Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent. Discuss Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent, on Wireless Forums.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:46:08 -0800 (PST), jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote in
<6da5f0e5-6cf7-498b-aefc-a73189a886f7@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jan 18, 6:38 pm, 4phun <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares
>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01.
>HA HA HA, shoulda went with GSM...those Lucifer radio cards should be
>good for some gold and silver scrap value....JG
Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
the U.S. market.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-19, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:46:08 -0800 (PST), jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote in
><6da5f0e5-6cf7-498b-aefc-a73189a886f7@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>On Jan 18, 6:38 pm, 4phun <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares
>>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01.
>
>>HA HA HA, shoulda went with GSM...those Lucifer radio cards should be
>>good for some gold and silver scrap value....JG
>
> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
?? Over the past 52 weeks Verizon shares are up 5%, AT&T up 3% and Sprint
down 50%. The S&P is down 7%.
Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated
to me.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:14:10 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnfp2jn1.4m.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2008-01-19, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:46:08 -0800 (PST), jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote in
>><6da5f0e5-6cf7-498b-aefc-a73189a886f7@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>>On Jan 18, 6:38 pm, 4phun <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares
>>>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01.
>>
>>>HA HA HA, shoulda went with GSM...those Lucifer radio cards should be
>>>good for some gold and silver scrap value....JG
>>
>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>
>?? Over the past 52 weeks Verizon shares are up 5%, AT&T up 3% and Sprint
>down 50%. The S&P is down 7%.
>
>Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated
>to me.
I'm talking only about the drops today on the Sprint news. Analysts
believe the fall in AT&T and Verizon reflect a likely tough year in 2008
for cellular carriers. The greater fall in Verizon presumably means a
tougher outlook than for AT&T.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
John, up to your old tricks again I see......
Let me give you a hint...... then do your homework.
N E X T E L
is where most of the problems are - (which isn't "CDMA")......
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
newsii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com...
>
> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
> the U.S. market.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2008-01-19, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:46:08 -0800 (PST), jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote in
>> <6da5f0e5-6cf7-498b-aefc-a73189a886f7@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 6:38 pm, 4phun <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares
>>>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01.
>>> HA HA HA, shoulda went with GSM...those Lucifer radio cards should be
>>> good for some gold and silver scrap value....JG
>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>
> ?? Over the past 52 weeks Verizon shares are up 5%, AT&T up 3% and Sprint
> down 50%. The S&P is down 7%.
>
> Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated
> to me.
Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system
in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers. 2007 saw big
increases in CDMA penetration in the U.S.. CDMA is also gaining ground
in Asia, because carriers like the fact that you can have the same
coverage with 40% fewer cell sites, and the fact that CDMA has much
higher capacity per Mhz than GSM.
In Australia, a judge granted an emergency order delaying the CDMA shut
down because "Next G" could not provide the rural coverage of CDMA. Hey,
maybe someone can do that for AMPS in the U.S.!
Of course remember than for data, it's all CDMA, whether it's W-CDMA or
CDMA-2000. The future is indeed bright for CDMA!
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-19, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system
> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers.
Unless my math is really screwed up that statistic is just wrong. Where
did it come from?
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - sharesplunged 25.2 percent
At 19 Jan 2008 01:00:33 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
But Sprint's problems have nothing to do with being CDMA. If CDMA is
"declining," it's because Sprint is hemmoraging customers- not the other
way around. If Sprint was GSM, GSM would've lost 650,000 customers instead.
> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
> the U.S. market.
Which has nothing to do with GSM (or CDMA), either. Other than a few savvy
customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular
customers know or care what technology their carrier uses.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:46:08 -0800 (PST), jgrove24@hotmail.com wrote in
> <6da5f0e5-6cf7-498b-aefc-a73189a886f7@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> On Jan 18, 6:38 pm, 4phun <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares
>>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01.
>
>> HA HA HA, shoulda went with GSM...those Lucifer radio cards should be
>> good for some gold and silver scrap value....JG
>
> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
> the U.S. market.
>
From everything I read the screwup was to buy the toy Nextel
properties. Initially that boosted their subscriber numbers but then
when they started raising the prices and not building out the network
the former nextel customers started fleeing. The walkie talkie thing was
attractive for a while because it gave cheap calling for businesses. Now
that the other carriers have free calling within their networks it has
made the walkie talkie thing much less attractive.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2008-01-19, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system
>> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers.
>
> Unless my math is really screwed up that statistic is just wrong. Where
> did it come from?
>
> Dennis Ferguson
It was in an article last year. They added up the subscribers from the
major carriers for each technology, Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, AT&T,
T-Mobile, then divided by the total number of customers.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent
George wrote:
> From everything I read the screwup was to buy the toy Nextel
> properties. Initially that boosted their subscriber numbers but then
> when they started raising the prices and not building out the network
> the former nextel customers started fleeing. The walkie talkie thing was
> attractive for a while because it gave cheap calling for businesses. Now
> that the other carriers have free calling within their networks it has
> made the walkie talkie thing much less attractive.
Some businesses really like the broadcast capability of Nextel. However
the other PTT systems also have it now, and the fact that Nextel is a
couple of second faster is of no consequence in broadcast mode.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:53:04 GMT, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnfp37ig.4a.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2008-01-19, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system
>> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers.
>
>Unless my math is really screwed up that statistic is just wrong. Where
>did it come from?
He's wrong, of course, but still desperately clinging to his forecast
that Verizon and Sprint will take over the U.S. market.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:28:50 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in
<slrnfp32k6.f2f.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>:
>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
>On 2008-01-19, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline
>
>Were you ever a Sprint customer? I was, 2000-2005 for my wife's phone
>and 2004-2005 for both phones. The biggest problem at Sprint wasn't the
>network.
I have indeed been a Sprint customer. Other issues aside, the network
is a big problem in many areas, and network integration and migration is
nothing short of a nightmare.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:18:22 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<sQhkj.238$Wr4.18@fe101.usenetserver.com>:
>At 19 Jan 2008 01:00:33 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>
>But Sprint's problems have nothing to do with being CDMA. If CDMA is
>"declining," it's because Sprint is hemmoraging customers- not the other
>way around. If Sprint was GSM, GSM would've lost 650,000 customers instead.
Not necessarily. Rationalizing networks would have been quite a bit
easier with GSM.
>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>> the U.S. market.
>
>Which has nothing to do with GSM (or CDMA), either. Other than a few savvy
>customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular
>customers know or care what technology their carrier uses.
It's not whether they care, it's the massive advantage from worldwide
use and economies of scale.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-19, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2008-01-19, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system
>>> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers.
>>
>> Unless my math is really screwed up that statistic is just wrong. Where
>> did it come from?
>>
>> Dennis Ferguson
>
> It was in an article last year. They added up the subscribers from the
> major carriers for each technology, Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, AT&T,
> T-Mobile, then divided by the total number of customers.
I think it is wrong only because it seems to exclude from the North
American market the part of North America in Mexico. If you add in
the 50 to 60 million Mexican GSM subscribers (depending on how many TDMA
users Telcel still has) and the fewer than 5 million CDMA subscribers
there I think you get a different result.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-19, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:18:22 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>At 19 Jan 2008 01:00:33 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>>> the U.S. market.
>>
>>Which has nothing to do with GSM (or CDMA), either. Other than a few savvy
>>customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular
>>customers know or care what technology their carrier uses.
>
> It's not whether they care, it's the massive advantage from worldwide
> use and economies of scale.
So which numbers should we look at to be able to measure that massive
advantage and its payoff? The wireless operations of AT&T and Verizon
make about the same revenue from about the same number of customers, but
Verizon's operating income from that revenue is about 50% higher than AT&T.
And, despite the lower spending per customer, most big surveys which try
to measure it still give Verizon's network a coverage and performance
advantage. If there really is a massive advantage at something which
matters it should be measureable somehow.
I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't
change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it
to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without
any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't
help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have
anything to do with this.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:53:54 -0800, "Ness-Net"
<no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
: John, up to your old tricks again I see......
:
: Let me give you a hint...... then do your homework.
:
: N E X T E L
:
: is where most of the problems are - (which isn't "CDMA")......
Which brings up the obvious question: WHAT in God's name were they thinking
when they bought that turkey?
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:18:22 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
: At 19 Jan 2008 01:00:33 +0000 John Navas wrote:
:
: > Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
: > the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
: > island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
:
: But Sprint's problems have nothing to do with being CDMA. If CDMA is
: "declining," it's because Sprint is hemmoraging customers- not the other
: way around. If Sprint was GSM, GSM would've lost 650,000 customers instead.
That argument makes no sense. Sprint's ex-customers must have gone somewhere.
Those who went to Verizon (and there must surely be more than a few who did)
have no net effect on the CDMA headcount.
: > The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
: > beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
: > the U.S. market.
:
: Which has nothing to do with GSM (or CDMA), either. Other than a few savvy
: customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular
: customers know or care what technology their carrier uses.
Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest of the
GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones that handle
all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-20, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
> Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest of the
> GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones that handle
> all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive.
By my count 12 of the 15 phones AT&T offers for free with a new contract
on their web site support all four bands.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
Did Nextel take over Sprint?
"Ness-Net" <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
news:IvidnX7JfMvb-wzanZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@giganews.com...
> John, up to your old tricks again I see......
>
> Let me give you a hint...... then do your homework.
>
> N E X T E L
>
> is where most of the problems are - (which isn't "CDMA")......
>
>
>
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> newsii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com...
>>
>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>> the U.S. market.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
>
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:15:21 GMT, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net>
wrote:
: On 2008-01-20, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
: > Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest
: > of the GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones
: > that handle all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive.
:
: By my count 12 of the 15 phones AT&T offers for free with a new contract
: on their web site support all four bands.
Is that a recent development? The last Usenet discussion I recall seeing on
the subject implied that there were only a few quad models available and that
many users were distressed to learn that their US GSM phones wouldn't work
internationally. But I have to admit that as a Verizon customer I haven't paid
a lot of attention to the subject lately.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-01-21, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
> Is that a recent development?
I don't know, but I've been with T-Mobile since 2005. Back then, at least
3 or 4 of their GSM handsets were quad-band, and I believe they have more
than that in their lineup now.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-21, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:15:21 GMT, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>: On 2008-01-20, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>: > Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest
>: > of the GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones
>: > that handle all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive.
>:
>: By my count 12 of the 15 phones AT&T offers for free with a new contract
>: on their web site support all four bands.
>
> Is that a recent development? The last Usenet discussion I recall seeing on
> the subject implied that there were only a few quad models available and that
> many users were distressed to learn that their US GSM phones wouldn't work
> internationally. But I have to admit that as a Verizon customer I haven't paid
> a lot of attention to the subject lately.
Recent as in a few years, I guess. A few years ago you had to buy a
fairly high end phone, like a Motorola V3, to get all four GSM bands.
Now a Motorola V3 (in several colors) is among the phones they'll give
you for free with a new account. I think it has got to the point now
where there's little to be saved by leaving any of the GSM bands out.
Of course roaming in a couple of Asian countries, and taking advantage
of some of the better European phone service deals, requires a phone
with a UMTS band which is supported by only one or two (very expensive)
phones available from any US carrier, so there are still topics for
travellers to moan about.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
> the U.S. market.
Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
down.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent
Tim Smith wrote:
> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
> down.
More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
date was over early in the evening.
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:35:04 -0800, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
<reply_in_group-903E5F.22350420012008@news.supernews.com>:
>In article <pii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
>> the U.S. market.
>
>Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone?
Yes.
>Most
>reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>down.
That's all from one story based on spin from Verizon.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent 
ii2p3p5e7eg675nop6o6r5rnk66auvfrr@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
