 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Alltel / November 20063Q 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 In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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.  SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >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? - Pegleg U.S. Navy Retired Support Our Troops, Question The Policy! All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope. Sir Winston Churchill In alt.cellular.verizon Pegleg <brian.pegleg.jones@nospamgmail.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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 > In alt.cellular.verizon Pegleg <brian.pegleg.jones@nospamgmail.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Statistically, it is not irrelavent ... and he is supplying statistics, > correct? Still trying to CYA for Sprint? > 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! SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> 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. ;) SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>> 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. >> It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% > for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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. >In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: >> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >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. ;) SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: >>> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > 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? > 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/" >> Really? You are incapable of being objective and yet you point out the >> flaw in others. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >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? ;) SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > 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/" How about profit per carrier if that is available? While the data is pretty good at showing the metrics, one can't tell if a carrier is sacrificing profits at the expense of market share or any other metric. Thanks, -Jason >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks, > -Jason Yes, I could add the profit and the margins, quarter after quarter. However it really doesn't tell you about sacrificing profits for market share. AT&T and Cingular had low margins at the height of the TDMA to GSM conversion because of the high expenses of the network conversion, compared to Verizon which has enjoyed very high margins. Now Cingular's margins are increasing because the network conversion is complete. > Yes, I could add the profit and the margins, quarter after quarter. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > compared to Verizon which has enjoyed very high margins. Now Cingular's > margins are increasing because the network conversion is complete. Following up on my own post, I saw a report on the non-voice revenue for the various carriers, which drives home the point about why the Cingular ARPU is lagging. Verizon has an ARPU of $50.59, with non-voice revenue representing $7.16 of the total. Cingular has an ARPU of $49.76, with non-voice revenue representing $6.32 per user. If Cingular raises it's non-voice revenue to the same level as Verizon, they would have an ARPU of $50.60, one cent more than Verizon. Cingular has been slow to roll out their high speed data network, which is why they lag Verizon in non-voice revenue, but that will change in the next six months to one year. >Following up on my own post, I saw a report on the non-voice revenue for >the various carriers, which drives home the point about why the Cingular [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >they lag Verizon in non-voice revenue, but that will change in the next >six months to one year. Cingular has actually been pretty aggressive in rolling out data -- its EGPRS(EDGE) network coverage predated Verizon's 1xRTT. The difference is almost certainly due to marketing, not technology. Not that it matters. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > 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. > The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. > 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. > > Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 !!! > 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. >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, If you kept your original AC plan it is still there. It was done because people were not paying attention to when they were roaming and then screamed when they saw their bill. - Pegleg U.S. Navy Retired Support Our Troops, Question The Policy! All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope. Sir Winston Churchill >> 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, > > If you kept your original AC plan it is still there. I have kept it, for that specific reason. > It was done > because people were not paying attention to when they were roaming and > then screamed when they saw their bill. Yes, this is true. Too bad they couldn't come up with some other method of managing this. You know when you go to an ATM and it informs you about a fee for non-customers, and you have to press a button to agree to the fee? Since Verizon can get whatever firmware they want into a handset, maybe they could have had an option to enable off-network roaming, with approval for off-network calls, both for outgoing and incoming. Or maybe they could have required that subscribers call them to enable off-network roaming, just like you have to call to enable international roaming, with the express agreement that you pay for the off-network roaming calls. Part of the problem is that the roaming indicator was back-asswards. It would flash for on-network, and be steady for off-network. This was counter-intuitive to anyone that actually paid attention to the roaming indicator. >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I have kept it, for that specific reason. Me too...comes in handy when traveling! > > It was done > > because people were not paying attention to when they were roaming and > > then screamed when they saw their bill. > >Yes, this is true. Too bad they couldn't come up with some other method >of managing this. Exactly...when I renewed and kept my original AC plan I ask why they just didn't make roaming a user option that would require selection instead of creating a completely new plan with no option and there was a long period of silence and then "that would have been a better option wouldn't it?" - Pegleg U.S. Navy Retired Support Our Troops, Question The Policy! All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope. Sir Winston Churchill >> Duh, where do you think Sprint gets the offnetwork coverage from? - Most >> of it is Verizon !!! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.