"Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
million."
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Guess that just goes to prove that bigger isn't always better
"Lenny" <lenny@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:20080202195258.A20054E4B7@outpost.zedz.net...
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VPVzgD8UF4I400
>
> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
> of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
> It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
> while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
> million."
>
> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...d-official-wir
> eless-service-provider/
>
> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T as the
> official wireless service provider for the party's convention in August."
>
>
>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:30:48 -0800, Scott in SoCal
<scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I switched from Verizon Wireless to Cingular (now AT&T) 5 years ago,
>and haven't regretted it for a moment. Looks like lots of other people
>are doing the same. Verizon sucks, and the word is getting out...
Funny, I did the opposite and never looked back. Stinkular/at&t still
sucks.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
I won't disagree, they do indeed suck. But they also have the best network,
and at the end of the day, it's a phone
"Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news4o9q3128ugb2tb32s28ni3ko83d1ka24o@4ax.com...
>I switched from Verizon Wireless to Cingular (now AT&T) 5 years ago,
> and haven't regretted it for a moment. Looks like lots of other people
> are doing the same. Verizon sucks, and the word is getting out...
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On 2008-02-02, Lenny <lenny@nothing.com> wrote:
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VPVzgD8UF4I400
>
> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
> of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
> It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
> while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
> million."
To be fair, 1.7 million out of the 4.4 million weren't "new customers", they
were customers AT&T bought when they acquired Dobson Communications. See
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Larry wrote:
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
> 2C0231.17385002022008@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
>
> > I'm using PagePlus Cellular.
>
> Prepay? Don't you pay your bills?
For many people who only need to make occasional calls, prepaid
can be a much better deal than the ridiculous minimum plans that
the postpaid carriers offer. Not everyone spends their life on
their cell phone.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Lenny wrote:
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VPVzgD8UF4I400
>
> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
> of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
> It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
> while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
> million."
Actually Verizon continues to widen its lead over AT&T in the
all-important post-paid, retail segment. AT&T adds a lot of users to its
network, but most of them are the low profit wholesale MVNO customers,
or prepaid customers on their own network.
At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million retail post paid
customers, while Verizon had 61 million, and continues to add new retail
customers at a faster rate than AT&T. Actually it's surprising that the
iPhone hasn't at least allowed AT&T to narrow the gap, but without it
the gap would be even wider.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2008-02-02, Lenny <lenny@nothing.com> wrote:
>> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VPVzgD8UF4I400
>>
>> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
>> of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
>> It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
>> while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
>> million."
>
> To be fair, 1.7 million out of the 4.4 million weren't "new customers", they
> were customers AT&T bought when they acquired Dobson Communications. See
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/24hjhg
It's not unfair to count them as total customers, though it's rather
misleading to claim that they added 4.4 million customers in the
quarter. Of course next quarter they'll be saying that the net additions
are down because the previous quarter included acquisition customers.
Whatever makes the best press release!
They added 2.7 million on their own, of which 1.2 million were postpaid
retail.
They added 1.7 million more by the acquisition, but it didn't say how
many of those were retail postpaid, and how many were prepaid or MVNO.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
> It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
> while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
> million."
Great! More users on a shitty network. If I were stuck on Cingular I'd be
pissed. That many more dropped calls due to a bunch of pre-pay nitwits
clogging up the limited tower traffic.
> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T as the
> official wireless service provider for the party's convention in August."
Losers carrying losers, and this makes them look good? Puh-leeze.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On 2 Feb 2008 19:52:55 -0000, lenny@nothing.com (Lenny) wrote in
<20080202195258.A20054E4B7@outpost.zedz.net>:
>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VPVzgD8UF4I400
>
>"Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
>of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
>It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
>while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
>million."
>
>http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...d-official-wir
>eless-service-provider/
>
>"The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T as the
>official wireless service provider for the party's convention in August."
Stand by for the inevitable spin by Verizon apologist and resident
anti-AT&T troll Steven Scharf, whose forecasts of doom for AT&T look
ever more absurd.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Bill wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
>> 2C0231.17385002022008@nntp1.usenetserver.com:
>>
>>> I'm using PagePlus Cellular.
>> Prepay? Don't you pay your bills?
>
> For many people who only need to make occasional calls, prepaid
> can be a much better deal than the ridiculous minimum plans that
> the postpaid carriers offer. Not everyone spends their life on
> their cell phone.
>
> Bill
That is for damn sure. I use my cell maybe 10-15 minutes per month. With
a prepay, it costs me maybe 8 bucks a month. (Don't need it real often,
but when I need it, I need it.) Cheapest 'real' plan I could get would
be 30 or so per month. Only downside is I have over a hundred bucks in
time sitting on it, because I use it so little.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:8b9aq313oi8ai40r508u3psikcv4vhql5b@4ax.com...
>
> Stand by for the inevitable spin by Verizon apologist and resident
> anti-AT&T troll Steven Scharf, whose forecasts of doom for AT&T look
> ever more absurd.
John, have YOU looked in the proverbial mirror?
Other than the Apple fanboy(s), (and maybe Larry and Skype / Alltel)
I haven't seen a more rabid supporter of a company - than YOU.
Well past the point of absurdity.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:37:43 -0800, "Ness-Net"
<no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
<lomdnZpoldFltTjanZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:8b9aq313oi8ai40r508u3psikcv4vhql5b@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> Stand by for the inevitable spin by Verizon apologist and resident
>> anti-AT&T troll Steven Scharf, whose forecasts of doom for AT&T look
>> ever more absurd.
>
>John, have YOU looked in the proverbial mirror?
>
>Other than the Apple fanboy(s), (and maybe Larry and Skype / Alltel)
>I haven't seen a more rabid supporter of a company - than YOU.
>Well past the point of absurdity.
What company? What support? Specifically.
>Pot calling the kettle black??
Hardly.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
>> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone
>> Group PLC of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in
>> attracting new customers. It added 2 million subscribers in the
>> quarter for a total of 65.7 million, while AT&T last week reported
>> extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1 million."
>>
>> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...d-official-wir
>> eless-service-provider/
>>
>> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T
>> as the official wireless service provider for the party's convention
>> in August."
> Guess that just goes to prove that bigger isn't always better
It also proves that wireless customers prefer AT&T to Verizon. What's
outstanding about those numbers is that many AT&T customers can (and do)
easily switch to T-mobile without purchasing a new phone, while Verizon
pretty much locks customers to their phones. So AT&T has higher numbers
even with higher competition.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>What's
>outstanding about those numbers is that many AT&T customers can (and do)
>easily switch to T-mobile without purchasing a new phone, while Verizon
>pretty much locks customers to their phones.
No, they don't. I had no trouble at all taking a VZW phone and
activating it on Alltel.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:06:04 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> wrote in
<rrpaq3pshch9n98udoa279lg3rjk1le2ug@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>What's
>>outstanding about those numbers is that many AT&T customers can (and do)
>>easily switch to T-mobile without purchasing a new phone, while Verizon
>>pretty much locks customers to their phones.
>
>No, they don't. I had no trouble at all taking a VZW phone and
>activating it on Alltel.
Not in this area.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:mukaq3p63bis9c8sgq030b9jmal530r1vb@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:37:43 -0800, "Ness-Net"
> <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <lomdnZpoldFltTjanZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:8b9aq313oi8ai40r508u3psikcv4vhql5b@4ax.com. ..
>>>
>>> Stand by for the inevitable spin by Verizon apologist and resident
>>> anti-AT&T troll Steven Scharf, whose forecasts of doom for AT&T look
>>> ever more absurd.
>>
>>John, have YOU looked in the proverbial mirror?
>>
>>Other than the Apple fanboy(s), (and maybe Larry and Skype / Alltel)
>>I haven't seen a more rabid supporter of a company - than YOU.
>>Well past the point of absurdity.
>
> What company? What support? Specifically.
>
>>Pot calling the kettle black??
>
> Hardly.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
You are kidding, right?
Not a funny joke, however... More like really sad - or pathetic...
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:33:11 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
: On 2 Feb 2008 19:52:55 -0000, lenny@nothing.com (Lenny) wrote:
:
: >"The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T as the
: >official wireless service provider for the party's convention in August."
:
: And the significance of that is?
That AT&T must have agreed to provide the Democrats with free (or nearly free)
phone service for a week.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
"M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:_mdpj.1869$xq2.1307@newssvr21.news.prodigy.ne t...
>>> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone
>>> Group PLC of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in
>>> attracting new customers. It added 2 million subscribers in the
>>> quarter for a total of 65.7 million, while AT&T last week reported
>>> extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1 million."
>>>
>>> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...d-official-wir
>>> eless-service-provider/
>>>
>>> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T
>>> as the official wireless service provider for the party's convention
>>> in August."
>
>> Guess that just goes to prove that bigger isn't always better
>
> It also proves that wireless customers prefer AT&T to Verizon. What's
> outstanding about those numbers is that many AT&T customers can (and do)
> easily switch to T-mobile without purchasing a new phone, while Verizon
> pretty much locks customers to their phones. So AT&T has higher numbers
> even with higher competition.
While it may be easier to switch from ATT, if you've got the best network,
as Verizon does, you have less desire to leave
>
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote in
news:b7abq3pdfdt9t79uujh4q16vgipol4u6if@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:33:11 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil>
> wrote:
>: On 2 Feb 2008 19:52:55 -0000, lenny@nothing.com (Lenny) wrote:
>:
>: >"The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T
>: >as the official wireless service provider for the party's convention
>: >in August."
>:
>: And the significance of that is?
>
> That AT&T must have agreed to provide the Democrats with free (or
> nearly free) phone service for a week.
Not only did AT&T most likely agree to provide service for free, they have
also very likely given the DNC a nice big check to go with it. In other
words, all it proves is that the DNC is more interested in money than
reliable service (which is not surprising from a group of politicians), and
AT&T is more willing to spend its money on useless crap than other
companies are (which is not surprising from a company with an unreliable
network).
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
John Navas has brought this to us :
> On 2 Feb 2008 19:52:55 -0000, lenny@nothing.com (Lenny) wrote in
> <20080202195258.A20054E4B7@outpost.zedz.net>:
>
>> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VPVzgD8UF4I400
>>
>> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
>> of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
>> It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
>> while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
>> million."
>>
>> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...d-official-wir
>> eless-service-provider/
>>
>> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T as the
>> official wireless service provider for the party's convention in August."
>
>
> Stand by for the inevitable spin by Verizon apologist and resident
> anti-AT&T troll Steven Scharf, whose forecasts of doom for AT&T look
> ever more absurd.
I always stand by for the troll Navas who has never added anything
helpful to a newsgroup for a carrier he does not use.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
John Navas formulated on Sunday :
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:37:43 -0800, "Ness-Net"
> <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote in
> <lomdnZpoldFltTjanZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:8b9aq313oi8ai40r508u3psikcv4vhql5b@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Stand by for the inevitable spin by Verizon apologist and resident
>>> anti-AT&T troll Steven Scharf, whose forecasts of doom for AT&T look
>>> ever more absurd.
>>
>> John, have YOU looked in the proverbial mirror?
>>
>> Other than the Apple fanboy(s), (and maybe Larry and Skype / Alltel)
>> I haven't seen a more rabid supporter of a company - than YOU.
>> Well past the point of absurdity.
>
> What company? What support? Specifically.
>
>> Pot calling the kettle black??
>
> Hardly.
The question is not what company you support but in which cellular
group you cross post to but do not support.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
have you seens the coverage map, verizon covers the country way more
than cingular especially vermont and maine. Plus, verizon phones are
more widley known and better. exlcuding the iphone i cant name any other
phones, with verizon there was the chocolate, env, and now the voyager.
it also depends on the area, in my area most everyone has verizon, so
for a person looking to buy a cell phone i would suggets verizon.
Verizon has more features to offer even if you have to pay a higher
price. verizon is wicked awsome, remember at&t didnt work for me
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Again I won't disagree. You are fortunate to be in areas where ATT works
well
"Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d1hcq3l7fmm6g0l4d0mt1g6i1bur7pnclr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:58:31 -0500, "RBM" <rbm@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>>I won't disagree, they do indeed suck. But they also have the best
>>network,
>>and at the end of the day, it's a phone
>
> Having used both, I can honestly say I noticed no differences
> whatsoever in the two networks. Both are equally good phones; the
> difference is that Verizon's comes with more rapacious business
> practices attached to it.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
"Lenny" <lenny@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:20080202195258.A20054E4B7@outpost.zedz.net...
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VPVzgD8UF4I400
>
> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
> of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
> It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
> while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
> million."
A 6.27% difference in total subscribers is "getting it's butt kicked?"
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
M.L. wrote:
> It also proves that wireless customers prefer AT&T to Verizon.
Huh? Verizon continues to add retail, postpaid customers at a far higher
rate than AT&T.
At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million retail post paid
customers, while Verizon had 61 million, and continues to add new retail
customers at a faster rate than AT&T.
What you need to understand is a fundamental difference between the
business models of the two carriers. AT&T has a _lot_ of MVNOs,
including TracFone, Net10, SpeakOut, etc. So AT&T gets to report a lot
of network users, but they consistently lag in signing up direct
customers under contract, and the gap continues to widen. The reason for
this is that retail, postpaid customers are more cautious when selecting
a carrier, because they are making a two year commitment, plus any
equipment costs not covered by the initial phone discount. AT&T
consistently lags in margins and ARPU as well, though the high revenue
and ARPU of the iPhone has helped them narrow the gap.
> What's
> outstanding about those numbers is that many AT&T customers can (and do)
> easily switch to T-mobile without purchasing a new phone, while Verizon
> pretty much locks customers to their phones.
That may matter for expensive handsets, but most customers choose free,
or nearly free handsets when they get a new contract.
> So AT&T has higher numbers even with higher competition.
If that were true, AT&T would be signing up more customers on new
contracts, which they are not doing.
Re: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT
Pegleg wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2008 19:52:55 -0000, lenny@nothing.com (Lenny) wrote:
>
>> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T as the
>> official wireless service provider for the party's convention in August."
>
> And the significance of that is?
Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT 
4o9q3128ugb2tb32s28ni3ko83d1ka24o@4ax.com...
fkaq3hlog3igc2f9de71salituu3nsuba@4ax.com:
Linear Mode
