Verizon takes a larger share of the wireless market

Dow Jones Newswires reports today that "Verizon didn't need the iPhone
after all."

Verizon added 1.5 million new customers in the second quarter, surpassing
Wall Street expectations and apparently taking a larger share of the USA
wireless market at the cost of AT&T and other rivals.

AT&T won't release its second quarter results until Wednesday, but is
expected to add 1.3 million.

Unlike AT&T, the vast majority of new Verizon customers sign long term
contracts. Verizon also routinely reports the industry's lowest churn.

Verizon's pending acquisition of Alltel will add 13 million to Verizon's
current 68.7 million customers, restoring its position as the USA's
leading carrier with 81.7 million customers.

AT&T had 71.4 customers milion at the end of the first quarter.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote in
news:alpine.OSX.1.10.0807221657120.710@pangtzu.pan da.com:

> Verizon's pending acquisition of Alltel will add 13 million to Verizon's
> current 68.7 million customers, restoring its position as the USA's
> leading carrier with 81.7 million customers.
>
>

I doubt it. When the Verizon bastards take over Alltel, they won't be able
to help themselves screwing it up with hobbleware phones and ultra-limited
data service. Most Alltel customers were former Verizon customers, here.
They fled Cellular One when GTE Wireless (now called Verizon) took over the
plant and tried to screw everyone with double rates for half the minutes.
I hung around GTE until Vodaphone came on the scene and Verizon Wireless
took over. The regional plans disappeared and we were forced to buy into
nationwide service at low minutes we didn't want and didn't need. Mass
churning was the results to Alltel whos system here is much better,
especially in the country on 800B cellular.

The very instant Verizon tries to shove their shitty service down my throat
at god awful prices, I'll flee again, even if I have to abandon sellphones.
God I can't stand it when someone stands right in front of you and lies his
ass off....and KNOWS IT!.

Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:

> Dow Jones Newswires reports today that "Verizon didn't need the iPhone
> after all."
>
> Verizon added 1.5 million new customers in the second quarter, surpassing
> Wall Street expectations and apparently taking a larger share of the USA
> wireless market at the cost of AT&T and other rivals.
>
> AT&T won't release its second quarter results until Wednesday, but is
> expected to add 1.3 million.
>
> Unlike AT&T, the vast majority of new Verizon customers sign long term
> contracts. Verizon also routinely reports the industry's lowest churn.
>
> Verizon's pending acquisition of Alltel will add 13 million to Verizon's
> current 68.7 million customers, restoring its position as the USA's
> leading carrier with 81.7 million customers.
>
> AT&T had 71.4 customers milion at the end of the first quarter.
>
> -- Mark --

so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
business.

as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
further proof.

Oxford <apony@pasture.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:apony-F5C90E.20541022072008@news.qwest.net:

> Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:
>
>> Dow Jones Newswires reports today that "Verizon didn't need the
>> iPhone after all."
>>
>> Verizon added 1.5 million new customers in the second quarter,
>> surpassing Wall Street expectations and apparently taking a larger
>> share of the USA wireless market at the cost of AT&T and other
>> rivals.
>>
>> AT&T won't release its second quarter results until Wednesday, but is
>> expected to add 1.3 million.
>>
>> Unlike AT&T, the vast majority of new Verizon customers sign long
>> term contracts. Verizon also routinely reports the industry's lowest
>> churn.
>>
>> Verizon's pending acquisition of Alltel will add 13 million to
>> Verizon's current 68.7 million customers, restoring its position as
>> the USA's leading carrier with 81.7 million customers.
>>
>> AT&T had 71.4 customers milion at the end of the first quarter.
>>
>> -- Mark --
>
> so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
> serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
> business.
>
> as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
> further proof.
>

Pray tell, little imbecile- how is adding 1.5 million new customers in a
quarter "flat lining"?

"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message news:apony-F5C90E.20541022072008@news.qwest.net...
>
> so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
> serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
> business.
>
> as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
> further proof.

Are you actually SERIOUS??

And delusional - as always. Making something out of absolutely NOTHING!!

The only thing the above proves is that you don't have a clue.

On 2008-07-23, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:
> Oxford <apony@pasture.com> amazed us all with the following in
> news:apony-F5C90E.20541022072008@news.qwest.net:
>
>> Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> Dow Jones Newswires reports today that "Verizon didn't need the
>>> iPhone after all."
>>>
>>> Verizon added 1.5 million new customers in the second quarter,
>>> surpassing Wall Street expectations and apparently taking a larger
>>> share of the USA wireless market at the cost of AT&T and other
>>> rivals.
>>>
>>> AT&T won't release its second quarter results until Wednesday, but is
>>> expected to add 1.3 million.
>>>
>>> Unlike AT&T, the vast majority of new Verizon customers sign long
>>> term contracts. Verizon also routinely reports the industry's lowest
>>> churn.
>>>
>>> Verizon's pending acquisition of Alltel will add 13 million to
>>> Verizon's current 68.7 million customers, restoring its position as
>>> the USA's leading carrier with 81.7 million customers.
>>>
>>> AT&T had 71.4 customers milion at the end of the first quarter.
>>>
>>> -- Mark --
>>
>> so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
>> serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
>> business.
>>
>> as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
>> further proof.
>>
>
> Pray tell, little imbecile- how is adding 1.5 million new customers in a
> quarter "flat lining"?

Because they added 1.5 million new customers last quarter too? I
wouldn't call that "flat lining", but I guess on some planet it is.

Note that it shouldn't surprise anyone (or be interpreted as an
"iPhone effect") if AT&T adds significantly more than 1.3 million
total customers in the most recent quarter. I don't know why 1.3
million would be "expected". AT&T did add only 1.3 million net
customers in the previous quarter, but that included a one-time
not-to-be-repeated loss of 600,000 TDMA customers when they shut that
network down in February. A "normal" quarter for AT&T sees closer to
2 million customers added, if they do significantly less than that
this time around then something is really screwed up.

Dennis Ferguson

"Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
> news:apony-F5C90E.20541022072008@news.qwest.net...
> >
> > so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
> > serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
> > business.
> >
> > as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
> > further proof.
>
> Are you actually SERIOUS??
>
> And delusional - as always. Making something out of absolutely NOTHING!!
>
> The only thing the above proves is that you don't have a clue.

no, you are forgetting i only use facts...

Verizon has "flatlined" against Apple.

Here is absolute proof:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=VZ&t...z=m&q=l&c=aapl

Please learn about the facts next time...

The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:

> > so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
> > serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
> > business.
> >
> > as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
> > further proof.
> >
>
> Pray tell, little imbecile- how is adding 1.5 million new customers in a
> quarter "flat lining"?

because they can't make any money with their current approach.

apple is wiping them out at every turn, and there is nothing they can do
unless they win the iphone contract.

they are a company without a heartbeat... they have flatlined... i've
seen apple crush entire industries over the last few decades, and
verizon, being a small company with no quality offerings just isn't
strong enough to compete long term.

you'll see what i'm saying in about 4 years.

Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:

> >> so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
> >> serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
> >> business.
> >>
> >> as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
> >> further proof.
> >>
> >
> > Pray tell, little imbecile- how is adding 1.5 million new customers in a
> > quarter "flat lining"?
>
> Because they added 1.5 million new customers last quarter too? I
> wouldn't call that "flat lining", but I guess on some planet it is.

they can add all the customers they want, but if they can't increase
revenue, they have flatlined.

see DeLL for the perfect example of this same failed approach.

> Note that it shouldn't surprise anyone (or be interpreted as an
> "iPhone effect") if AT&T adds significantly more than 1.3 million
> total customers in the most recent quarter. I don't know why 1.3
> million would be "expected". AT&T did add only 1.3 million net
> customers in the previous quarter, but that included a one-time
> not-to-be-repeated loss of 600,000 TDMA customers when they shut that
> network down in February. A "normal" quarter for AT&T sees closer to
> 2 million customers added, if they do significantly less than that
> this time around then something is really screwed up.

yes, and iphone customers are the cream of the entire cell market since
they have real money and are smarter about products than verizon users.

"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message news:apony-E509B7.22572322072008@news.qwest.net...
> verizon, being a small company with no quality offerings just isn't
> strong enough to compete long term.
>

>

You are a goddam idiot.

Vodaphone / Verizon is a "small company"??

It is amazing the crap you pull out of your ass...

"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message news:apony-61F261.22503222072008@news.qwest.net...
> "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
>> news:apony-F5C90E.20541022072008@news.qwest.net...
>> >
>> > so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
>> > serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
>> > business.
>> >
>> > as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
>> > further proof.
>>
>> Are you actually SERIOUS??
>>
>> And delusional - as always. Making something out of absolutely NOTHING!!
>>
>> The only thing the above proves is that you don't have a clue.
>
> no, you are forgetting i only use facts...
>
> Verizon has "flatlined" against Apple.
>
> Here is absolute proof:
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=VZ&t...z=m&q=l&c=aapl
>
> Please learn about the facts next time...

As always - ZERO "proof"..... (and zero "fact")...

Just some figures taken totally out of context.

Mainly because you are comparing oranges to bowling balls...
A hardware and software company being compared to a telecom
Totally different sectors - and totally different market influences.

You remain - an idiot!

And, BTW, Apple took a big hit today, if you hadn't noticed...

Oxford wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>> so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
>>>> serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
>>>> business.
>>>>
>>>> as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
>>>> further proof.
>>>>
>>> Pray tell, little imbecile- how is adding 1.5 million new customers in a
>>> quarter "flat lining"?
>> Because they added 1.5 million new customers last quarter too? I
>> wouldn't call that "flat lining", but I guess on some planet it is.
>
> they can add all the customers they want, but if they can't increase
> revenue, they have flatlined.
>
> see DeLL for the perfect example of this same failed approach.
>
>> Note that it shouldn't surprise anyone (or be interpreted as an
>> "iPhone effect") if AT&T adds significantly more than 1.3 million
>> total customers in the most recent quarter. I don't know why 1.3
>> million would be "expected". AT&T did add only 1.3 million net
>> customers in the previous quarter, but that included a one-time
>> not-to-be-repeated loss of 600,000 TDMA customers when they shut that
>> network down in February. A "normal" quarter for AT&T sees closer to
>> 2 million customers added, if they do significantly less than that
>> this time around then something is really screwed up.
>
> yes, and iphone customers are the cream of the entire cell market since
> they have real money and are smarter about products than verizon users.

More like they like to *think* they are. Their phones are just "status"
symbols.

--
Civis Romanus Sum

Mark Crispin wrote:
> Dow Jones Newswires reports today that "Verizon didn't need the iPhone
> after all."

<snip>

Yeah, but just think of those numbers with another million or so iPhone
customers.

In any case, Verizon has had both more retail customers, and more total
customers, than AT&T for a long time. The way AT&T inflates is numbers
is with the large number of MVNO customers using services like Tracfone.

I'm not sure how much being the largest carrier helps in marketing.
People look at independent surveys of coverage and quality, where AT&T
is usually third or fourth, and Verizon and Alltel are always first.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> Note that it shouldn't surprise anyone (or be interpreted as an
> "iPhone effect") if AT&T adds significantly more than 1.3 million
> total customers in the most recent quarter. I don't know why 1.3
> million would be "expected". AT&T did add only 1.3 million net
> customers in the previous quarter, but that included a one-time
> not-to-be-repeated loss of 600,000 TDMA customers when they shut that
> network down in February.

Did a larger percentage of those 600K customers go elsewhere?

A "normal" quarter for AT&T sees closer to
> 2 million customers added, if they do significantly less than that
> this time around then something is really screwed up.

4Q2007 they added 2.7 million (though unlike Verizon, a large number of
these were prepaid and MVNO).

2Q2007 they were at 1.5 million additions. Since 4Q includes Xmas and
the numbers are higher than in 2Q.

[Removing alt.cellular.cingular, Cingular no longer exists]

Oxford wrote:
> Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:
>
>> Dow Jones Newswires reports today that "Verizon didn't need the iPhone
>> after all."
>>
>> Verizon added 1.5 million new customers in the second quarter, surpassing
>> Wall Street expectations and apparently taking a larger share of the USA
>> wireless market at the cost of AT&T and other rivals.
>>
>> AT&T won't release its second quarter results until Wednesday, but is
>> expected to add 1.3 million.
>>
>> Unlike AT&T, the vast majority of new Verizon customers sign long term
>> contracts. Verizon also routinely reports the industry's lowest churn.
>>
>> Verizon's pending acquisition of Alltel will add 13 million to Verizon's
>> current 68.7 million customers, restoring its position as the USA's
>> leading carrier with 81.7 million customers.
>>
>> AT&T had 71.4 customers milion at the end of the first quarter.
>>
>> -- Mark --
>
> so Verizon has flat lined... thanks for pointing out how much of a
> serious affect the iPhone is having to the poorly managed Verizon
> business.
>
> as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
> further proof.

Aren't you making the assumption that everyone does, or will, want an
iPhone?

Some of us couldn't care less about music, videos, or spending good
money to buy the latest whiz-bang! Some of us only have a cell phone in
case of emergency. I doubt if I use ten minutes a month but it's there
if I should need it!

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:NiEhk.13181$LG4.12516@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:



>
> [Removing alt.cellular.cingular, Cingular no longer exists]

Neither does AT&T Wireless, the group you are currently using. Quit trying
to be a Navas by forcing people to do things your way because you know
what's best for all of us.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, SMS posted:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>> Dow Jones Newswires reports today that "Verizon didn't need the iPhone
>> after all."
> Yeah, but just think of those numbers with another million or so iPhone
> customers.

That assumes that a company wants to have a million fanboys as customers.
If each fanboy drives away an average of 5 non-fanboys, the result is a
loss of 4 million.

This is why the companies that go for iPhone tend to be the second-rates
in their respective markets (AT&T in the US, Rogers in Canada, O2 in the
UK, SoftBank in Japan, etc.). They need the surge of fanboys in order to
finance a build-up of their network so they can reasonably compete with
the top carrier.

But once that build-up happens, they need to get rid of the fanboys in
order to attract the more profitable business customers, typically by
spawning a wholely-owned MVNO whose sole purpose is to be a bucket for a
market segment that you want to isolate from the rest of the business.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On 2008-07-23, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> Note that it shouldn't surprise anyone (or be interpreted as an
>> "iPhone effect") if AT&T adds significantly more than 1.3 million
>> total customers in the most recent quarter. I don't know why 1.3
>> million would be "expected". AT&T did add only 1.3 million net
>> customers in the previous quarter, but that included a one-time
>> not-to-be-repeated loss of 600,000 TDMA customers when they shut that
>> network down in February.
>
> Did a larger percentage of those 600K customers go elsewhere?

Larger than what? I do think that TDMA customers who thought they
would have been served as well with the GSM service might have
switched already, and that a quarter where you don't cancel service
for 600,000 customers has just got to be better than one where you
do.

> A "normal" quarter for AT&T sees closer to
>> 2 million customers added, if they do significantly less than that
>> this time around then something is really screwed up.
>
> 4Q2007 they added 2.7 million (though unlike Verizon, a large number of
> these were prepaid and MVNO).

And Verizon added 2 million in that same quarter, if I remember
correctly. If Verizon is off 25% from that high then I think it
would not be a good sign if AT&T were off a whole lot more than
that. If AT&T adds less than 1.7 or 1.8 million this time
around then they've maybe got a problem.

> 2Q2007 they were at 1.5 million additions. Since 4Q includes Xmas and
> the numbers are higher than in 2Q.

Is the Christmas quarter really that much better in general? My guess
was that this quarter was particularly good for everyone else since it
was particularly bad for Sprint, though I really have no idea.

Dennis Ferguson

In article <alpine.OSX.1.10.0807230812060.710@pangtzu.panda.c om>, Mark
Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:

> That assumes that a company wants to have a million fanboys as customers.
> If each fanboy drives away an average of 5 non-fanboys, the result is a
> loss of 4 million.

Another troll who is a waste of time reading.

PLONK

--
Charles

In article <apony-F5C90E.20541022072008@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> as they say, Verizon is doomed without access to the iPhone... this is
> further proof.

Better late than never I am kill filing trolls like Oxford/Moyer.
Should have done it a while ago. Maybe these groups will be readable by
ignoring idiots like Oxford/Moyer, Crispin and Larry who post nonsense.


PLONK

--
Charles

The results are in for AT&T.

As expected, AT&T added 1.3 million new subscribers in Q2, for a total of
72.8 million subscribers.

As with other traditional phone companies, AT&T's wireline business was
hit hard, with a 2.6% decline in phone lines (60.4 million to 58.9
million). This was worse than the market expected, but the impact to
AT&T's overall profit margins was not as bad as expected, and AT&T shares
rose today.

As noted before, Verizon added 1.5 million subscribers in Q2, for a total
of 68.7 million subscribers.

The pending acquisition of Alltel will add 13 million subscribers to
Verizon, putting it ahead of AT&T, just as AT&T's acquisition of Dobson
Cellular One last year put AT&T ahead of Verizon.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On 2008-07-23, Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote:
> The results are in for AT&T.
>
> As expected, AT&T added 1.3 million new subscribers in Q2, for a total of
> 72.8 million subscribers.

Whew, I don't think that's good. While they don't say it explicitly
I think their ARPU might have dropped a bit from last quarter too.

Dennis Ferguson

SMS wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> Note that it shouldn't surprise anyone (or be interpreted as an
>> "iPhone effect") if AT&T adds significantly more than 1.3 million
>> total customers in the most recent quarter. I don't know why 1.3
>> million would be "expected". AT&T did add only 1.3 million net
>> customers in the previous quarter, but that included a one-time
>> not-to-be-repeated loss of 600,000 TDMA customers when they shut that
>> network down in February.
>
> Did a larger percentage of those 600K customers go elsewhere?
>
> A "normal" quarter for AT&T sees closer to
>> 2 million customers added, if they do significantly less than that
>> this time around then something is really screwed up.
>
> 4Q2007 they added 2.7 million (though unlike Verizon, a large number of
> these were prepaid and MVNO).
>
> 2Q2007 they were at 1.5 million additions. Since 4Q includes Xmas and
> the numbers are higher than in 2Q.
>
> [Removing alt.cellular.cingular, Cingular no longer exists]

Pretty poor results for AT&T today, 1.33 million net additions, worse
than 2Q 2007, worse than 4Q 2007, and much poorer than Verizon. But the
numbers are misleading. Of the 1.33 million customers AT&T added,
894,000 were postpaid, 439,000 were prepaid or MVNO. Of the 1.5 million
net additions for Verizon, only about 300,000 were postpaid, and about
1.2 million were postpaid.

Of course the original iPhone was out of stock for much of the second
quarter, and the 3G iPhone hadn't yet been released. 3Q should be much
better.

Mark Crispin wrote:

> That assumes that a company wants to have a million fanboys as
> customers. If each fanboy drives away an average of 5 non-fanboys, the
> result is a loss of 4 million.

LOL, outside of Usenet, does anyone know that these fanboys exist? On
Usenet, do they really drive away anyone from AT&T? They probably do
have a negative effect on Apple, because without their posts and the
replies a lot of people would be unaware of any issues with the iPhone.
I.e., before I read it here, I simply assumed that the iPhone could edit
Word and Excel documents, and I assumed that it had voice-dialing.

> This is why the companies that go for iPhone tend to be the second-rates
> in their respective markets (AT&T in the US, Rogers in Canada, O2 in the
> UK, SoftBank in Japan, etc.). They need the surge of fanboys in order
> to finance a build-up of their network so they can reasonably compete
> with the top carrier.

This is true. The iPhone doesn't exist for me, because the AT&T coverage
in both my home area, and the places I travel to most often, is
sub-standard compared to Verizon coverage.

> But once that build-up happens, they need to get rid of the fanboys in
> order to attract the more profitable business customers,

The old AT&T Wireless and Cingular hemorrhaged business customers to
Verizon and the new AT&T Wireless is concentrating more on the
non-business user with products like the iPhone. The iPhone is virtually
unusable by most businesses that need full smart phone capabilities.
That's not to say that the iPhone doesn't have a market, just that it's
not the business market.

At 23 Jul 2008 11:32:43 -0700 Mark Crispin wrote:

> The pending acquisition of Alltel will add 13 million subscribers to
> Verizon, putting it ahead of AT&T, just as AT&T's acquisition of
> Dobson Cellular One last year put AT&T ahead of Verizon.


Didn't Cingular's acquisition of AT&T Wireless put it ahead of Verizon a
few years ago? The Dobson acquisition was only a few million customers.

Although I really don't know why anyone cares about the "most subscribers"
total anyway. It's not like any of these carriers grew to these numbers
"naturally"- both AT&T and Verizon are amalgams of smaller regional
carriers created through mergers and acquisitions, Sprint acquired Nextel,
and T-Mobile was a bunch of smaller GSM carriers.

We're not talking about ground-up expansions of once small mom-n-pop
businesses acheiving national dominance one customer or store at a time
like Starbucks, McDonald's or Wal-Mart! Any company can become "biggest"
in their market via mergers and acquisitions...

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, SMS posted:
> LOL, outside of Usenet, does anyone know that these fanboys exist?

The fanboys are in the Apple forums, which is unfortunate since Apple
strongly encourages users with support questions to go to the forums
rather than contacting Apple. This works when it's a relatively
straightforward newbie question.

It works less well when the user has a real bug ("Why isn't it loading my
contacts and calendar from Outlook"?, "Why am I getting unknown error ####
in upgrading my iPhone software, and what can I do to get it out of
restore mode?", etc.) or wants to do something outside of the walled
garden ("How do I get the modem to answer a data call; the normal UNIX
method of editing /etc/ttys to start a getty doesn't seem to work?").

The most obnoxious fanboys, however, are to be found where Apple's
competition lurks. These are the self-annointed prophets who go out to
convert the heathen. An outstanding example is Oxford, who relentlessly
posts iPhone advocacy in the Verizon, T-Mobile, etc. groups and has done
an excellent job in convincing people not to touch an iPhone with a 10
foot pole.

I happen to have active accounts with both Verizon and AT&T; use both
Windows and Mac; use iToy, Windows Mobile, and N800; etc. I'm pretty well
aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each of these platforms.
Fanboys of any stripe are particularly annoying to me, because (among
other damage) they tend to hamper fixes of bugs, misfeatures, and
omissions on a platform.

> This is true. The iPhone doesn't exist for me, because the AT&T coverage in
> both my home area, and the places I travel to most often, is sub-standard
> compared to Verizon coverage.

Yup; both call quality and coverage is much better with Big Red. AT&T's
3G network has comparable call quality, but it's only in the big cities.
Out in the boonies, you're stuck with GSM.

But AT&T has its uses. A 50MB data-only AT&T SIM is quite a bit cheaper
than adding tethering to Verizon, and I own property in ex-Dobson
territory that is not covered by Verizon.

Also, Verizon's world phones only have GSM, not 3G, on its world side.
So either you need a second (unlocked) 3G phone and do a SIM swap (and
yes, there is such a thing as a Verizon SIM) when going to 3G-only
countries such as Japan, or you have to go with AT&T for a GSM/3G phone
with 3G in the 2100 band.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Todd Allcock posted:
> Didn't Cingular's acquisition of AT&T Wireless put it ahead of Verizon a
> few years ago? The Dobson acquisition was only a few million customers.

Nope. The ATTWS acquisition put it close, but Dobson brought it over.

> Although I really don't know why anyone cares about the "most subscribers"
> total anyway.

I agree. That comment was just to tweak the noses of the fanboys who
think that there is something significant about AT&T currently having the
"most subscribers".

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:32:43 -0700, Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM>
wrote:


>As with other traditional phone companies, AT&T's wireline business was
>hit hard, with a 2.6% decline in phone lines (60.4 million to 58.9
>million). This was worse than the market expected, but the impact to
>AT&T's overall profit margins was not as bad as expected, and AT&T shares
>rose today.

OUCH! I knew that cellular and VOIP were hurting landline business,
but not THAT bad.

Ugh... how much longer until the amount of ILEC landline customers
leaving will ease? Though I have cellular and VOIP, I consider those
to be either toys or just a nice convenience.

I'll still keep my landline, even if I drop most of the features on
there to bring the price down. Why? For or reliability and most
importantly, voice quality. Neither GSM or CDMA or any VOIP codec can
sound as well as a landline. They've come close in recent years, but
still don't sound as good as a traditional landline.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:43:49 UTC, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> Mark Crispin <mrc@Panda.COM> wrote in
> news:alpine.OSX.1.10.0807221657120.710@pangtzu.pan da.com:
>
> > Verizon's pending acquisition of Alltel will add 13 million to Verizon's
> > current 68.7 million customers, restoring its position as the USA's
> > leading carrier with 81.7 million customers.
> >
> >
>
> I doubt it. When the Verizon bastards take over Alltel, they won't be able
> to help themselves screwing it up with hobbleware phones and ultra-limited
> data service. Most Alltel customers were former Verizon customers, here.
> They fled Cellular One when GTE Wireless (now called Verizon) took over the
> plant and tried to screw everyone with double rates for half the minutes.
> I hung around GTE until Vodaphone came on the scene and Verizon Wireless
> took over. The regional plans disappeared and we were forced to buy into
> nationwide service at low minutes we didn't want and didn't need. Mass
> churning was the results to Alltel whos system here is much better,
> especially in the country on 800B cellular.
>
> The very instant Verizon tries to shove their shitty service down my throat
> at god awful prices, I'll flee again, even if I have to abandon sellphones.
> God I can't stand it when someone stands right in front of you and lies his
> ass off....and KNOWS IT!.
>

I suspect that many Alltel customers are not "refugees" from Verizon.
Also, there is a lot of Alltel territory where ATT coverage is
marginal or based on roaming anyway. There are a lot of the west
where if I lived I would probably go with Verizon. I could do it here
in Oklahoma, but ATT is farily good here so I stay with SIM based
phones where I can tether if occasionally necessary.

At 23 Jul 2008 17:49:35 -0400 Diamond Dave wrote:

> OUCH! I knew that cellular and VOIP were hurting landline business,
> but not THAT bad.


But does it really matter, since DSL represents half of broadband sales.
Does, for example, Qwest really care if I pay them $40/month for dry DSL
internet, (then use VoIP) instead of $30 for a landline? It's kind of like
why McDonald's sells salads and grilled chicken sandwiches- it replaces the
potential lost revenue of customers who don't like/want beef.

> Ugh... how much longer until the amount of ILEC landline customers
> leaving will ease? Though I have cellular and VOIP, I consider those
> to be either toys or just a nice convenience.


Agreed.

> I'll still keep my landline, even if I drop most of the features on
> there to bring the price down. Why? For or reliability and most
> importantly, voice quality. Neither GSM or CDMA or any VOIP codec can
> sound as well as a landline. They've come close in recent years, but
> still don't sound as good as a traditional landline.


Agreed again. But realistically it's a non-issue- the landline companies
have already diversified into internet, VoIP and cellular. Verizon isn't
really going to cry a river when a $30 landline customer dumps it for a $50
Verizon wireless cellular plan!