the fact that they operate at 1900 MHz.
>>This means that they need more towers to cover a given area, and that
>>signal penetration into big-box type buildings is worse.

>
> That's nonsense, as I've shown before. The only significant factor in
> urban areas is the number and placement of towers, not frequency.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>




Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2006, 12:22 AM
scharf.steven@gmail.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results


Nessnet wrote:
> #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.
>
> #2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...


Yes, this is true. Even Cingular is now admitting this, which is rather
amusing to me, since when the western region was 1900 MHz only they
couldn't state the real reason why the coverage was so poor. Instead
they used statements like, 'we're the new carrier and we are still
building out or network.'


Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2006, 03:55 AM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
<1163204563.543900.216750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>:

>Nessnet wrote:
>> #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.


I've actually posted authoritative citations.

>> #2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...


Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.

>Yes, this is true. Even Cingular is now admitting this, which is rather
>amusing to me, since when the western region was 1900 MHz only they
>couldn't state the real reason why the coverage was so poor. Instead
>they used statements like, 'we're the new carrier and we are still
>building out or network.'


Yet another unsubstantiated claim that simply doesn't hold water..

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

Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2006, 04:42 AM
Scott
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:gbial2l5n3obv20987bu98je83edjegpbd@4ax.com:

> On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
> <1163204563.543900.216750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>:
>
>>Nessnet wrote:
>>> #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.

>
> I've actually posted authoritative citations.



Yes you have- and not had any true experience with any of it. Finding it
on Google doesn't qualify as authoratative information, Novice.
>
>>> #2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...

>
> Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.



Nice try, Johnny.

>
>>Yes, this is true. Even Cingular is now admitting this, which is rather
>>amusing to me, since when the western region was 1900 MHz only they
>>couldn't state the real reason why the coverage was so poor. Instead
>>they used statements like, 'we're the new carrier and we are still
>>building out or network.'

>
> Yet another unsubstantiated claim that simply doesn't hold water..
>



It is substantiated- Google is your friend.

Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2006, 04:52 PM
decaturtxcowboy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

SMS wrote:
> One of the other reasons that Sprint has such issues, also related to
> 1900 MHz, is the NIMBY attitude of many neighborhoods to cell towers.
> When the residents are fighting towers, they always bring up the
> argument, "hey Verizon and Cingular have coverage without a tower
> there." They put T-Mobile and Sprint in a tough situation, because the
> carrier has to admit the reason why they need more towers than the
> competition, but the attitude of the planning commissions is often,
> "hey, that's not our problem."


That logic goes both ways. Sprint and T-Mobile might have towers in
place and Verizon and Cingular get denied.


Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2006, 05:07 PM
decaturtxcowboy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

John Navas wrote:
> On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
> <1163204563.543900.216750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>:
>
>> Nessnet wrote:
>>> #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.

>
> I've actually posted authoritative citations.


Lets see...you made a statement that frequency has nothing to do with
propagation. That was simply incorrect - higher frequencies have greater
path loss. Raterh admit you were incorrect, you started citing examples of
other reasons that are more likely to affect propagation - which was
correct, but none of them supported you claim that higher frequencies do
not suffer reduced path losses.

>>> #2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...

>
> Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.


Ummm...Radio propagation is part of the physics landscape. Try again.



Scott wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:gbial2l5n3obv20987bu98je83edjegpbd@4ax.com:
>
>> On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
>> <1163204563.543900.216750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>:
>>
>>> Nessnet wrote:
>>>> #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.

>> I've actually posted authoritative citations.

>
>
> Yes you have- and not had any true experience with any of it. Finding it
> on Google doesn't qualify as authoratative information, Novice.


Again, I have asked when was the last time you opened up a Motorola or
Nokia base station to do maintenance or climbed a tower to replace an
antenna. You simply aren't a professional in cellular communications, as
some of us are.

Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2006, 05:23 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

decaturtxcowboy wrote:

> That logic goes both ways. Sprint and T-Mobile might have towers in
> place and Verizon and Cingular get denied.


It's rarely the case, because in most cases Verizon and Cingular have
the legacy 800 MHz networks (after a series of mergers, acquisitions,
etc. (except in a few major metro areas like South Florida, and parts of
Texas).

So not only do Verizon and Cingular have towers in places where they
were able to get them in before planning commissions knew what was
happening, they also have the huge advantage of the better spectrum.
It's an advantage that is nearly impossible to overcome, especially in
suburban and rural areas, because even if Sprint and T-Mobile could get
approval for sufficient towers to equal the coverage of Cingular and
Verizon, the cost of putting in so many towers would hurt their margins.

In the dense metro areas, the advantage is not as great, but in most
metro areas you have a few dense cities surrounded by vast suburban areas.

Reply With Quote
Reply


« Class Action... | Killfiles »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Repeater, Access Point, Laptop Triangle of Death (Please Help) TheKingsCrown Network Troubleshooting 11 09-01-2010 10:59 AM
Wireless repeater dave alt.internet.wireless 33 01-04-2007 12:22 AM
1st PC build bryant.rossiter@gmail.com alt.comp.hardware 28 09-09-2006 10:04 PM
wireless router capable of being an access point client Spacey Spade alt.internet.wireless 11 08-09-2006 10:17 AM
Re: Netgear WGPS606 <-> Netgear WGT624 phil-news-nospam@ipal.net alt.internet.wireless 22 07-24-2006 03:39 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:00 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45