 |
 | 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 / February 2008SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
Sprint shares plummet after job cuts from BusinessWeek NEW YORK Shares of beleaguered Sprint Nextel Corp. took a nosedive Friday after the nation's third-largest wireless carrier said it continued to lose subscribers at an alarming rate during the fourth quarter and will lay off thousands to cut costs. A "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and "disaster" were some of the words analysts used to describe Sprint's predicament Friday. The company said it lost 683,000 postpaid subscribers during the quarter. Wall Street had expected a loss of about 250,000 to subscribers, according to Goldman Sachs analyst Jason Armstrong. Sprint also announced plans to cut 4,000 jobs, close 8 percent of its retail locations and reduce its use of contractors and outsourced services. While investors have been expecting the company to outline a cost-cutting plan since its new CEO took helm, Armstrong said in a client note the cuts were already in the works under interim management. "Hence, we would warn that new CEO Dan Hesse has yet to take his cut at the business," he wrote. "He has historically been aggressive on cost cuts and conservative on guidance, so look for more reductions when he finalizes his plan." Hessem, who took over as Sprint's CEO in December, is the former chief executive of Sprint spinoff Embarq, where he cut more than 1,200 jobs. He replaced Gary Forsee, who was ousted in October following several quarters of falling subscriber numbers and other operational troubles for the company. Sprint did not mention its WiMax service, Xohm, when announcing the job cuts, and Cowen and Co. analyst Thomas Watts said the company "may continue with a slow launch in select markets as planned, but may reevaluate its strategy going forward." Sprint, he added, may scale back WiMax spending as it focuses on improving its core wireless business. The project has been viewed by some as too expensive and years away from turning a profit. Most analysts kept "Hold" ratings on Sprint's stock, noting that the company is in the midst of a turnaround that may have to get worse before it gets better. In the meantime, Sprint's subscriber defections should benefit Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc. -- though the shares of both companies fell on Friday. Sprint's shares plunged $2.91, or 25.2 percent, to $8.66 in afternoon trading. The stock has lost nearly 35 percent of its value since the start of the year. Earlier Friday, shares hit $8.15, their lowest level since 2002. Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01. > Sprint shares plummet after job cuts > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares > fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01. HA HA HA, shoulda went with GSM...those Lucifer radio cards should be good for some gold and silver scrap value....JG >> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares >> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01. >HA HA HA, shoulda went with GSM...those Lucifer radio cards should be >good for some gold and silver scrap value....JG Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares. The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in the U.S. market.  SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> >>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares >>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA > island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares. ?? Over the past 52 weeks Verizon shares are up 5%, AT&T up 3% and Sprint down 50%. The S&P is down 7%. Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated to me. Dennis Ferguson > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:46:08 -0800 (PST), jgrov...@hotmail.com wrote in > ><6da5f0e5-6cf7-498b-aefc-a73189a88...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Dennis Ferguson A down day for all: Symbol Time Trade Change % Chg S 4:00PM ET 8.70 Down 2.87 Down 24.81% T 4:01PM ET 36.11 Down 1.19 Down 3.19% VZ 4:00PM ET 39.09 Down 1.82 Down 4.45% >>>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares >>>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated >to me. I'm talking only about the drops today on the Sprint news. Analysts believe the fall in AT&T and Verizon reflect a likely tough year in 2008 for cellular carriers. The greater fall in Verizon presumably means a tougher outlook than for AT&T. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> >>>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares >>>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated > to me. Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers. 2007 saw big increases in CDMA penetration in the U.S.. CDMA is also gaining ground in Asia, because carriers like the fact that you can have the same coverage with 40% fewer cell sites, and the fact that CDMA has much higher capacity per Mhz than GSM. In Australia, a judge granted an emergency order delaying the CDMA shut down because "Next G" could not provide the rural coverage of CDMA. Hey, maybe someone can do that for AMPS in the U.S.! Of course remember than for data, it's all CDMA, whether it's W-CDMA or CDMA-2000. The future is indeed bright for CDMA! >Of course remember than for data, it's all CDMA, whether it's W-CDMA or >CDMA-2000. The future is indeed bright for CDMA! Nope. CMDA-2000 and W-CDMA are totally different. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>CDMA-2000. The future is indeed bright for CDMA! > > Nope. CMDA-2000 and W-CDMA are totally different. They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO, but not anytime soon. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger >In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>CDMA-2000. The future is indeed bright for CDMA! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO, >but not anytime soon. Nope. They are more different than similar. W-CDMA is based on GSM infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in >>implementation then GSM is to either of them. GSM itself will go away IMHO, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > infrastructure. Claiming otherwise is just a lame attempt to bolster > the badly sagging fortunes of CDMA-2000. Whatever you say John ... you know best. Who holds the patent to W-CDMA again? It seems Qualcomm has some share of the intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you ... you know best. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger >In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >intellectual property in W-CDMA, and since GSM is open. W-CDMA certainly >maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. There are a host of patents on UMTS (W-CDMA), most of which aren't held by Qualcomm, as reported in the raging patent disputes,in which Qualcomm hasn't been doing very well. <http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3695011> Nokia Takes Qualcomm Patent Beef to ITC August 17, 2007 Qualcomm's legal problems continued to pile up today as bitter legal foe Nokia is seeking an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on the U.S. import of certain Qualcomm mobile chips, chipsets and handsets. According to Nokia, Qualcomm infringes on five Nokia patents in its CDMA and WCDMA/GSM chipsets. The Finnish handset maker claims Qualcomm engages in unfair trade practices by importing or selling products that allegedly infringe on Nokia's patents. ... The San Diego-based Qualcomm is already facing an ITC order banning the import of Qualcomm future 3G mobile broadband handset models and cell phones in a separate legal action by rival Broadcom. ... In the ITC case brought by Broadcom, the trade agency determined that Qualcomm infringed on Broadcom patents related to power-saving technology. The ITC banned Qualcomm chips and chipsets used in handheld wireless communications devices, including cellular telephone handsets that operate on EV-DO and WCDMA networks used by Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile USA. Police, fire and other first responders also use equipment with Qualcomm chips. <http://www.lockergnome.com/teleclick/2007/12/15/nokia-wins-preliminary-victory-i n-qualcomm-patent-case/> Nokia Wins Preliminary Victory in Qualcomm Patent Case December 15, 2007 A judge with the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued an initial ruling against Qualcomm, in the San Diego chipmakers patent infringement complaint against Finnish handset maker, Nokia. The judge found no intellectual property infringement or violation on the part of Nokia, with regard to three of Qulacomms patents. In addition to this, Qualcomm patent #473 was found to be invalid. The judges initial determination will now be reviewed by the International Trade Commission, which intends to issue a final ruling by April 14, 2008. >But I defer to you >... you know best. Discourtesy only serves to make your case less persuasive. Likewise your lack of anything to support your argument. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> > In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > maintains the ability to be backward compatible with GSM. But I defer to you > ... you know best. GSM is fundamentally TDMA. It uses wider channels than the North American version of TDMA - 200 kHz vs. 30 kHz last I checked. To say that any CDMA(code division) technology is more like GSM's TDMA technology (time division) than another CDMA technology seems pretty misguided. But, as you suggest, perhaps John knows best... g >> In alt.cellular.sprintpcs John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>> They are both based on CDMA technology and are much closer to each other in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >But, as you suggest, perhaps John knows best... Apparently, in this case at least, because (a) the UMTS air interface is totally different from and incompatible with CDMA2000; (b) the UMTS air interface is only a small part of UMTS; and (c) most of UMTS (infrastructure) is based on GMS, not CDMA2000. Trying to claim that W-CDMA (UMTS) is the same technology as CDMA2000 is a bit like claiming that ice cream is the same as cottage cheese. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> > Of course remember than for data, it's all CDMA, whether it's W-CDMA or > CDMA-2000. The future is indeed bright for CDMA! I gather you have not heard of LTE the 4G upgrade. SignatureCharles > Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system > in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers. Unless my math is really screwed up that statistic is just wrong. Where did it come from? Dennis Ferguson >> Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system >> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dennis Ferguson It was in an article last year. They added up the subscribers from the major carriers for each technology, Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, AT&T, T-Mobile, then divided by the total number of customers. >>> Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system >>> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > major carriers for each technology, Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, AT&T, > T-Mobile, then divided by the total number of customers. Got it. Google came up with this: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/24950.php I think it is wrong only because it seems to exclude from the North American market the part of North America in Mexico. If you add in the 50 to 60 million Mexican GSM subscribers (depending on how many TDMA users Telcel still has) and the fewer than 5 million CDMA subscribers there I think you get a different result. Dennis Ferguson >> Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system >> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers. > >Unless my math is really screwed up that statistic is just wrong. Where >did it come from? He's wrong, of course, but still desperately clinging to his forecast that Verizon and Sprint will take over the U.S. market. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He's wrong, of course, but still desperately clinging to his forecast > that Verizon and Sprint will take over the U.S. market. Nah ... I think he said CDMA based technology is the way of the future. AT&T is already using it in their data networks and my supposition is that in the not to distant future voice networks will be legacy and we will all have mobile phones that are really voice over data similar to VoIP today. The analogy might be to make every handset EVDO only and run a VoIP client on it connected to a phone number via SIP. AT&T and all the rest will move foward, and depending on technological evolution, it will be more expensive for some than for others. But, the OP is most likely correct, the future are technologies based on CDMA. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger >>>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares >>>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated > to me. I'm sure that John is well aware that Sprint's current problems are totally unrelated to CDMA. They paid a huge premium for Nextel, because of Nextel's high ARPU, and thought they could convert all those Nextel iDEN customers into Sprint customers. Instead, those customers fled to other carriers. OTOH, Verizon and Alltel's success in terms of being the top quality networks in the U.S., _is_ partly related to using CDMA which is able to provide better coverage and fewer dropped calls. The financial success of Verizon Wireless is very much tied to their lower capital costs because even though CDMA infrastructure equipment is more expensive, you need fewer sites to cover the same area and fewer sites to provide equivalent capacity (compared with GSM). Even Cingular admitted this, and used it as an excuse for their poorer financial performance, claiming that once they completed build-out of their network that their margins would increase to close to Verizon's. >> Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated >> to me. > >I'm sure that John is well aware that Sprint's current problems are >totally unrelated to CDMA. On the contrary -- CDMA2000 has made it difficult to migrate Nextel customers, a problem I pointed out way back at the beginning. You just don't like admitting that. ;) >OTOH, Verizon and Alltel's success in terms of being the top quality >networks in the U.S., _is_ partly related to using CDMA which is able to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >claiming that once they completed build-out of their network that their >margins would increase to close to Verizon's. Total lack of citations, as usual, but of course that's no surprise, since that's totally false. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > I'm sure that John is well aware that Sprint's current problems are > totally unrelated to CDMA. They paid a huge premium for Nextel, because [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > claiming that once they completed build-out of their network that their > margins would increase to close to Verizon's. Think of how many times a Verizon caller makes a call and only one person can hear the other, but not the reverse. Rarely. AT&T or T-Mobile ... MUCH more frequent. I had a contract for a company out in Delano, MN. Signal from SprintPCS was almost non-existant. AT&T was alright in the parking lot due to the lower cellular frequency they use ... Verizon was great (one to two "bars" throughout the building). T-Mobile was MAX bars. Why? Because they managed to make a deal with T-Mobile to put an antenna right on top of the building in exchange for making it their "company mobile phone network". Everybody there carried a T-Mobile phone. Do you know how many times that I heard, "Can you hear me?" or "I can't hear you!" Too many to count. I don't know why exactly, but apparently GSM uses different channels for each direction of audio and one gets broken. The whole time I was there, I didn't have that problem with Sprint PCS (or when it roamed to Verizon if I was lucky) or with my Verizon phone [after I switched from Sprint PCS]. The only person with AT&T there that could get signal in the building without standing at a window, was using TDMA (of course, it was Cingular then, but his phone said AT&T :-) Personally, I think CDMA to be the superior technology without doubt. The problem only is that it is encumbered by patents from Qualcomm [they are evil] and GSM is much older and was more entrenched in Europe and elsewhere before CDMA saw the light of day in the American, Japanaese and Korean landscapes. For me, I simply use what works best, reguardless of the technology, but it happens to be Verizon Wireless here in Minnesota. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:46:08 -0800 (PST), jgrov...@hotmail.com wrote in > <6da5f0e5-6cf7-498b-aefc-a73189a88...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: > John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> John in looking over the financial news related to this Sprint news I saw one wit called CDMA the beta max of Wireless and another said Sprint should consider switching to GSM. Apparently there is a Canadian Telco considering rolling out GSM this year and abandoning their CDMA network. The bottom line, the global standard is GSM. John, I also saw an interesting news story from CNET VIDEO NEWS today that mentioned the current tweaking by Google for the iPhone now had the same Google search data on the iPhone which was using GSM EDGE loading and displaying just as fast as a PC hooked up to broadband. The iPhone is one powerful little instrument that has captured the imagination of best minds in the industry! John, up to your old tricks again I see...... Let me give you a hint...... then do your homework. N E X T E L is where most of the problems are - (which isn't "CDMA")...... > Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate > the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA > island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares. > The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and > beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in > the U.S. market. : John, up to your old tricks again I see...... : [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : : is where most of the problems are - (which isn't "CDMA")...... Which brings up the obvious question: WHAT in God's name were they thinking when they bought that turkey? Bob > Which brings up the obvious question: WHAT in God's name were they thinking > when they bought that turkey? To sell it off to the Department of Homeland Insecurity perhaps? >: John, up to your old tricks again I see...... >: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Which brings up the obvious question: WHAT in God's name were they thinking >when they bought that turkey? Didn't Nextel have the highest ARPU in the industry at the time? I'm not arguing that the merger was a bad move for Sprint, but I thought they were just chasing the dollars. SignaturePaul Miner Did Nextel take over Sprint? > John, up to your old tricks again I see...... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in >> the U.S. market. >Did Nextel take over Sprint? No. At the time, it was called a merger of equals, but I think most people will agree that Sprint acquired Nextel. SignaturePaul Miner In alt.cellular.attws Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote: >>Did Nextel take over Sprint? > > No. At the time, it was called a merger of equals, but I think most > people will agree that Sprint acquired Nextel. And it is Sprint Nextel ... not Nextel Sprint. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger In alt.cellular.attws Ness-Net <no.richard@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote: > John, up to your old tricks again I see...... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > is where most of the problems are - (which isn't "CDMA")...... They thought they could convert Nextel over to CDMA and that their push-to-talk would be a mature replacement for it. It was not the case. So, not all Nextel people who moved on, went to Sprint and that is why they are losing on Nextel. I think their goal is to shut of iDen, perhaps swap spectrum and then bring up the new spectrum for data. It doesn't seem to be going their way. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline Were you ever a Sprint customer? I was, 2000-2005 for my wife's phone and 2004-2005 for both phones. The biggest problem at Sprint wasn't the network. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol In alt.cellular.attws Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote: >> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline > > Were you ever a Sprint customer? I was, 2000-2005 for my wife's phone > and 2004-2005 for both phones. The biggest problem at Sprint wasn't the > network. Yeah ... you got that right! SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger > In alt.cellular.attws Steve Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote: >>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yeah ... you got that right! OMG, there was something that was a bigger problem than the network? In alt.cellular.sprintpcs SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote: > OMG, there was something that was a bigger problem than the network? They didn't have too many network problems in my experience. Unfortunately, two places that I had worked over a three year period had nearly zero coverage, but that was a true anomoly as I found I had coverage just about every where else that I went. The analog roaming up in the arrowhead of Minnesota was great ... and Free! But their billing systems and policies .... they can eat sh.t. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > OMG, there was something that was a bigger problem than the network? For many people, the network was a problem. For me, it never was. Sprint had good coverage along the lake, near my old house in Mentor on the Lake, Ohio, long before Verizon and ATTWS/Cingular did, and ATT still might not (I petitioned Verizon to add coverage down there, and they did, about 6-8 months after I asked. I didn't talk to ATT because I was a VZW customer at the time). Out here, in the rural little corner of northeast Apple Valley, CA, on the edge of town where I used to rent a house, Sprint has a tower. I was past the edge of Verizon coverage out there. And in general, my wife and I never had a problem with Sprint's network. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate > the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA > island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares. But Sprint's problems have nothing to do with being CDMA. If CDMA is "declining," it's because Sprint is hemmoraging customers- not the other way around. If Sprint was GSM, GSM would've lost 650,000 customers instead. > The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and > beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in > the U.S. market. Which has nothing to do with GSM (or CDMA), either. Other than a few savvy customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular customers know or care what technology their carrier uses. >> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate >> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"declining," it's because Sprint is hemmoraging customers- not the other >way around. If Sprint was GSM, GSM would've lost 650,000 customers instead. Not necessarily. Rationalizing networks would have been quite a bit easier with GSM. >> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and >> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular >customers know or care what technology their carrier uses. It's not whether they care, it's the massive advantage from worldwide use and economies of scale. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> >>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and >>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's not whether they care, it's the massive advantage from worldwide > use and economies of scale. So which numbers should we look at to be able to measure that massive advantage and its payoff? The wireless operations of AT&T and Verizon make about the same revenue from about the same number of customers, but Verizon's operating income from that revenue is about 50% higher than AT&T. And, despite the lower spending per customer, most big surveys which try to measure it still give Verizon's network a coverage and performance advantage. If there really is a massive advantage at something which matters it should be measureable somehow. I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have anything to do with this. Dennis Ferguson > I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't > change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it > to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without > any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't > help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have > anything to do with this. One big advantage of CDMA for voice, which was why Australia used it out in the bush, is the fact that the range is so much greater. The Australian government recently denie Telstra permission to shut down CDMA because Telstra cannot switch-off its CDMA network without first proving equivalent Next G coverage, and Next G coverage is so far not able to provide equivalent coverage (though like all 3G networks it's also based on CDMA). This past weekend I was up in Lassen Volcanic National Park. While both Verizon and AT&T had service in Mineral (the closest town south of the park), there was no GSM coverage within the park itself, but Verizon had excellent coverage (digital) for as far as we skied into the park on snow-covered highway 89, despite to coverage map showing "Moderate" coverage. >> I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't >> change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >able to provide equivalent coverage (though like all 3G networks it's >also based on CDMA). No matter how many times you repeat it, total nonsense is still total nonsense. >This past weekend I was up in Lassen Volcanic National Park. While both >Verizon and AT&T had service in Mineral (the closest town south of the >park), there was no GSM coverage within the park itself, but Verizon had >excellent coverage (digital) for as far as we skied into the park on >snow-covered highway 89, despite to coverage map showing "Moderate" >coverage. Just like your claimed coverage in the Bay Area that ins't on Verizon's coverage maps? ;) SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> > So which numbers should we look at to be able to measure that massive > advantage and its payoff? The wireless operations of AT&T and Verizon [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > advantage. If there really is a massive advantage at something which > matters it should be measureable somehow. I think what some people don't take into account is the vast differences between the U.S. and Europe & Asia when it comes to cellular. The biggest reason why AT&T has such poor margins is because it has much higher infrastructure costs, and these costs are directly related to the technological disadvantages of GSM in terms of having to cover larger, more sparsely populated, geographic areas. AT&T has even stated the reasons for their low margins, and has said that margins will improve once they are able to make fewer capital investments. Other than one person out in the Pacific Ocean on a boat, no one in the U.S. has experienced "extended range GSM" because no U.S. GSM carriers have deployed it. > I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't > change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it > to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without > any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't > help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have > anything to do with this. The reasons for Sprint's problems are well known, and are unrelated to CDMA or GSM. Poor customer service, poor coverage (though better than AT&T's thanks to off-network roaming on Verizon), and a poor handset selection. The last one _would_ have been made simpler if they were a GSM operator, but Verizon has done well in handset selection, and is able to leverage all the Korean CDMA handsets as well as getting CDMA versions of other popular handsets. It wasn't that many years ago when everyone was complaining about Verizon's handset selection, and claiming that Sprint had better choices. Eventually CDMA 2000 _and_ GSM will be EOL, and voice calls will be carried over some version of CDMA or LTE technology. > > So which numbers should we look at to be able to measure that massive > > advantage and its payoff? The wireless operations of AT&T and Verizon [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Eventually CDMA 2000 _and_ GSM will be EOL, and voice calls will be > carried over some version of CDMA or LTE technology. There's still a good reason verizon and sprint phones don't work in Europe or Japan or Korea...JG > There's still a good reason verizon and sprint phones don't work in > Europe or Japan or Korea...JG Verizon phones work just fine in Korea. They also worked in Taiwan when I was there in 2002. >> There's still a good reason verizon and sprint phones don't work in >> Europe or Japan or Korea...JG > > Verizon phones work just fine in Korea. > They also worked in Taiwan when I was there in 2002. > >>> There's still a good reason verizon and sprint phones don't work in >>> Europe or Japan or Korea...JG >> Verizon phones work just fine in Korea. CDMA is really spreading across Asia. I think it's because the population density is so high that bandwidth utilization has become very important, and CDMA is much more efficient than GSM. Still, when traveling in Taiwan, I use prepaid GSM because it's much cheaper than roaming on CDMA. If I had AT&T or T-Mobile GSM I would still choose to use prepaid GSM in Taiwan. The other poster, jgrove24, is particularly misinformed about Korea, because it's actually GSM phones that don't work at all in Korea. > > They also worked in Taiwan when I was there in 2002. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The other poster,jgrove24, is particularly misinformed about Korea, > because it's actually GSM phones that don't work at all in Korea. Japan and Europe are the standard, with lots of features only available on viewgraphs here...JG >> The other poster,jgrove24, is particularly misinformed about Korea, >> because it's actually GSM phones that don't work at all in Korea. > > Japan and Europe are the standard, with lots of features only > available on viewgraphs here...JG Unfortunately, GSM phones don't work in Japan either. I think Korean CDMA phones might roam in Japan, but I think that service is DCS rather than PCS and US phones don't support the band. Dennis Ferguson Is Japan entirely CDMA? >>> The other poster,jgrove24, is particularly misinformed about Korea, >>> because it's actually GSM phones that don't work at all in Korea. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dennis Ferguson > Is Japan entirely CDMA? No. Here's a good web site on the subject: "http://euc.jp/misc/cellphones.en.html" > Is Japan entirely CDMA? No. I think the original digital standard there was a TDMA variant called PDC. These days I think all the companies now support 3G UMTS, so you can also roam with a (European) 3G phone. No GSM though. Dennis Ferguson >> Is Japan entirely CDMA? > No. I think the original digital standard there was a TDMA variant > called PDC. These days I think all the companies now support 3G UMTS, > so you can also roam with a (European) 3G phone. No GSM though. Close, but not quite correct. There is no GSM in Japan, but not "all companies" support UMTS. NTT DoCoMo, Softbank, and TU-KA all have PDC networks. PDC is 2G and pretty much unique to Japan. Willcom has a PHS network. IIRC, PHS is also used by a carrier in Taiwan. There is a CDMA carrier in Japan (au), with both 2G and 3G CDMA. au operates on different frequencies than North American CDMA phones. Consequently, North American CDMA phones can NOT roam in Japan. Some CDMA phones in other countries can roam in Japan. NTT DoCoMo and Softbank have W-CDMA networks, however only Softbank's is based upon the current UMTS specification. NTT DoCoMo is based upon an earlier version. European 3G phones should roam on Softbank's network, but there may be difficulties in roaming on NTT DoCoMo's FOMA network. The bottom line is that most US phones do NOT roam in Japan. Only a phone with UMTS in the 2100 band will roam in Japan. IIRC, T-Mobile and AT&T each have one smartphone that has that. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. > Close, but not quite correct. There is no GSM in Japan, but not "all > companies" support UMTS. Ah, sorry. If I would have thought about it I'd have known it (only two UMTS carriers show up on my phone, but there's more than two mobile carriers), but I'm kind of fixated on UMTS in Japan since that is the only phone I have which works there. > Willcom has a PHS network. IIRC, PHS is also used by a carrier in Taiwan. I think one of the China landline carriers (China Netcom?) also runs a substantial PHS network. I read somewhere that they are closing in on 100 million subscribers, which anywhere else would be a huge number but which, in China, is only 15% of the market. > The bottom line is that most US phones do NOT roam in Japan. Only a phone > with UMTS in the 2100 band will roam in Japan. IIRC, T-Mobile and AT&T > each have one smartphone that has that. I've not heard of a T-Mobile phone which has it. AT&T has one. Dennis Ferguson > Ah, sorry. If I would have thought about it I'd have known it (only > two UMTS carriers show up on my phone, but there's more than two > mobile carriers), but I'm kind of fixated on UMTS in Japan since that > is the only phone I have which works there. I bet the roaming charges are horrendous. It's a lot cheaper to rent a USIM from Softbank at the airport (105 yen/day + call charges) if you have an unlocked UMTS 2100 capable phone. Softbank and the other carriers will also rent a phone if you want to do that. > I think one of the China landline carriers (China Netcom?) also runs a > substantial PHS network. I wouldn't be surprised. PHS is popular in East Asia. > I've not heard of a T-Mobile phone which has it. AT&T has one. I forget which T-Mobile phone does UMTS 2100, but IIRC it's one of the smartphones. T-Mobile does have a roaming agreement with Softbank. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. >> Ah, sorry. If I would have thought about it I'd have known it (only >> two UMTS carriers show up on my phone, but there's more than two [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > an unlocked UMTS 2100 capable phone. Softbank and the other carriers will > also rent a phone if you want to do that. Roaming isn't so bad now. I have in the past roamed there with a Hong Kong SIM, at about $1/minute incoming, but my Celtrek SIM costs 24 cents/minute incoming, with a US inbound number (compared to 12 or 15 cents/minute to forward US calls to a Japan mobile). I didn't know you could just rent the SIM, thanks for that. When I asked before (a while ago now) they always wanted 800 or 1000 yen per day for a phone which, since I've never stayed more than a day or two, was beyond my cost/convenience threshold. If I stay for a while I'll consider that (the outbound call rates are a bit silly though). Dennis Ferguson : > Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate : > the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : "declining," it's because Sprint is hemmoraging customers- not the other : way around. If Sprint was GSM, GSM would've lost 650,000 customers instead. That argument makes no sense. Sprint's ex-customers must have gone somewhere. Those who went to Verizon (and there must surely be more than a few who did) have no net effect on the CDMA headcount. : > The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and : > beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular : customers know or care what technology their carrier uses. Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest of the GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones that handle all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive. Bob >Phones that handle all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and >expensive. Nonsense. > Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest of the > GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones that handle > all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive. By my count 12 of the 15 phones AT&T offers for free with a new contract on their web site support all four bands. Dennis Ferguson : > Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest : > of the GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones : > that handle all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive. : : By my count 12 of the 15 phones AT&T offers for free with a new contract : on their web site support all four bands. Is that a recent development? The last Usenet discussion I recall seeing on the subject implied that there were only a few quad models available and that many users were distressed to learn that their US GSM phones wouldn't work internationally. But I have to admit that as a Verizon customer I haven't paid a lot of attention to the subject lately. Bob ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.] > Is that a recent development? I don't know, but I've been with T-Mobile since 2005. Back then, at least 3 or 4 of their GSM handsets were quad-band, and I believe they have more than that in their lineup now. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol >: > Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest >: > of the GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > internationally. But I have to admit that as a Verizon customer I haven't paid > a lot of attention to the subject lately. Recent as in a few years, I guess. A few years ago you had to buy a fairly high end phone, like a Motorola V3, to get all four GSM bands. Now a Motorola V3 (in several colors) is among the phones they'll give you for free with a new account. I think it has got to the point now where there's little to be saved by leaving any of the GSM bands out. Of course roaming in a couple of Asian countries, and taking advantage of some of the better European phone service deals, requires a phone with a UMTS band which is supported by only one or two (very expensive) phones available from any US carrier, so there are still topics for travellers to moan about. Dennis Ferguson > Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest of the > GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones that handle > all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive. Actually they're pretty common, and not too expensive. Some tri-band phones sold in the U.S. are also fine in Europe and Asia as they are 850/900/1900. In most places you can get by with only 900 MHz, you just have to be careful when buying a prepaid SIM card that you don't use one of the secondary carriers that got stuck up at 1800 MHz. What you want to avoid if you're in the U.S. but traveling to Europe or Asia is an 850/1800/1900, and what you want to avoid if you're in Europe or Asia and traving to the U.S. is a 900/1800/1900 (these were very common when the only U.S. GSM service was at 1900 MHz). >>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares >>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in > the U.S. market. From everything I read the screwup was to buy the toy Nextel properties. Initially that boosted their subscriber numbers but then when they started raising the prices and not building out the network the former nextel customers started fleeing. The walkie talkie thing was attractive for a while because it gave cheap calling for businesses. Now that the other carriers have free calling within their networks it has made the walkie talkie thing much less attractive. > From everything I read the screwup was to buy the toy Nextel > properties. Initially that boosted their subscriber numbers but then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that the other carriers have free calling within their networks it has > made the walkie talkie thing much less attractive. Some businesses really like the broadcast capability of Nextel. However the other PTT systems also have it now, and the fact that Nextel is a couple of second faster is of no consequence in broadcast mode. > The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and > beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in > the U.S. market. Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them down. Signature--Tim Smith > Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most > reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them > down. More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the date was over early in the evening. >> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most >> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them >> down. > > More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the > date was over early in the evening. Verizon had no interest in Apple's plan for revenue sharing of monthly fees, while Apple felt that the added upside in new customers that the iPhone would bring the carrier entitled them to part of the revenue. Both had strong bargaining positions, Verizon as the premier carrier in the U.S. in terms of quality, with the largest base of retail subscribers, and Apple with its consumer electronics marketing expertise. Reportedly Verizon did offer a compromise where they would revenue share on new subscribers but not current subscribers that switched to the iPhone, but that wasn't sufficient for Apple so they went to their second choice. >>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most >>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >switched to the iPhone, but that wasn't sufficient for Apple so they >went to their second choice. Still the Verizon apologist. In fact AT&T had the strongest position, with the most customers of any U.S. carrier, and technology common to most of the rest of the world. Verizon simply lost the beauty contest, and then tried desperately to explain that away. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> >> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and >> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in >> the U.S. market. > >Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Yes. >Most >reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them >down. That's all from one story based on spin from Verizon. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> >> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and >> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them > down. John has not been known in the past for his accuracy. Verizon turned the iPhone down first. >>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and >>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them >> down. >John has not been known in the past for his accuracy. > >Verizon turned the iPhone down first. Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> >>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and >>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with > you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible. There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article says? OR do we just take your word for this. >>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and >>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm It's the same old same old story based entirely on Verizon spin. >Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article >says? Can you direct us to any independent credible confirmation of the Verizon claim? >OR do we just take your word for this. Whatever you want to do is OK with me. If you want to believe the Earth is flat, that's OK with me too. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> >>>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and >>>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Whatever you want to do is OK with me. If you want to believe the Earth > is flat, that's OK with me too. I guess we can take that to mean you have posted wishfull thinking and an unsupported claim. :D > There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple > iPhone deal. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > OR do we just take your word for this. John isn't known for ever providing references. Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke, I was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of the story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so it's pretty clear that the story was accurate. >> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple >> iPhone deal. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >John isn't known for ever providing references. That would actually be you. >Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke, >I was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of >the story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so >it's pretty clear that the story was accurate. Same old nonsense. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> >> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected >> Apple iPhone deal. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so it's > pretty clear that the story was accurate. If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But since you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is some sort of new development. Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being repeated by the clueless... And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted logic is ridiculous. SignatureMike > If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the > guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But > since you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is > some sort of new development. Huh? I know he was posting a link to last year's article, it was true then and it's true now. > Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being > repeated by the clueless... LOL, so how many articles, repeating the same facts, do you think are required? > And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted > logic is ridiculous. No it isn't. When a major newspaper has a story that is negative to a major corporation you will always see a response if the story is untrue. In this case you would have seen denials from both Apple and AT&T if the story was false. With Sarbanes-Oxley, you no longer have executives of major corporations running around making up stories that are so easy to verify. Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest quality carrier? >> If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the >> guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Huh? I know he was posting a link to last year's article, it was true >then and it's true now. Except is was just spin then, and is still just spin now. >> Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being >> repeated by the clueless... > >LOL, so how many articles, repeating the same facts, do you think are >required? Spin, no matter how many times repeated, is still spin, not "facts". The only real "facts" is that the only source is Verizon. >> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted >> logic is ridiculous. > >No it isn't. ... Saying so over and over doesn't make it true. >Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the >carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than >its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest >quality carrier? Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> >>> If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the >>> guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest > subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world. Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the first choice rather than just you saying it? >> Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest >> subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world. > >Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the >first choice rather than just you saying it? Why not just tell us where anything that independently corroborates the Verizon spin can be found rather than just taking Verizon at its word. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> > Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the > first choice rather than just you saying it? Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or citations. One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of legal trouble with his outrageous public statements. I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success (following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon. >> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the >> first choice rather than just you saying it? > >Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or citations. Too funny! Let's see if you have any... >One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today >story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of >legal trouble with his outrageous public statements. No citations. What a shock. Not. >I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second >choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success >(following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of >new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon. The shill here is you, constant Verizon apologist and AT&T basher. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS: John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ> |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message