 |
 | 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 / ATT Wireless / December 2007Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?
Good article from Information Week Verizon's $399 Price Tag Of The Palm 755p Is Out Of Touch With Reality Posted by Eric Zeman, Dec 17, 2007 01:10 PM Can they really get such money for crippled crap 'smartphone' phones when a buyer could get a real iPhone instead for the same price? http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/12/verizons_399_pr.html;j sessionid=VYDVRU52AEIR4QSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN > Good article from Information Week > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/12/verizons_399_ > pr.html;jsessionid=VYDVRU52AEIR4QSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN But doesn't the Palm have a tone of features (even in the Verizon world) that the iPhone does not? GPS Voice Dialing 3g PUSH mail sync Just to name a few. > But doesn't the Palm have a tone of features (even in the Verizon world) > that the iPhone does not? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Just to name a few. Yes, but the biggest reason Verizon can charge more, both for handsets and for service, is because their network is so much better. Look at the latest Consumer Reports, and look at _every_ other independent survey of carriers, and look at the bogus "fewer dropped calls" advertising campaign that Cingular got in trouble for. Remember, Apple approached Verizon with the iPhone before they approached Cingular, for a very good reason. Verizon wasn't willing to do the revenue sharing arrangement that Apple wanted, but Cingular was desperate enough to agree to it. SMS ???. ? wrote: >> But doesn't the Palm have a tone of features (even in the Verizon >> world) that the iPhone does not? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > do the revenue sharing arrangement that Apple wanted, but Cingular was > desperate enough to agree to it. Very well put. Said another way, you get what you pay for. Asking the OP a rhetorical question, how can any vendor's pricing policy be "out of touch with reality" if they're selling their product? Unfortunately, what questions like these usually imply, imho, is that "I'd like to have that more than the other but I'd rather pay less for it." In other words, I want my cake and eat it too. > Asking the OP a rhetorical question, how can any vendor's pricing policy be > "out of touch with reality" if they're selling their product? Yes. Pricing needs to be set to maximize profit. You can be selling your product too cheaply and be leaving money on the table, or you can be charging too much and be losing customers that would raise profits by virtue of higher volume. You can damage the image of your product by getting into a price war with competitors that have a poorer product, but you have to be careful to not charge so much for your superior product that customers decide to put up with your competitors cheaper product. What most businesses do is figure out ways to appeal both to the price-sensitive customer and to the customer that doesn't care about paying more. I could pay much more for the Verizon service I have by foregoing a corporate discount or adding worthless services such as "Get It Now," or the g-d awful "Please Enjoy the Music While Your Party is Reached" service where the music is always the same static-filled classical piece. I could also probably pay less by switching to a Verizon MVNO that charges as little as 5.3¢/minute, rather than paying my current $32/month (which would buy me over 600 minutes per month at 5.3¢ each). As to the iPhone, just think of how much better it would have sold were it on Verizon's network, with its more widely deployed, and faster, 3G service, not to mention its vastly superior voice network. Just look at the latest Consumer Reports, as well as _every_ other independent survey, then look at the bogus "fewest dropped calls" advertising campaign that was based on data that even the company that did the survey said did not support Cingular's conclusion. SMS ???. ? wrote: >> Asking the OP a rhetorical question, how can any vendor's pricing >> policy be "out of touch with reality" if they're selling their [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > advertising campaign that was based on data that even the company > that did the survey said did not support Cingular's conclusion. You're right on every point, but I feel you're reading too much into the OP's original question and into my response. Verizon appears to be, from my point of view, doing well based on your criteria, so their pricing cannot be out of touch with reality. They may be out of touch with HIS reality, which is the way I chose to read it. And I'll take issue with one thing: probably "most businesses" do "figure out ways to appeal both to the price-sensitive customer and to the customer that doesn't care about paying more", but that is not always the best business model. There are businesses which cater to the high end only (and there are, of course, the reverse model businesses). The high-end guys, because they have a smaller customer base, make a larger profit margin with fewer employees, smaller facilities, less overhead . They also usually excel at customer service. because they have to. The opposites have to work their a.ses off to do volume. Customer service almost always suffers. The ones in the middle have a taste of both, but generally appreciate their higher end clients more. Given the choices, I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You? > I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You? How do you think Sam Walton would've answered that? ;-) There's an old business axiom that says "if you sell to the classes, you'll eat with the masses. If you sell to the masses, you'll eat with the classes." >> I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you'll eat with the masses. If you sell to the masses, you'll eat > with the classes." There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways. I suppose I prefer the latter for myself. Different strokes and all. And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the masses, to survive you must also employ the a.ses of those masses and then treat them like sh.t." Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like that. :-) Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal markup, cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for people. > There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also > the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways. I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding company that controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the antithesis of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package! > I suppose I prefer the latter for > myself. Different strokes and all. So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not get your hands dirty? ;-) > And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the > masses, to survive you must also employ the a.ses of those masses and then > treat them like sh.t." Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of mass-market companies are also good corporate citizens. > Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So > lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like that. > :-) Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end "luxury" carrier you'd rather be than, say, United? > Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal markup, > cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for > people. Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does. Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater to the "high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's all that I'm saying. >> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also >> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > "high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's all > that I'm saying. When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? Macy's, to me, is closer to a high end boutique than a mass-market discounter. They carry mainly designer-name lines and sell those things at huge prices. They do NOT cater to the "masses" though they admittedly attract them: poor people spending huge bucks to have clothing with someone else's name on them. This is NOT a Walmart or Target, not a GAP or Old Navy, true "masses" stores by your standard. Btw, I'm a Macy's shopper. I was going to use Macy's as my analogy but thought it didn't quite make the point because their success at crossing over a wide range of economic levels is so good. But a "masses" store? No way. My Berkshire Hathaway reference was meant to refer primarily to the stock, which currently sells for something in the neighborhood of $134,000 a SHARE. Do you think that company is concerned about volume trading? The secondary point is that Berk doesn't do business at the grass-roots level, but at the "holding company" level where he deals with few clients who are willing to pay high prices. It's naive to assume that, at the end, every business doesn't eventually filter its way down to the "masses" as you put them. If you do a "family tree" lineage study of any business, it has to end up down there somewhere. My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you. >>> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also >>> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed. Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I saw was a Target store trying to be classy. > > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? > > For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed. > Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I > saw was a Target store trying to be classy. Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared Macy's, when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears. > > > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared Macy's, > when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears. And Target has quite a positive cachet these day. They've reinvented themselves very well.  SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" >>> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared > Macy's, when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears. I dunno Todd. I thought Scott's remark supported MY position: Macy's charges more, is not a store of the "masses", but goes for the big bucks while somehow managing to foster an image which retains clientele across the socio-economic spectrum. Either way, we've beaten this point to death. Dontcha just love usenet? :-) >>>> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Either way, we've beaten this point to death. Dontcha just love > usenet? :-) One last thing from me. Before you go touting Macy's position, I should point out that when I left, there was a single customer actually buying something despite the fact that it was about two weeks before Christmas. My point is that image does not pay the bills. Macy's desire to be "classy" or "not for the masses" has led to it typically posting earnings that allow it to simply hang on, as opposed to many other retailers not so focused on image that make money hand over fist, some of them with many of the products found in a Macy's store. I hope that your position is not that somehow that product increases in value or reliability because it is bought at Macy's, or that the extra money is well spent because it is not spent at a Target or similar store. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > One last thing from me. Before you go touting Macy's position, I should > point out that when I left, there was a single customer actually buying [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > focused on image that make money hand over fist, some of them with many of > the products found in a Macy's store. Funny, I thought that department stores of all types were losing business because people don't want to pay a premium for the privilege of shopping alone and having only one person on each floor of the building. ;p SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? The last time I was in the closest shopping mall. > Macy's, to me, is > closer to a high end boutique than a mass-market discounter. They > carry mainly designer-name lines and sell those things at huge prices. Frankly, despite your opinion of them, any retailer that anchors a mall in Independence, Missouri, is a mass market retailer! ;-) Again, I used Walton as an extreme example. I could've as easily used Ray Croc vs. Wolfgang Puck. > They do NOT cater > to the "masses" though they admittedly attract them: poor people spending > huge bucks to have clothing with someone else's name on them. This is NOT a > Walmart or Target, not a GAP or Old Navy, true "masses" stores by your > standard. "Standard?" I think you're confusing "mass market" with Dickens-era England. Macy's is mass-market, but they're higher-end "snob appeal" mass market like Apple Computers- sell a product for higher margin than your competitors and use marketing and reputation to justify the markup- there's nothing wrong with that. If Macy's is what you mean by "high-end," then we're not having an argument! ;-) > Btw, I'm a Macy's shopper. I was going to use Macy's as my analogy > but thought it didn't quite make the point because their success at crossing > over a wide range of economic levels is so good. But a "masses" store? No > way. Historically, no, but in the last 10 or so years (since the Federated/May mergers) they've become a suburban gilt-edged Sears. > My Berkshire Hathaway reference was meant to refer primarily to the stock, > which currently sells for something in the neighborhood of $134,000 a SHARE. I'd never have thought of analogizing between a retailer and a stock price! Market forces control the price of a stock, not a company's markup. B-H is high because they've never split it, not because ir sells at a high "profit margin." > Do you think that company is concerned about volume trading? No, it's concerned about ownership dilution! Look at the Baby Berk shares- fractional shares of Berk with 1/5 the voting rights vs. dollar value. Again, you don't buy stock at retail from the company itself, but at least I kind of follow where you were going with it. > The secondary > point is that Berk doesn't do business at the grass-roots level, but at the > "holding company" level where he deals with few clients who are willing to > pay high prices. It's not like Sam Walton was still working the register either after WalMart opened their 1000th store, either. >It's naive to assume that, at the end, every business > doesn't eventually filter its way down to the "masses" as you put them. If > you do a "family tree" lineage study of any business, it has to end up down > there somewhere. Butler? Yacht designer? ;-) > My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you. If you say so. I've just never pictured Walton and Buffet in the same industry to draw an analogy between them... I guess I should've went with Kroc and Puck... > My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you. Your analogy was asinine. Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones. Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling its network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If they tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as commoditized as mobile phones. And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year). SignatureMike >> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as > commoditized as mobile phones. This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the Verizon network. I was on Nevada 431, the road that connects North Lake Tahoe to Reno over Mount Rose. There was CDMA coverage on Verizon, and roaming onto Verizon by Sprint, but there was no AT&T or T-Mobile coverage. I was stopped at a snowplay area and was on the phone, and talking to someone who had no signal on his AT&T phone, and he was using his friend's Sprint phone. 431 is a fairly major state highway for Nevada, it's not some back-country Forest Service Road. Similarly, up at the Mount Rose Ski Area, you can only get coverage on AMPS, there is no CDMA or GSM at the lodge (though at the top of the mountain you can get CDMA coverage. > And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as > advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be > well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year). In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms of retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs, so the AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less subscribers. See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296" >>> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296" So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-) And one point to you, tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing part of your point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more to Verizon because their network is superior, not because of the phones they offer. All of my posts have been about service over price and that too many people shop price over service. You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but many, including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the premium for it. So, name-call if you will, but my position is clear and I believe in the correctness of it, including that of my analogy, a tough one to form, admittedly, but the best I could come up with on the spot. > You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but many, > including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the premium for it. I'm on AT&T and have been for several years, but generally I thought that Verizon was a superior network, by far. My experience with Sprint in this area, a few years back, has been that they had virtually no worthwhile signal in most places. Recently, I'm beginning to wonder if that's true. My company changed us to Sprint, which used to be absolutely horrible in this area--but is now one helluva presence. I get signal everywhere, and most places it's EVDO. Personally, I never would have guessed that. Certainly I wouldn't have put two years of my money on that bet. Then a colleague from a different area came into town; turns out he used to have Sprint and loved it, but his boss got him Verizon and he's very unhappy with it over the last 6 months. And in fact, we were in a warehouse area where I had full signal EVDO on my Sprint Blackberry, and on his Verizon phone he had zero signal. He had to go OUTSIDE just to make and receive calls. Hmmmm.......I know that Sprint has been advertising about the investment they've made in my area. And Verizon had no signal at all where Sprint was full boat?? WTF? > "SMS ???. ?" wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the >> Verizon network... <snippola> This past week I had another chance to see no advantage to Verizon's network. In Lake Havasu City, AZ I was able to get Sprint (both CDMA and iDEN) as well as AT&T. Zero, and I do mean zero, native Verizon coverage so all Verizon users must roam on Sprint. Whatever network advantage Verizon may have, or had, is negligible to most people and isn't worth it to me especially if it comes with crippled handsets too. >>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some >>> assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> subscribers. See >> "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296" That data was from Q4 2006--ancient news. It merely relates to "Retail subscribers." Only you and a few others thought that meant anything, and in your case entirely to tease Navas. But the fact remains there are more people--right now--using AT&T's network than Verizon's. You predicted that Verizon would be well ahead of AT&T by now and that didn't happen. (And for the record Q4 2006 actually saw AT&T's Cingular add more net subscribers than Verizon.) Moreover, 2007, particularly after the iPhone's announcement and even more so after its release has seen AT&T increase subs at a record pace. And last I checked, back in November of *this* year, AT&T was still the largest carrier in the U.S. (65.7 mil Vs. Verizon's 63.7 mil) Either way you were wrong in your prediction. > So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-) It was asinine. > And one point > to you, tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing > part of your point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more > to Verizon because their network is superior, not because of the > phones they offer. Just like the same brand of jeans is somehow better if bought at Macy's instead of Target? Either way Verizon is not high-end, and that's what you originally asserted. > All of my posts have been about service over price > and that too many people shop price over service. Not quite. This is what you actually wrote: "I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?" Yes, the can-you-hear-me-now dweeb exudes high end! Seriously though, why is that guy still around? The ads are painful to watch lately. And this isn't due to Verizon per se: the ads themselves seem horrible. > You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but > many, including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the > premium for it. Good thing you weren't where I was this week: you'd have had zero native Verizon coverage. And we wouldn't want you to have to slum it and uses Sprint's now would we? <snerk> I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and never once did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed after hesitantly switching to AT&T for my main phone this past summer I have been very impressed with AT&T's coverage--no problem for me whatsoever. Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on that one big-time. SignatureMike >> "SMS ???. ?" wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on > that one big-time. Here's the 2007 JD Power review of all cell phone providers. Sprint scored the lowest in all rated areas and in all sections of the country. Guess who scored highest (though granted with not 100% consistency)? http://www.jdpower.com/telecom/ratings/wireless-service-ratings-(volume-2). Here's PC Magazine's survey of 8000 readers: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2017602,00.asp. Sprint again managed to get the lowest overall score. Guess again who got the highest? Here's one more just to put the icing on the cake: http://www.consumersearch.com/www/electronics/cell-phone-plans/ I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent magazine article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of Sprint being the one service provider to avoid. I have seen talk in other newsgroups of Sprint possibly going out of business and possibly being absorbed by Verizon. None of what I've read speaks well for Sprint. So you guys can cite your own one-man-in-one-mysterious-spot experiences and feel better about yourselves I suppose, but the facts don't support you. Here's just one more, to drive the point home: http://www.letstalk.com/reviews/reviewhome.htm. I'm sure the results are predicitable by this time. The one place we agree on is that I have been considering switching to AT&T over the iPhone fiasco. Though the truth is I wanted a phone that did internet access well AND had PDA capabilities, which iPhone does not. I m not a text messager or someone who spends their time watching movies on their phone. I eventually discovered the 8xxx series Blackberry and fell in love with the 8130 Pearl. I bought it outright without extending my Vz contract 'cause I need to see what changes iPhone will bring about in the next few months/year and din't want to be locked in. > I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent magazine > article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of Sprint being the one > service provider to avoid. I have seen talk in other newsgroups of Sprint > possibly going out of business and possibly being absorbed by Verizon. Verizon would only acquire Sprint if it were at a fire sale price. No doubt they'd like the increase in subscribers, but they have no need for most of Sprint's network infrastructure and don't want to assume all those expensive store leases. > I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent magazine > article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of Sprint being the > one service provider to avoid. The problem is that all the articles you linked are surveys of customer service, not network coverage. I think most of us would agree that customer service is the least important factor to consider when making a purchase. I've had the best experience with buisnesses that provide no customer service at all -- for example, newegg. ~None >> I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent >> magazine article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when making a purchase. I've had the best experience with buisnesses > that provide no customer service at all -- for example, newegg. That's not exactly accurate. While arguably not clear, one of JD Power's categories in which Verizon excels is "Overall Satisfaction". You can interpret that how you wish, but I believe that would include satisfaction with their phone service. As well, here's a quote from the consumer research citation: "Considering all factors, reviews say Verizon has the best call quality. Verizon customers experience fewer dropped calls and circuit overloads than with other carriers. While plan prices may not be the cheapest, rates are competitive.". That's not merely "customer service" imho. Nor do I think it is in yours. I'm not going to review all of those citations for you but I suggest you re-read them. Or at least find some citations for me that contradict them. Without any we're just expressing unsubstantiated opinion, much of which is dependent upon where we've invested our money. Consumers often have to justify their choices. Much as I may be doing I suppose... ;-) > That's not exactly accurate. While arguably not clear, one of JD Power's > categories in which Verizon excels is "Overall Satisfaction". You can > interpret that how you wish, but I believe that would include satisfaction > with their phone service. Call it whatever you want -- whether 'customer service', 'consumer experience', 'customer satisfaction', etc, it still has nothing to do with the quality of the product. If consumer reports used the popularity contest method to rate all their products, Bose would be rated the #1 speaker company, bar none. >Or at least find some citations for me that contradict them. If you want to claim that a network has the best overall coverage, you need to provide some measurement of coverage to support it. Overall satisfaction has nothing to do with coverage -- it's a '2/3 ads I see reinforce the idea that my choice of provider was the best one' rating. ~None >> That's not exactly accurate. While arguably not clear, one of JD Power's >> categories in which Verizon excels is "Overall Satisfaction". You can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > experience', 'customer satisfaction', etc, it still has nothing to do with > the quality of the product. CR had four categories they reported on, No Service, Circuits Full, Dropped Calls, and Static. All of these reflect on the quality of the product, and coverage. They did not rate the intangibles of customer service, consumer experience, or customer satisfaction like JD Power did. >> I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and >> never once did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > country. Guess who scored highest (though granted with not 100% > consistency)? I wrote about network coverage gaps and you came back about customer service? How would Verizon's customer service have helped me in an area that has no--again, no--Verizon coverage? <shakes head> > I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent > magazine article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one-man-in-one-mysterious-spot experiences and feel better about > yourselves I suppose, but the facts don't support you. Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that he claimed had only Verizon coverage. You said nothing. Others brought up true-life experiences with Sprint, covering a much larger area, and you whine? Grow up already, no one insulted one of your family--it's cellphone carrier, that's all. Again: I have had no problems with Sprint, for more than seven years now, as far as coverage, phone selection, call quality, and pricing are concerned. Yes customer service sucks but that doesn't make the other carriers "great." They just happen to suck less in an industry that sucks a lot. But you know what? I don't call customer service very often, so it doesn't effect me much--certainly not enough to pay more money for it. I've now had AT&T for nearly six months with no problems either. Since I have had no problems with either Sprint or AT&T I fail to see why I should be impressed with Verizon when they have zero coverage in at least one area that I am in all of the time, and they passed up the only phone that could have possibly gotten me to switch. SignatureMike > Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that > he claimed had only Verizon coverage. Hardly remote. These are major state highways we're talking about, not some back-country trails or Forest Service roads. It's not just in one place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences. The best option for AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers that are traveling outside metro areas is to bring along a prepaid CDMA/AMPS phone so they have a much better chance of obtaining coverage. For 21¢ per month, and as low as 25¢ per minute you can have a phone that can use the American Roaming Network (outgoing only). For $2.31 per month, and as low as 5.3¢ per minute, you can have a PagePlus account. SMS ???. ? wrote: >> Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote >> area that he claimed had only Verizon coverage. > > Hardly remote More remote than the areas Elmo and I brought up. >. These are major state highways we're talking about, not > some back-country trails or Forest Service roads. I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV 431. It's not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway that runs through many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it into Reno proper. My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless for most everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the exact same areas, in the exact same timeframes, as you. Still I refuted the last anecdotal report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area. > It's not just in one > place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida > with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at > the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences. Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but roaming--on Sprint. <g> > The best option for AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers that are traveling > outside metro areas is to bring along a prepaid CDMA/AMPS phone so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > per month, and as low as 5.3¢ per minute, you can have a PagePlus > account. You too are being a little overly dramatic with the "need two phones" nonsense. I travel frequently, live in the desert southwest, and have never had coverage issues with either CDMA-only, or GSM-only during the last 2+ years of using nothing but digital. In fact I've carried my Sprint phone with me for the last six months "just in case" and never needed it, not even once. Wake up, it's not 2000 anymore. SignatureMike > I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV 431. It's > not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway that runs through > many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it into Reno proper. It's one of the major routes between Lake Tahoe and Reno. The other route is down through Carson City then 50 over Spooner Summit, also a windy mountain road. > My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless for most > everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the exact same areas, > in the exact same timeframes, as you. It's naive to believe that the areas where I noted lack of coverage are somehow the only such areas in existence. Amusingly, looking at the AT&T coverage map, they do claim to cover most of 431. The area where they have a gap is where the road goes through Mount Rose Meadows, but ironically that's where both the snow play area, snowmobile area, and skiing/snowshoeing areas are located. > Still I refuted the last anecdotal > report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area. Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg" >> It's not just in one >> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but > roaming--on Sprint. <g> It shows up with complete digital coverage. It doesn't say whether it's roaming or native, not that I would care. Actually when you switch the coverage type to InPulse from Voice & Messaging, the coverage goes away, so that's a good clue that it's not native coverage. =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:47741390$0$84235$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: >> I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV >> 431. It's not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > coverage goes away, so that's a good clue that it's not native > coverage. Steve, you've turned into the Verizon version of Navas. Maybe not quite as obnoxious, but every bit as rabid and blinded by brand. You've been like that for years and just like Navas refuse to admit it. I've seen you take vindictive actions against other carriers on the internet because of opinions that didn't advance your own Verizon agenda. Be better than Navas and at least admit it. If not, you end up being no better a source of information than he is, which is a poor place to be in. TO be a troll or not be a troll- the decision is yours. >> Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg" <snip> > Steve, you've turned into the Verizon version of Navas. Maybe not quite as > obnoxious, but every bit as rabid and blinded by brand. You've been like > that for years and just like Navas refuse to admit it. I've seen you take > vindictive actions against other carriers on the internet because of > opinions that didn't advance your own Verizon agenda. Come now Scott. As you can see even from this post, I didn't go making up stories of non-existent coverage like Navas does (the extended GSM claims belong in the Usenet hall of shame), nor did I propose that individuals plan their travel routes and choose their destinations based on the available coverage from Cingular (as he also has done). In fact, I did what I always do (and what Navas never does), I provided references and links to prove my point. Does anyone really care if coverage is native or roaming? Actually, I guess Verizon's InPulse customers do care, though on Verizon's MVNO PagePlus you'd still have coverage in that area, albeit at extra cost. > Be better than Navas and at least admit it. Okay, I admit that I'm better than Navas. > If not, you end up being no > better a source of information than he is, which is a poor place to be in. When have I ever provided any information that wasn't backed up by references? Maybe I get too annoyed with people that make up these fantastic stories. I've certainly done my share of criticizing Verizon for their various faults, including crippling of handsets, reducing off-peak hours, eliminating a lot of roaming capability with AC2, etc. What I can't criticize them for is coverage. They've consistently excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers, and they based their whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed the coverage superiority. > What I can't criticize them for is coverage. They've consistently > excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers, and they based their > whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed the > coverage superiority. Navas doesn't agree with you, therefore you have got to be wrong. >> What I can't criticize them for is coverage. They've consistently >> excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers, and they based >> their whole business model on this. Every independent survey has >> confirmed the coverage superiority. > > Navas doesn't agree with you, therefore you have got to be wrong. LOL, he actually serves a useful purpose, you can be assured that whatever her says, the opposite is actually true. SMS ???. ? wrote: >> I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV >> 431. It's not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway >> that runs through many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it >> into Reno proper. > > It's one of the major routes between Lake Tahoe and Reno.> So what? The area I listed is AZ 95, a main route between I-40 and I-10, Las Vegas to Phoenix, etc. That you want to give more weight to your random anecdotal report is the only oddity. >> My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless >> for most everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Meadows, but ironically that's where both the snow play area, > snowmobile area, and skiing/snowshoeing areas are located. You said the carrier maps were accurate. And maybe they are: there could be a myriad of reasons why your anecdotal report is incorrect, or temporary in nature. >> Still I refuted the last anecdotal >> report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area. > > Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg" That's not Verizon coverage, that's Sprint coverage. So much for your argument that the carrier maps show it all. And for that matter there is no EV-DO in that location and Verizon can't use Sprint's CDMA there either. By your logic Sprint's network includes everything from Verizon. And in fact that would be more accurate than the other way around as the Sprint phones I still have can easily be forced to roam onto Verizon at will (and, no, the PRL doesn't change this fact). >>> It's not just in one >>> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It shows up with complete digital coverage. From Sprint, not Verizon. You know, like I've been stating all along. > It doesn't say whether > it's roaming or native, not that I would care. Actually when you > switch the coverage type to InPulse from Voice & Messaging, the > coverage goes away, so that's a good clue that it's not native > coverage. No sh.t, and that's the only way to truly see native coverage. Verizon doesn't have or lease any tower space in the area, at least not east of the Colorado. SignatureMike >> It shows up with complete digital coverage. > > From Sprint, not Verizon. You know, like I've been stating all along. What you don't understand is that Sprint and Verizon have cross-roaming agreements for areas where one or the other does not have a network presence. It doesn't matter to subscribers (Sprint or Verizon) which network they are calling on. It does matter as far as EVDO is concerned. In areas where both carriers have coverage, roaming is often blocked by the PRL. Where it isn't blocked by the PRL by Sprint, you have to set the phone to "roaming only" in order to get coverage in areas where Sprint lacks coverage. If Sprint could offer 100% automatic roaming, then they'd have done better than Verizon in all the surveys, rather than consistently being rate last. SMS wrote: > In areas where both carriers have coverage, roaming is often blocked > by the PRL. Where it isn't blocked by the PRL by Sprint, you have to > set the phone to "roaming only" in order to get coverage in areas > where Sprint lacks coverage. How many times are you gonna contradict yourself in one thread? Remember writing this: SMS wrote: > It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the > phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect. The above was in response to someone informing you that most Sprint phones can be forced to digital roam, where you wrote this: SMS wrote: > the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in > areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage). So in one thread you went from: 1.) Sprint doesn't let you roam at will on Verizon. 2.) Sprint will let you roam at will, but only if the PRL allows it. 3.) Sprint will let you roam at will regardless of the PRL but you have to set the phone to roaming only as their automatic roaming sucks. Did you think no one was paying attention? > If Sprint could offer 100% automatic > roaming, then they'd have done better than Verizon in all the > surveys, rather than consistently being rate last. You do sound like a lot Navas. Now you're trying to make it appear as if customer service equals coverage, when backed into a corner. And for what? My report about lack of Verizon coverage in 86403 wasn't a slam against Verizon per se. It was meant to sarcastically show how absurd these little anecdotal reports actually are. In fact I don't care if your phone worked while skiing, driving down a mountainous rural state highway, or even in your own home. Call me selfish but what matters to me is that my phones work where I am at. SignatureMike > SMS wrote: >> > Call me > selfish but what matters to me is that my phones work where I am at. And, finally, this is the best said, and most important, statement of all. After all, that is all that matters in the end, isn't it? Kudos for hitting the point on the head.. > And for what? My report about lack of Verizon coverage in 86403 wasn't a > slam against Verizon per se. It was meant to sarcastically show how absurd > these little anecdotal reports actually are. In fact I don't care if your > phone worked while skiing, driving down a mountainous rural state highway, > or even in your own home. Call me selfish but what matters to me is that my > phones work where I am at. Not sure what your agenda is here, but as I proved, Verizon has complete coverage in 84603. It's coverage that matters to most cell phone users, as every survey has shown. Customer service is far down the list, though of course Sprint is always last in customer service as well. All of the statements about Sprint were true. You can't roam at will, unless the PRL allows it, and even then it isn't automatic, for obvious reasons. SMS ???. ? wrote: >> And for what? My report about lack of Verizon coverage in 86403 >> wasn't a slam against Verizon per se. It was meant to sarcastically [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not sure what your agenda is here, but as I proved, Verizon has > complete coverage in 84603. Nice attempt but no, Navas Jr., the discussion was about 86403 where Verizon has zero coverage. I witnessed this first-hand and in fact own a house there. Somehow I trust my first-hand experience, and the word of the SBA rep for the towers in the area (the land on one of them which I sold to SBA several years ago), more than your coverage-map-is-always-right, except when I don't want it to be, mindset. SignatureMike SMS wrote: >>> It shows up with complete digital coverage. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cross-roaming agreements for areas where one or the other does not > have a network presence. I understand roaming agreements, but I also know that in the real world things don't always turn out as planned. Kinda like coverage maps. > It doesn't matter to subscribers (Sprint or > Verizon) which network they are calling on. It does matter as far as > EVDO is concerned. Nope, it mattered with CDMA 1x too. And not being able to receive or send email did matter to the Verizon subscribers I was with in that area--it mattered a lot. There can be other issues when roaming as well. If given the choice I don't know why anyone wouldn't want native coverage. It does matter. SignatureMike >>> I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and >>> never once did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > in at least one area that I am in all of the time, and they passed up > the only phone that could have possibly gotten me to switch. You too failed to read the other three citations I gave you. You're picking and choosing the semantics which suit your argument. Read all of them and more detail will emerge. It's not me that has to grow up. You're the one adamantly defending a carrier on the verge of going out of business and which does have the worst rep for call reliability, whether you want to accept that or not, and you're on this thread justifying your decision because why, if I'm the "drama queen"? Perhaps the reason Verizon users are not jumping in talking about where their coverage was better than the other carriers is BECAUSE THE LIST WOULD BE TOO LONG! :-) By the way, while I'm just as disappointed as you that Verizon passed up the iPhone opportunity, I have to say that if Verizon were an individual person we would be complimenting their moral character, not criticizing them. Apple trying to make a deal which cuts into the service provider's revenues is a bit self-serving and arrogant, I think. Verizon telling them to f___ off is sort of ballsy, dontcha think? And last, I might ask you why you think Apple approached Verizon first? It couldn't be because Sprint was the better choice for them but they wanted to start at the bottom, could it? :-) >> I've now had AT&T for nearly six months with no problems either. >> Since I have had no problems with either Sprint or AT&T I fail to see [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not jumping in talking about where their coverage was better than the other > carriers is BECAUSE THE LIST WOULD BE TOO LONG! :-) LOL, and of course his whole premise is wrong to begin with since in fact Verizon does have coverage in the area in question, just not native coverage. > By the way, while I'm just as disappointed as you that Verizon passed up the > iPhone opportunity, I have to say that if Verizon were an individual person > we would be complimenting their moral character, not criticizing them. Apple > trying to make a deal which cuts into the service provider's revenues is a > bit self-serving and arrogant, I think. Verizon telling them to f___ off is > sort of ballsy, dontcha think? Perhaps the Verizon executives weren't briefed as to the proper protocol when dealing with Steve Jobs. > And last, I might ask you why you think Apple approached Verizon first? It > couldn't be because Sprint was the better choice for them but they wanted to > start at the bottom, could it? :-) Verizon had the largest retail subscriber base, and hence the largest market for iPhones. While AT&T's network has more users, AT&T has a much larger percentage of prepaid users on MVNOs, who would not be able to buy the iPhone. I don't think it was anything more sinister than starting at the carrier with the most sales potential, then working their way down. As to why Verizon turned them down, one of the reasons was that they would have had to put the iPhone on their 3G network, but at a price point much lower than they currently charge. AT&T solved the problem by only allowing Apple to do the 2G iPhone on EDGE, at least initially. It'll be interesting to see if the upcoming 3G iPhone has the same plan pricing as the 2G, or if they'll have two plans, one for EDGE and one for HSDPA at different prices. SMS ???. ? wrote: > LOL, and of course his whole premise is wrong to begin with since in > fact Verizon does have coverage in the area in question, just not > native coverage. That's priceless, Navas Jr., priceless. Now we are calling roaming "Verizon" coverage now. I don't think even the original Navas would get *that* foolish. >> By the way, while I'm just as disappointed as you that Verizon >> passed up the iPhone opportunity, I have to say that if Verizon were [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Perhaps the Verizon executives weren't briefed as to the proper > protocol when dealing with Steve Jobs. <snipped the rambling justifications> I think it actually pains you that Verizon blew it on the iPhone. Whether you wanted it to appear that way or not, your post looked like a bunch of sour grapes. SignatureMike > Seriously though, why is that guy still around? The ads are painful to watch > lately. And this isn't due to Verizon per se: the ads themselves seem > horrible. Actually I find the "pony" ad hysterical.. (the girl who gets the pony for a gift while her friends rceived Verizon phones.) For some reason that ad breaks me up. >> "SMS ???. ?" wrote: >>>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > your case entirely to tease Navas. But the fact remains there are more > people--right now--using AT&T's network than Verizon's. LOL, I didn't do it to tease Navas, I've had him filtered for so long that I'd largely forgotten about him other than the annoyance of reading other people's retorts to his periodic postings of the Cingular charter into the AT&T newsgroup. There are three metrics that analysts use when comparing carriers: 1. Retail postpaid subscribers Verizon: 59.4 million AT&T: 52.7 million 2. ARPU Verizon: $52.17 AT&T: $50.82 3. Retail PostPaid Churn Verizon: 0.96% AT&T: 1.3% It's true that AT&T has a lot more MVNO's using it's network, which boosts the total number of users on their network, but the fact remains that they now have far fewer retail postpaid subscribers than Verizon. The lower quality, lower revenue MVNO customers (TracFone, SpeakOut, Net10, etc) give AT&T the edge in total users. Verizon doesn't pursue the wholesale business like AT&T and Sprint. > Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on that > one big-time. It doesn't seem that way. They still have higher ARPU, more subscribers, and lower churn than AT&T. Clearly Verizon considered the terms Apple wanted as being financially undesirable, despite the hype that they would have gained with the iPhone. Also, Verizon is very big with corporate customers, that could not use the iPhone on any network, and need PDA type phones with more functionality than the iPhone. > 1. Retail postpaid subscribers > Verizon: 59.4 million > AT&T: 52.7 million > 2. ARPU > Verizon: $52.17 > AT&T: $50.82 Of course the postpaid subscriber numbers and ARPU numbers are apples and oranges. The ARPU number for AT&T isn't the average for those 52.7 million postpaid subscribers, it is the average revenue from all 65.7 million subscribers of any description, including the 13 million you excluded as "lower quality". >> Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on that >> one big-time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would have gained with the iPhone. Also, Verizon is very big with > corporate customers, Yet, despite all that, AT&T's total revenue from providing phone service is higher than Verizon's ($9.9 billion in the last quarter, compared to $9.7 billion for Verizon). The total number of AT&T subscribers (not just the numbers you cherry-picked) is enough higher than Verizon to more than cancel the small advantage in ARPU which Verizon has. Verizon did, however, substantially exceed AT&T's revenue from non-service business, i.e. mostly selling phones and accessories. Verizon's near-monopoly on phones used with their service has certainly been profitable. Dennis Ferguson > Yet, despite all that, AT&T's total revenue from providing phone service > is higher than Verizon's ($9.9 billion in the last quarter, compared to > $9.7 billion for Verizon). LOL, don't look just at revenue, look at income. AT&T had income of $1.93 billion on revenue of $10.937 billion in their wireless business. "http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.pdf" Verizon had income of $3.06 billion on revenue of 11.262 billion in their domestic wireless business. "http://investor.verizon.com/sec/sec_frame.aspx?FilingID=5502020" I think that it's pretty clear that concentrating on retail postpaid subscribers, rather than dropping your pants on wholesale pricing, is beneficial in terms of both revenue and income. AT&T views Tracfone, Net10, etc., as pure upside from customers that would otherwise not be on AT&T at all, while Verizon appears to believe that it's better to write off those customers because they will cut into retail sales. Of course my favorite prepaid MVNO, PagePlus, is probably not making Verizon too happy, but they are so small that they don't have much of an effect on the financials. > You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but many, > including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the premium for it. > So, name-call if you will, but my position is clear and I believe in the > correctness of it, including that of my analogy, a tough one to form, > admittedly, but the best I could come up with on the spot. The premium, if any, is small. Verizon offers a large number of corporate discounts, available to most customers. While the SERO discount on Sprint is even better, and available to everyone, the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage). Also, PagePlus prepaid, a Verizon MVNO, offers rates as low as 5.3¢ per minute. For users that want AT&T wireless because of the selection of GSM phones, but also want better coverage when traveling outside urban areas, it makes sense to keep a prepaid PagePlus phone active for when they travel outside GSM coverage areas. "SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote > the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in > areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage). Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode. ~None > "SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote >> the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in >> areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage). > > Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode. It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect. "SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the > phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect. Roaming only works on every digital sprint phone... ~None > And I'll take issue with one thing: probably "most businesses" do "figure > out ways to appeal both to the > price-sensitive customer and to the customer that doesn't care about paying > more", but that is not always the best business model. There are businesses > which cater to the high end only (and there are, of course, the reverse > model businesses). Yes, I was referring to businesses that sell a product that is essentially unlimited in supply. These businesses find many creative ways to sell the same product to different market segments at vastly different prices. They may sell the product under a different brand name, they may have all sorts of complicated discount schemes including rebates, coupons, corporate discounts, friends and family discounts, discounts for certain clubs and organizations etc., or they may just engage in plain haggling. A prime example is how Verizon allows MVNO's to resell their service at substantially lower cost than Verizon itself charges. Clearly Verizon views most of the MVNO business as pure upside, or they wouldn't resell to MVNOs. =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:476a9a01$0$84224$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > Yes. Pricing needs to be set to maximize profit. You can be selling your > product too cheaply and be leaving money on the table, or you can be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > product that customers decide to put up with your competitors cheaper > product. If this thread continues, I think we all deserve some credit hours in Economics on our student records...... Larry SignatureQUOTE OF THE MONTH: "I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand shops crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights. How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I use! > =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote > in news:476a9a01$0$84224$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If this thread continues, I think we all deserve some credit hours in > Economics on our student records...... There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic. It's called entrepreneurial pricing. Apple tried that with the iPhone and failed, being forced to lower their price. Verizon is able to engage in entrepreneurial pricing to some extent because their network is so much better than the AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile networks, and because the consumers understand this and enough are willing to pay extra for far superior coverage. =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:476bf2a7$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > superior coverage. You haven't been to Myrtle Beach, have you?.....(c; Larry SignatureQUOTE OF THE MONTH: "I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand shops crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights. How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I use! > =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote > in news:476bf2a7$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > >> superior coverage. > > You haven't been to Myrtle Beach, have you?.....(c; I'm sure that there are numerous small cities and towns where Verizon isn't great, but for the metro areas where most of the customers are, they are much better in almost every case. I guess I'm a little skewed because in the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon is so much better than the other carriers in terms of coverage. The other carriers are simply unusable in many of the less urban parts of the Bay Area. >> =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> >> wrote in news:476bf2a7$0$84188$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the other carriers in terms of coverage. The other carriers are simply > unusable in many of the less urban parts of the Bay Area. I should also point out that for many Verizon subscribers, one of the biggest advantages is not their native network, but the ability to roam on many of the smaller rural networks that moved from TDMA/AMPS to CDMA/AMPS. I use one of them all the time, the Golden State Cellular network in Northern California. While it's true that the major carriers will be turning off AMPS in urban areas, the rural carriers will keep AMPS up and running "for the foreseeable future" because their customers are highly dependent on AMPS. Verizon even just introduced a new tri-mode phone, the LG VX-5400. =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:47728ed8$0$84180$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > While it's true that the major carriers will be turning off AMPS in > urban areas, the rural carriers will keep AMPS up and running "for the > foreseeable future" because their customers are highly dependent on > AMPS. Verizon even just introduced a new tri-mode phone, the LG VX-5400. "Cellular Coverage Certifications Cellular licensees that intend to discontinue analog service after February 18, 2008 are permitted, in lieu of making a revised Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA) showing, to file a certification stating that the discontinuance of analog service will not result in any loss of wireless coverage throughout an affected CGSA." These words are from the FCC website on Cellular. If any of them turn off AMPS in 2008, I'd bet they could be busted on grounds that turning off AMPS WILL "result in any loss of wireless coverage throughout an affected CGSA". I don't know of a single carrier that could say that, in truth, in the rural areas of America. They'd have to go on a major erection binge to fill in the holes between the AMPS towers 10 miles apart putting up little towers 4 miles apart to use with the toyphones. Sure would be fun to see that tested in court with very rich rural AMPS users like big Texas ranchers, oil companies, etc. to keep AMPS turned on. Just the loss of all but the very latest OnStar-equipped digital cars would be enough to make filing a statement that there was no effect a TOTAL LIE. Nice try, though....(c; Larry -- Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9A129F670AC9Anoonehomecom@ 208.49.80.253: > Nice try, though....(c; http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=cellular_reports&id=cellular Here is where all 11 reports are for your reading. Verizon, ATT/Cing, Alltel, Dobson want out. 3 of the reports are from AMPS users, including Onstar and the Alarm Company lobby. The AMPS traffic is low, less than 1% Alltel says, but the majority users like Onstar and Alarm systems are using AMPS for signalling that digital cannot do. These systems don't "use" airtime, only pay for it and give it back, unless something bad happens. Is it any wonder only 1% are AMPS calls? Larry SignatureI worked hard under Social Security since I was 12. My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month. Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations? > Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9A129F670AC9Anoonehomecom@ > 208.49.80.253: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Alltel says, but the majority users like Onstar and Alarm systems are using > AMPS for signalling that digital cannot do. I guess all of the remote metering that uses CDMA on VZWs network that the local power utility uses in my area doesn't really work? These systems don't "use" > airtime, only pay for it and give it back, unless something bad happens. > Is it any wonder only 1% are AMPS calls? > > Larry > I guess all of the remote metering that uses CDMA on VZWs network that > the local power utility uses in my area doesn't really work? Does it use CDMA or EVDO? I suspect 1X or EVDO.... Larry SignatureI worked hard under Social Security since I was 12. My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month. Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations? > "Cellular Coverage Certifications > Cellular licensees that intend to discontinue analog service after [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > off AMPS WILL "result in any loss of wireless coverage throughout an > affected CGSA". Yeah, and what are the penalties for lying about this going to be, and who is going to enforce this rule in the Bush FCC? > I don't know of a single carrier that could say that, in truth, in the > rural areas of America. They'd have to go on a major erection binge to > fill in the holes between the AMPS towers 10 miles apart putting up > little towers 4 miles apart to use with the toyphones. In reality they could not put up enough towers even if they wanted to, since many of the areas where AMPS service is now available are in areas where more towers for digital would not be permitted. I could tell the FCC a dozen areas just in the San Francisco Bay Area where AMPS is the only coverage, and many of those are not off in the woods somewhere. Of course once AMPS is shut down, how am I going to prove to the FCC that there used to be coverage where there is now none? > Sure would be fun to see that tested in court with very rich rural AMPS > users like big Texas ranchers, oil companies, etc. to keep AMPS turned > on. Just the loss of all but the very latest OnStar-equipped digital > cars would be enough to make filing a statement that there was no effect > a TOTAL LIE. That's not a good example because much of the loss of OnStar coverage is in urban areas where there is digital coverage that older OnStar cars cannot use. It's also possible that the urban carriers that also have AMPS networks in rural settings will just quietly leave the rural portions turned on in order to remain in compliance, but they understandably don't want to get into the position of saying which areas will remain on and which will be turned off. Of course if they simply switch off all the AMPS, who's going to be able to prove that their used to be coverage in areas where there is now no coverage? AFAIK, no one is out there documenting all the AMPS only areas in the country. =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4772c8e9$0$84248$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: > Of course if they simply switch off all the AMPS, who's going to be able > to prove that their used to be coverage in areas where there is now no > coverage? AFAIK, no one is out there documenting all the AMPS only areas > in the country. I got interested in this thread and read through as many of the 11 parts on: http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=cellular_reports&id=cellular as I could. It's interesting to note you can read ALL of the comments from the various company lawyers EXCEPT VERIZON, of course. One Verizon document has major areas blacked out and looks like some kind of secret CIA document released under pressure. The latest Verizon document is mysteriously MISSING and refuses to load at all. Why does this not surprise me that we cannot read what Verizon says......?? Why doesn't the FCC want us to see what Verizon says? Why the secrecy and blackouts? a.sholes. Larry SignatureI worked hard under Social Security since I was 12. My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month. Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations? SMS ???? ? wrote: > There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business > Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic. Is that on line somewhere? I've always had a suspicion that Tagamet was the start of the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. I remember it was $30 a month as opposed to a typically expensive prescription of $12 or thereabouts. I remember also that they promised the price would drop like a rock when R&D was paid off, but the price did nothing but go up, quintupling just before a generic became available. SignatureDec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year. clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in news:a9bt35-jjp.ln1 @remote.clifto.com: > the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. http://www.drugstore.com/pharmacy/prices/drugprice.asp?ndc= 55513019001&trx=1Z5006 This is the price of Neulasta, a 0.6ml plastic syringe to "help REDUCE infections in chemo patients." It doesn't prevent them. ONE syringe, .6ml costs $3,201.75 at drugstore.com DISCOUNTED! I brought up some heavy computer hardware and did some arithmetic and this crap is $US22,198,800 per gallon, making it FAR more valuable than ANY OTHER LIQUID ON THE PLANET. We should hang ALL the usurers, not just the lawyers and bankers. Check out the webpage to get better discounts on Neulasta if you're a multimillionaire and want more than one injection. It gives new meaning to "one every four hours". Larry SignatureQUOTE OF THE MONTH: "I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand shops crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights. How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I use! > SMS ???? ? wrote: >> There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > like a rock when R&D was paid off, but the price did nothing but go up, > quintupling just before a generic became available. It's the opposite of what you're thinking. The head of Glaxo was being pressured to price Zantac at a lower price than Tagamet, and instead he decided to charge a premium, because Zantac was a better drug for the same condition. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message