 |
 | 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 / Nextel / September 2003I'm Cross Posting Again! VZN Needs Help
Ok.Ok. Relax people. I know that VZN is the biggest US cell phone carrier, but you've got to admit they are no competition for NexTel's PTT. NexTel has it all over them in this category. Let me explain: My buddy bought one of these v60p the day the service came out. He begged and pleaded with me to go and buy one. I told him he should wait because the service is new and it probably will not compare to NexTel, which he also has. Well, for three weeks he did not have anyone to talk to until yesterday 09/04/03. He finally was able to get another sucker to buy a v60p, with my help of course. I talked the other guy into getting it so I could test the two phones. HeHeHe, LOL. Poor Bastard. HeHeHe. LOL. Well, anyway, I finally was able to do some tests on the phones using them inside buildings and out. Now let me tell you, I was considering switching from NexTel to VZN pending the outcome of this test. The results are in: 1. Inside the building -- Absolutely HORRIBLE! Terrible Signal Fade. There were more connection errors than my NexTel ever had. So tell me experts, how does Verizon fix that problem? CDMA tends to bounce off of buildings rather that penetrate them. 2. Outside the building -- Signal was good, No better than my NexTel signal though. Three Signal bars on both my i90 and the VZN v60p. 3. Sound Quality -- NexTel PTT has it all over the v60p. NexTel was clear and crisp while Verizon PTT sounded like the guy was sitting in the bottom of an aluminum trash can. 4. Connection -- Push to Talk -- or -- Push and wait to Talk -- Again NexTel definitely wins in this category. NexTel PTT is almost instant where VZN at times had a 40 second delay for the initial connection and between 4 to 10 seconds once the connection was established. Very Very Frustrating if you are used to NexTel's near instant connection. If you never had NexTel then I guess a 40 second DELAY would be no problem as you would not know any better. 5. The only advantage that I see VZN has over NexTel is the standard phone service, and that is not all that much better than NexTel. Suggestions: Go NEXTEL for allot less money and way Better PTT if that is what you are looking for. While I somewhat challenge your 40 second delay experience, I have not had my own experience with the product to date, so I can't say it absolutely didn't happen. However, while it seems the two sides here bicker over the two competing technologies and performance, I think it all boils down to one thing... the sales person. If the Verizon Wireless salesperson is able to sell the value of their perceived larger and better performing cellular network by showing the different accolades they've received regarding their cellular performance, be it the Consumer Reports article that ranked them #1 in every area they tested, or the results of the JD power rankings from the past few years, (I'm aware Nextel tied them this past year) or the Wall Street Journal articles about their perceived best in class network and customer service... then the customer will sign up with VZW. If the Nextel salesperson is able to sell the value of their better performing (to whatever degree) PTT network and their differently priced plans, then the customer will sign up with Nextel. While we here may consider ourselves the technologically savvy and the majority of the wireless consumer market... we're not. If I went in to the closest VZW or Nextel store, I'd be willing to bet that at least 9 out of 10 of the customers would have never heard of usenet or phonescoop. So then... you need to look at which company is marketing themselves better to drive more customers to their distribution channels. All things being equal, I think whichever company that succeeds the most in driving the potential business to them will see the most immediate success. I'm sure both companies train their employees to close the sale. EVERY carrier has competitive advantages over each of their rivals. It rests upon the employee to impart these advantages and it is up to the marketing and advertising departments to get that customer to that employee. Just my 2c...  SignatureVerizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user "Jimmy" <jimmy@anon.com> wrote in article <4KqcndBfXLzrHsWiXTWJiQ@comcast.com>: > Ok.Ok. Relax people. I know that VZN is the biggest US cell phone carrier, > but you've got to admit they are no competition for NexTel's PTT. NexTel [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Suggestions: Go NEXTEL for allot less money and way Better PTT if that is > what you are looking for. > 1. Inside the building -- Absolutely HORRIBLE! Terrible Signal Fade. > There were more connection errors than my NexTel ever had. So tell me > experts, how does Verizon fix that problem? CDMA tends to bounce off of > buildings rather that penetrate them. Wrong. 800mhz CDMA penetrates buildings very well. Higher band 1900mhz like SPCS uses exclusively and Verizon useds in a couple of markets do not penetrate as well. > 2. Outside the building -- Signal was good, No better than my NexTel > signal though. Three Signal bars on both my i90 and the VZN v60p. You are comparing one area you are in. I could do the same here, where Nextel works in town and on interstates and thats it and Verizon blankets 99% of the county. > 3. Sound Quality -- NexTel PTT has it all over the v60p. NexTel was > clear and crisp while Verizon PTT sounded like the guy was sitting in the > bottom of an aluminum trash can. No again. Verizon's PTT is much clearer than Nextel's. > 4. Connection -- Push to Talk -- or -- Push and wait to Talk -- Again > NexTel definitely wins in this category. NexTel PTT is almost instant where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then I guess a 40 second DELAY would be no problem as you would not know any > better. Can't comment on your connection times you have seen, here has been no more than 4-5 seconds on initial hookup and 1-1.5 seconds between each session. Most Nextel users I have talked to don't mind the short wait, just want something that works outside city limits. > 5. The only advantage that I see VZN has over NexTel is the standard > phone service, and that is not all that much better than NexTel. Again, depends on your area. Area I am in, Nextel is at the bottom of the heap with SPCS as far as coverage goes. > Suggestions: Go NEXTEL for allot less money and way Better PTT if that is > what you are looking for. Nextel's nationwide DC plans start off at basically the same price as Verizon's. Don't see the money difference you are referring to. KC Cute article. I'm glad you like your service. Don't hold your breath yet, but Sprint and a few other outfits are going to join the PTT bandwagon. Then we will see some real efforts to improve service. For now, there are other chaps who can't wait to shout you down. Don't worry, be happy. "Jimmy" <jimmy@anon.com> wrote in article <4KqcndBfXLzrHsWiXTWJiQ@comcast.com>: > Ok.Ok. Relax people. I know that VZN is the biggest US cell phone carrier, > but you've got to admit they are no competition for NexTel's PTT. NexTel [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Suggestions: Go NEXTEL for allot less money and way Better PTT if that is > what you are looking for. - Jimmy stood up at show-n-tell, in 4KqcndBfXLzrHsWiXTWJiQ@comcast.com, and said: > Ok.Ok. Relax people. I know that VZN is the biggest US cell phone > carrier, but you've got to admit they are no competition for NexTel's > PTT. NexTel has it all over them in this category. Let me explain: I guess if annoying the hell out of everyone else in public, is your main goal in life, then PTT is important. Me: Don't use that sh.t, around me in a restaurant while I'm eating. I may just pull out my liscensed, concealed weapon, and end your PTT conversation. <snip> -- Strontium "It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every now, and then, I kick the livin' sh.t `outta me." - Lit > - > Jimmy stood up at show-n-tell, in 4KqcndBfXLzrHsWiXTWJiQ@comcast.com, and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every > now, and then, I kick the livin' sh.t `outta me." - Lit Hey- earth's full. Go home. > - > Jimmy stood up at show-n-tell, in 4KqcndBfXLzrHsWiXTWJiQ@comcast.com, and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every > now, and then, I kick the livin' sh.t `outta me." - Lit Hey- earth's full. Go home. > Ok.Ok. Relax people. I know that VZN is the biggest US cell phone carrier, > but you've got to admit they are no competition for NexTel's PTT. Windows was no competition for Mac at one time either. >>Ok.Ok. Relax people. I know that VZN is the biggest US cell phone > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Windows was no competition for Mac at one time either. Yeah- and we all know what a solid and bug-free product Windows has turned out to be. Another case of biggest not being best. Different case though. You have two companies in your example. How many different carriers are there to choose from for wireless? That really does say something there. Truth be told, we'll see who comes out on top when LNP comes about. Signature"Well ain't this place a geographical oddity! Two weeks from everywhere!" - Ulysses Everett McGill O Brother Where Art Thou? Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote in article <6zc6b.21937$2Y6.8284758@news2.news.adelphia.net>: > > > >>Ok.Ok. Relax people. I know that VZN is the biggest US cell phone [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yeah- and we all know what a solid and bug-free product Windows has > turned out to be. Another case of biggest not being best. > Different case though. You have two companies in your example. How many > different carriers are there to choose from for wireless? That really > does say something there. Truth be told, we'll see who comes out on top > when LNP comes about. True, only two examples, but the analogy is still good. Could very easily have brought other players into the post, but why bother? What's going to happen when Vodafone (35% owner of VZ wireless) decides that they've lost enough money and start dumping the unprofitable portions of their business? Is wireless the first to go- after all, its losing a boatload of money every quarter. And there is nothing in the Verizon portfolio to diffrentiate it from the rest, except for this PTT nightmare, and I think this is going turn off a lot more people than it is going to make switch over. Especially if their prices remian high and the reviews read by the public continue to be very unflattering. That's the trick though. Verizon Wireless is the ONLY company that made any profit in 2002. They aren't weakening now either. I'm sure the bugs with PTT will clear, as far as I see now, just as many people like that don't. And if you read any reviews (at least in the west, I don't know what's up back east), Verizon Wireless is the only one that gets any props. Yes they are the most expensive, but you do get what you pay for. With as many people that have problems with Verizon, I think you'll see the same volume of issues with other companies as well. Signature"Well ain't this place a geographical oddity! Two weeks from everywhere!" - Ulysses Everett McGill O Brother Where Art Thou? Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote in article <8Fs6b.22170$2Y6.8468934@news2.news.adelphia.net>: > > Different case though. You have two companies in your example. How many > > different carriers are there to choose from for wireless? That really [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is going to make switch over. Especially if their prices remian high > and the reviews read by the public continue to be very unflattering. > That's the trick though. Verizon Wireless is the ONLY company that made > any profit in 2002. They aren't weakening now either. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what you pay for. With as many people that have problems with Verizon, I > think you'll see the same volume of issues with other companies as well. First- take a look at Nextel in 2002- PROFIT (and without a landline monopoly bankrolling them). And Nextel has the highest Average Revenue Per Unit in the industry by quite a bit, the lowest bad-debt in the industry, and a customer turnover rate of well under 2%. There's a difference in bringing revenue in from a large number of subscribers and making a profit because the business runs efficiently and effectively. Second- show me figures that break out VZ Wireless from both the Vodafone and VZ Corporate numbers- I've never seen them. Third- too many more product rollouts like PTT, and they will become the new ATT Wireless of 2003. ALL companies do have problems, I'll agree. But the problems that have been spoken about all over the industry with this PTT show that profit came before customer satisfaction. Fourth- what kind of 'props' are you talking about? As I sit here in the west myself, I can't remember the last thing I read (other than the anticipated rollout of PTT, not the actual implementation) that actually gave Verizon any kind of good press. In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > First- take a look at Nextel in 2002- PROFIT (and without a landline > monopoly bankrolling them). How much cash VZW has in the bank has nothing to do with whether or not they make a profit. They can still spend more than they bring in. > And Nextel has the highest Average Revenue > Per Unit in the industry by quite a bit, the lowest bad-debt in the > industry, and a customer turnover rate of well under 2%. There's a good reason for that, of course: they have a business service for which they can charge a premium - not saying they do, but they don't have to worry about competing on price and losing money; they have a service that no one else offered until August. Can't easily explain the lowest bad-debt percentage, but that explains the other two... > Second- show me figures that break out VZ Wireless from both the > Vodafone and VZ Corporate numbers- I've never seen them. And you won't, because VZW is private. (which was probably your point :) SignatureJustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net > How much cash VZW has in the bank has nothing to do with whether or not > they make a profit. They can still spend more than they bring in. <snip> I'll bet the Verizon and Vodafone stockholders would hold a different opnion of this. And if this is the thinking they have, I see dsome bargain stocks in the future. >>Second- show me figures that break out VZ Wireless from both the >>Vodafone and VZ Corporate numbers- I've never seen them. > > And you won't, because VZW is private. (which was probably your point :) Dude- this is a joint venture between two publicly trade corporations. It is paid for by the stocholders of both companies. IT CAN'T BE PRIVATE (I had such hope for this thread until this statement). And if this joint venture was such a cash cow, you can bet that both companies would be shouting it to Wall Street, in hopes of raising thier less-than- spectacularly- performing stocks. In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: >> How much cash VZW has in the bank has nothing to do with whether or not >> they make a profit. They can still spend more than they bring in. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > opnion of this. And if this is the thinking they have, I see dsome > bargain stocks in the future. I wasn't referring to the company's attitude towards profit or spending money. It's a simple calculation: income minus expenses. I'm speaking strictly from an accounting point of view. Of course the company will want to try to minimize spending wherever possible, etc. >>>Second- show me figures that break out VZ Wireless from both the >>>Vodafone and VZ Corporate numbers- I've never seen them. >> >> And you won't, because VZW is private. (which was probably your point :) > > Dude- this is a joint venture between two publicly trade corporations. > It is paid for by the stocholders of both companies. IT CAN'T BE > PRIVATE (I had such hope for this thread until this statement). Ok. You go find the statements Cellco Partnership/Verizon Wireless filed with the SEC then. Look up Verizon Wireless by its ticker symbol. I'll wait here. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net > Ok. You go find the statements Cellco Partnership/Verizon Wireless filed Hehe, pay check says Cellco Parterniship DBA Verion Wireless MB >>Ok. You go find the statements Cellco Partnership/Verizon Wireless filed > > Hehe, pay check says Cellco Parterniship DBA Verion Wireless MB > > [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups] Cellco Partnership appears to be Verizon and Vodafone, according to the papers.......where did I hear that before. Oh yeah.....I siad that a couple of posts ago. PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES. In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > Cellco Partnership appears to be Verizon and Vodafone, according to the > papers.......where did I hear that before. Oh yeah.....I siad that a > couple of posts ago. PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES. Yes, Cellco is the joint venture between VOD and VZ. Where's the stock ticker symbol for Verizon Wireless? And where are the laws that says the child of two public companies has to be publically traded? There are a whole bunch of federal laws at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode. I think Cornell Law's website might also have the text of the CFR too. Or, if you can find me an SEC regulation that says that, that'll be fine too. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may be wrong, but you haven't proven that to be true yet. You're the one claiming VZW *has* to be public; burden of proof is on you. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net > In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > proven that to be true yet. You're the one claiming VZW *has* to be > public; burden of proof is on you. ummmm- check the posts. I never said that- I said that it wasn't a private company and that it was owned by Public Corporations. Big difference. > > In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > private company and that it was owned by Public Corporations. Big > difference. VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that still doesn't mean that VZW has to be public. Since it's a partnership, it's income is reported on the VZ and VOD income statements and it's recorded as an investment in partnership on their balance sheets. So, indirectly, it is owned by the public, but directly by the two public companies. It doesn't HAVE to be public. They can certainly take it public and elect to be a "large partnership" with the IRS, if they wanted, register with the SEC, etc. But they're not required to do so. > VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that still > doesn't mean that VZW has to be public. Since it's a partnership, it's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to be a "large partnership" with the IRS, if they wanted, register with the > SEC, etc. But they're not required to do so. I wasn't saying it was public. I was saying that is not a private comapny, immune from the same regulations (including reporting) as it parent companies. > > VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that still > > doesn't mean that VZW has to be public. Since it's a partnership, it's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > comapny, immune from the same regulations (including reporting) as it > parent companies. If it's directly owned by two companies, then it is private. There are some reporting requirements that differ from the typical Joe and Bob LP, especially under the new Sarbanes-Oxley rules. But this only applies to their parents. It looks like the current Cellco filings are voluntary, meaning the reason they're filing 10-Qs and 8-Ks is because they are/were probably considering taking it public. If you look at the partnership agreement, the following companies are owners: Bell Atlantic Cellular Holdings, L.P. (no SEC filings) NYNEX Inc. (no SEC filings) PCSCO Partnership (no SEC filings) PCS Nucleus > > > VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that > still [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > PCSCO Partnership (no SEC filings) > PCS Nucleus Sorry, I hit send before I was done - see the next post. > > VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that still > > doesn't mean that VZW has to be public. Since it's a partnership, it's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > comapny, immune from the same regulations (including reporting) as it > parent companies. It looks like they're filing 10Qs and 8Ks because they are/were considering taking the venture public, not because they're required to do so. If you look at the Cellco partnership agreement, the following companies are owners (parents): Bell Atlantic Cellular Holdings, LP (no SEC filings) NYNEX PCS Inc. (no SEC filings) PCSCO Partnership (no SEC filings) PCS Nucleus, LP (no SEC filings) JV Partnerco, LLC (no SEC filings) GTE Wireless Incorporated (no SEC filings) GTE Consumer Services Incorporated (no SEC filings) GTE Wireless of Ohio Incorporated (no SEC filings) It's parents don't even file with the SEC. >>>VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > It's parents don't even file with the SEC. I believe all of those companies were swallowed up in the mergers that created Verizon. > >>>VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > I believe all of those companies were swallowed up in the mergers that > created Verizon. Not as of July 24, 2003, according to the SEC filings. > Not as of July 24, 2003, according to the SEC filings. Directly from Verizon.com- investor relations. "Verizon Communications, (NYSE:VZ), formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE, is one of the world's leading providers of high-growth communications services. Verizon companies are the largest providers of wireline and wireless communications in the United States, with over 137 million access line equivalents and over 34 million wireless customers." The others are Vodafone. Look it up yourself, becuase I'm sick of spoonfeading you and Steven. The filings would not be modified, because those were the legal entities at the time of the original filing, and are still business entities in the Verizon monoploy. This is just another example of Verizon Wireless advocates trying to distance themselves from the great Corporate Monster. It's quite obvious that Wireless is bought and paid for by both Verizon and Vodafone, whether you like it or not. THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE VENTURE. > > Not as of July 24, 2003, according to the SEC filings. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > those were the legal entities at the time of the original filing, and > are still business entities in the Verizon monoploy. Look up the filings yourself. Go to the SEC web page and look in the EDGAR system for Cellco. You can read the amended partnership agreement yourself and see that *non-public* companies own Cellco Partnership d/b/a VZW. These *non-public* companies don't have SEC filings. Some of the companies did merge, resulting in the list of owners I mentioned above. This was part of the reason for the amended partnership agreement made effective July 24, 2003 and filed in August, 2003. It is *not* a publically traded company. In addition, the SEC requirements for filing are $10,000,000 in assets and over 500 owners. Thus, VZW doesn't have to file publically. It also means, due to GAAP purposes, that this investment will show up somewhere on someone else's balance sheet. > This is just another example of Verizon Wireless advocates trying to > distance themselves from the great Corporate Monster. It's quite > obvious that Wireless is bought and paid for by both Verizon and > Vodafone, whether you like it or not. THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE VENTURE. Yes, it is. I'm not trying to distance anything from anything else. I'm trying to educate you on how their entity is structured, since you're posting incorrect information. >>>Not as of July 24, 2003, according to the SEC filings. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > due to GAAP purposes, that this investment will show up somewhere on someone > else's balance sheet. Show me a single post where I stated they are publically traded. you won't find one. >>This is just another example of Verizon Wireless advocates trying to >>distance themselves from the great Corporate Monster. It's quite [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > trying to educate you on how their entity is structured, since you're > posting incorrect information. Nothing has been incorrect. Their revenue is posted as Verizon revenue. Verizon is not a private entity. The 'non-public' entities you mention above are non-public because they are now owned by someone else- Verizon. All press releases, contract negotiations, financial reporting, and financial forecasting are provided directly by Verizon. If this is a private venture, why is it mentioned frequently in a great majority of the information provided by Verizon to their investor. Is this because the stockholders are at risk if the whole thing goes bottom up? Sounds to me like they got Vodafone to foot some of the bill to fund one of their own divisions. Not a bad corporate stragey, but that does not make this private. > >>>Not as of July 24, 2003, according to the SEC filings. > >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Show me a single post where I stated they are publically traded. you > won't find one. By stating that it isn't private, you're stating that it is public. Has to be one or the other. > >>This is just another example of Verizon Wireless advocates trying to > >>distance themselves from the great Corporate Monster. It's quite [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > mention above are non-public because they are now owned by someone else- > Verizon. Thus, the "venture" is private as well. > All press releases, contract negotiations, financial > reporting, and financial forecasting are provided directly by Verizon. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fund one of their own divisions. Not a bad corporate stragey, but that > does not make this private. It is private. Verizon releases VZW info because yes, the shareholders in VZ end have a stake in VZW. This doesn't mean that VZW isn't private, because it IS PRIVATE. Vodaphone contributed, amoung other things, some spectrum to the deal. It is a private venture. Can you go buy stock in it directly? Nope. > >>>Not as of July 24, 2003, according to the SEC filings. > >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > fund one of their own divisions. Not a bad corporate stragey, but that > does not make this private. http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?3932 Here's a site that might help you in your confusion. "Public company - A company which has issued securities through an offering, and which are now traded on the open market. also called publicly held or publicly traded. opposite of private company." "Private company - A company whose shares are not traded on the open market. opposite of public company." In alt.cellular.verizon Justin Green <justin@cjteam.com> wrote: > http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?3932 > > "Private company - A company whose shares are not traded on the open Did you really have to go and ruin the thread with facts? :) SignatureJustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net > In alt.cellular.verizon Justin Green <justin@cjteam.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Did you really have to go and ruin the thread with facts? :) Dammit, I hate when that happens. In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > I wasn't saying it was public. I was saying that is not a private > comapny, immune from the same regulations (including reporting) as it > parent companies. 1. If it's not public, it's private. There is no in-between. 2. You still haven't responded to my challenge to find SEC filings for VZW/Cellco, and I'm sure you won't, because you'll be forced to admit that there are none. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net > In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 1. If it's not public, it's private. There is no in-between. For the fifth time- I never said it was public. I can use smaller words to help you understand if the need arises. You said it was a private Company- why don't you provide some hard facts (not opinions) to back up your claim? You'll notice that I've actaully quoted Verizon quite a few times. Where are your facts? > 2. You still haven't responded to my challenge to find SEC filings for > VZW/Cellco, and I'm sure you won't, because you'll be forced to admit > that there are none. Sorry- there is no challenge here. You have the delusion that I ever said anything about a VZW stock symbol. I hope the medication kicks in soon. And keep doing what you can to try and distance yourself from the phone monopoly- after PTT, the WIreless image needs some healing. > > In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > your claim? You'll notice that I've actaully quoted Verizon quite a few > times. Where are your facts? The fact is, a company is public or private. There are no quasi-public companies. Either you can buy their stock on the open market, or you can't. You cannot go and buy stock (which doesn't even exist) in VZW. You'd have to buy into the partnership, and know someone in some high places to do so. > > 2. You still haven't responded to my challenge to find SEC filings for > > VZW/Cellco, and I'm sure you won't, because you'll be forced to admit > > that there are none. I did respond, however. The filings for Cellco Partnership and Verizon Wireless Incorporated indicate they were contemplating taking this venture public. Please, do yourself a favor, go to the SEC web site and read this for yourself. > Sorry- there is no challenge here. You have the delusion that I ever > said anything about a VZW stock symbol. I hope the medication kicks in > soon. And keep doing what you can to try and distance yourself from the > phone monopoly- after PTT, the WIreless image needs some healing. Again, a company is public or private. You can either buy their stock on an exchange, or you can't. I could care less if VZW is distanced from VZ. Just start posting correct info, please. >>>In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > public. Please, do yourself a favor, go to the SEC web site and read this > for yourself. THey withdrew their petition to go public on January 29th of this year. Why would they continue to file 10_q's with the SEC after that if they were private? > >>>In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Why would they continue to file 10_q's with the SEC after that if they > were private? Because people want to know. It's a big selling point for VZ stock. But it's still private, and not REQUIRED to file SEC reports. >>>>>In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Because people want to know. It's a big selling point for VZ stock. But > it's still private, and not REQUIRED to file SEC reports. Then explain the 10-Q's > >>>>>In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson > > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > > Then explain the 10-Q's I just did. >>>>>>>In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson >>> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > I just did. Where? > >>>>>>>In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson > >>> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > > Where? Because people want to know. It's a big selling point for VZ stock. Look, you're being really thickheaded. Cellco could withdraw from SEC registration and not file anything ever again. But, sinve they ARE registered with the SEC, to maintain registration, they need to timely file their reports. >>>>>>>In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson >>> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > I just did. This is the definition as provided by Verizon: 10-Q: A quarterly report which provides a continuing view of a company's financial position during the year. The filing is due 45 days after each of the first three fiscal quarters. No filing is due for the fourth quarter. Why are they required to file these? > >>>>>>>In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson > >>> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > Why are they required to file these? They're registered with the SEC. They don't HAVE to be, however. They could withdraw and not file ANYTHING. >>>>>>>>>In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > They're registered with the SEC. They don't HAVE to be, however. They > could withdraw and not file ANYTHING. And you say I'm thickheaded?? Read above- they did withdraw their securities request back in January, yet are sill required to file 10-Q's. They don't file these because people want to know (and I'm thickheaded?). The very same numbers appear in the Verizon filings, where people can see them. They have to file because there is a public finanacial liability with the stockholders of Verizon and Vodafone surrounding the partnership. And one more thing- I've used the words venture, partnership and operation, but at no time have I called this a company, although you have many times. Learn to read a post before you respond to it (this applies to many of your previous posts) and don't be putting words in people's mouths (something you are quite good at). If I don't mention it as a company, your whole public vs. private crap takes on a whole new meaning- you are the on calling it a company, not me. If it is not defined as a company (not every partnership us a company), then your wonderful defenitions have no meaning. > And you say I'm thickheaded?? Read above- they did withdraw their > securities request back in January, yet are sill required to file [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > me. If it is not defined as a company (not every partnership us a > company), then your wonderful defenitions have no meaning. Oh brother. Listen, Sparky, there were TWO Verizon Wireless Companies. Verizon Wireless, Inc., AND Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Jesus, did you even go and read the SEC reports? Verizon Wireless Inc., withdrew its SEC filings. Cellco Partnership has not. A company can be ANY TYPE OF ENTITY. Boy, you have no clue what you're talking about, do you? There is a partnership agreement. The SEC lists it as a COMPANY. Please, for the second time, go to the SEC and do some reading. It's obvious you're not educated enough on this subject. In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > For the fifth time- I never said it was public. No, you just said it wasn't private! > to help you understand if the need arises. You said it was a private > Company- why don't you provide some hard facts (not opinions) to back up > your claim? You'll notice that I've actaully quoted Verizon quite a few > times. Where are your facts? Please refer to Justin's definition of public and private companies. I was trying to get you to the point where you could figure it out yourself, because as I said, you're the one who is insisting that VZW isn't private. You started the argument, so I figured you'd have some facts to back it up with. Obviously you don't. Have a nice life. I'm not arguing with you anymore. > said anything about a VZW stock symbol. I hope the medication kicks in > soon. And keep doing what you can to try and distance yourself from the > phone monopoly- after PTT, the WIreless image needs some healing. Whatever. Apparently you also have a boner for VZW. I don't know why, and I don't care... it's really not my concern. I'm not trying to distance myself from anyone... everyone here knows what VZW's lineage is; it's not like it's a big secret. I'm glad you get so much joy out of Verizon's PTT not being up to your standards... because obviously you do. Gee, I thought we were going to talk facts, unlike the other threads. But I'm having no more success talking to you than to a couple pro-Nextel trolls who have posted in various groups in alt.cellular.verizon, and now you are apparently backtracking. The stupid thing is, I've made no claims about how great PTT is - I haven't even used it. I've used my father's Nextel phone on occasion. But I've never used Verizon's PTT. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net > VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that still > doesn't mean that VZW has to be public. Since it's a partnership, it's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to be a "large partnership" with the IRS, if they wanted, register with the > SEC, etc. But they're not required to do so. The finanacials make no reference to a partnership investment in the Verizon 10-K. It is reported the same as wireline financials. > > VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that still > > doesn't mean that VZW has to be public. Since it's a partnership, it's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The finanacials make no reference to a partnership investment in the > Verizon 10-K. It is reported the same as wireline financials. That would be because VZ doesn't own Cellco directly. > > > VZW doesn't have to be public. If VZ and VOD are both public, that > still [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That would be because VZ doesn't own Cellco directly. Also, the existence of a Verizon Wireless, Inc., which has now requested a withdrawal of it's SEC filing status, indicates they were thinking about taking the venture public at some point. > In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I'll wait here. The SEC oversees the activities of all PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES. It does not deal with privately owned companies (As the owner of a privately held business, I have no interaction with the SEC). The activities of Verzon Wireless are funded by, monitored by and reported by the publicly held corprations of Vodafone and Verizon, and is funded according to the vote of both companies stockholders. These Corporations are publicly traded, and Verizon frequently takes credit for the accomplishments of its 'wireless division'. The lack of a stock symbol only means that both companies do not see a benefit in spinning off the wireless operation on Wall Street. Hell, they talk about the domestic wireless division frequently in their annual STOCKHOLDERS REPORT. In fact, they talk quite a bit about Verizon Wireless INCORPORATED and how they have withdrawn their plan to offer it as a seperate stock due to the lack of 'significant funding requirements'. The lack of a stock symbol does not mean that it is a private venture. So call your broker and tell him you want 100 shares of Verizon Wireless and se what he says. MB Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote in article <vwy6b.22274$2Y6.8541297@news2.news.adelphia.net>: > > How much cash VZW has in the bank has nothing to do with whether or not > > they make a profit. They can still spend more than they bring in. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > would be shouting it to Wall Street, in hopes of raising thier > less-than- spectacularly- performing stocks. > So call your broker and tell him you want 100 shares of Verizon Wireless > and se what he says. MB Same thing he'd say if I wanted to buy stock in t-mobile- you have to buy the parent company. But that doesn't mean that the activities of t-mobile are not the concern of stockholders. That's the point I'm trying to make- these are not private companies just because they don't have their own stock symbol. In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: >> So call your broker and tell him you want 100 shares of Verizon Wireless >> and se what he says. MB > > Same thing he'd say if I wanted to buy stock in t-mobile- you have to > buy the parent company. But that doesn't mean that the activities of > t-mobile are not the concern of stockholders. Of course the activities of T-Mobile's wireless division are the concern of stockholders, just as Cellco/VZW's activities, profitability, etc. are the concerns of stockholders in Vodafone and Verizon. That's not the argument you were making, though; you were making the argument that VZW is not a private company. *I* am claiming that to be a public company, you must be publically traded. Otherwise you're not. Ask your broker if I'm right. > That's the point I'm > trying to make- these are not private companies just because they don't > have their own stock symbol. I'm willing to defer to you if you can make a convincing argument to that effect. I do not consider "the company is owned by two publically traded companies" to be a convincing argument. SignatureJustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net > In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > companies" to be a convincing argument. > Examples: Kroger- country's largest grocer. Operates under the names Kroger, King Soopers, City Market and about 30 others. Are you saying that because they are not all named Kroger, and do not have their own stock symbols they are private? AOL-Time Warner- can you buy stock for just AOL and not Time Warner Cable? Sony- Sony Electronics and Sony Entertainment. One stock- which one is it for? t-mobile- I've already made my case for this one. Need more?? In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > Kroger- country's largest grocer. Operates under the names Kroger, King > Soopers, City Market and about 30 others. Are you saying that because > they are not all named Kroger, and do not have their own stock symbols > they are private? Kroger owns all of them, correct? > AOL-Time Warner- can you buy stock for just AOL and not Time Warner Cable? Um, *bzzt* on that question, that wasn't a joint venture. either. AOL-Time Warner is one company. Sony doesn't count, either. Different divisions of _one_ company. I could certainly see your point if Vodafone and Verizon _merged_ and VZW was simply a division of the merged company. Actually, I want to go find either a lawyer or a stockbroker now, because I'd like an informed answer from someone who deals with this stuff for a living (I'm assuming you don't). I'm 98% sure that I'm right and you're wrong, but I am curious as to whether I'm actually correct. :) SignatureJustThe.net Internet & Multimedia Services 22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950 Steve Sobol, Proprietor 888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net > In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > living (I'm assuming you don't). I'm 98% sure that I'm right and you're > wrong, but I am curious as to whether I'm actually correct. :) A private company's earnings would never be included in a public company's financials. > Actually, I want to go find either a lawyer or a stockbroker now, because > I'd like an informed answer from someone who deals with this stuff for a > living (I'm assuming you don't). I'm 98% sure that I'm right and you're > wrong, but I am curious as to whether I'm actually correct. :) I'll be very anxiously awaiting the results of your research. BTW- be real careful about your assumptions. You'd be real surprised with the truth. > > In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Need more?? No, you've proven our point already. Private companies can file with the SEC. > In alt.cellular.verizon Scott Stephenson <scott.stephenson@adelphia.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > companies" to be a convincing argument. > And why would a 'private company's' financial figures be included in a publicly traded corporation's financials? > >>Ok.Ok. Relax people. I know that VZN is the biggest US cell phone > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yeah- and we all know what a solid and bug-free product Windows has > turned out to be. Another case of biggest not being best. Sadly, Apple seems to be just about as consistant with their software as Microsoft, its just that nobody sells Apple (total waste of shelf space) so you never see the displays sitting there with the unhappy-face. I found the BSOD less insulting than the unhappy face personally. JS |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.