 |
 | 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 / Verizon / November 2003Could WLNP really hurt VZW in the Long Run??
Let me pre curse what I'm about to say. I am a current Verizon subscriber and have been so since 1997 when they were Cellular One here in MI. This is in no way a troll message or anything. It's just a different side to WLNP that I wonder if anyone else has taken a look at. I was just wondering if WLNP could really hurt Verizon in the end. Verizon has consistently had the best Network out there for years. I think one reason for their positive service is their relatively low subscriber base. They have never really offered the "Best" package of minutes out there. You are able to go to other services and get more minutes and many people have taken advantage of that. With these other companies offering more minutes, this has overloaded their networks and caused a lot of dropped calls etc. With several wireless subscribers trending to switch to Verizon because of their strong network, could this surge of new clients cause Verizon to dread what they have avoided all these years. An overloaded network with customers concerned about dropped calls because they are know for such a "Strong network". This is just a different view I thought I would throw out there to what has been going on lately. I hope the above never happens, but I suppose it is a possibility. > Let me pre curse what I'm about to say. I am a current > Verizon subscriber and have been so since 1997 when they were Cellular [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > there to what has been going on lately. I hope the above never > happens, but I suppose it is a possibility. Relatively low subsciber base? 33 million and growing is not small by anyone's standards. : Relatively low subsciber base? 33 million and growing is not small by : anyone's standards. Ditto. They are the largest wireless company in the US, right? Andrew -- ----> Portland, Oregon, USA <---- ******************************************************************* ----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info ----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address ******************************************************************* > : Relatively low subsciber base? 33 million and growing is not small by > : anyone's standards. > > Ditto. They are the largest wireless company in the US, right? Which company actually has the largest native coverage area? Verizon Wireless claims to be the "largest", but that could be subscriber count. AD Adam could have a point though. The question is not who has the largest subscriber base in sheer total numbers. Verizon does, but that is spread over much of the country. The real issue I think he is raising is if Verizon now effectively has the lowest density of subscribers in each cell it serves and then people move to it, the density per cell increases and quality degrades. I am not convinced, though that it has the lowest density per cell. It would be interesting to take the number of subscribers of Verizon and each one of the other CDMA carriers and divide it by their total number of publicly reported cell sites to get the average subscribers per cell. Maybe I am wrong, but I am not sure it would make sense to compare them with the GSM, TDMA carriers, because the effective geographic coverage by a cell site might be different. > > : Relatively low subsciber base? 33 million and growing is not small by > > : anyone's standards. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > AD I have been looking at SEC filings, web sites, FCC, etc. but cannot find the number of cell sites for each carrier in total to compute the number of subscribers per cell site. Does anyone know where I can easily get the total number of cell sites for each wireless carrier? If you point me to it I will try to calculate the subscribers per cell site for each carrier and post it here. > Adam could have a point though. The question is not who has the largest > subscriber base in sheer total numbers. Verizon does, but that is spread [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > > AD > I have been looking at SEC filings, web sites, FCC, etc. but cannot find the > number of cell sites for each carrier in total to compute the number of > subscribers per cell site. Does anyone know where I can easily get the total > number of cell sites for each wireless carrier? If you point me to it I > will try to calculate the subscribers per cell site for each carrier and > post it here. You'd still be comparing Apples and Oranges as different carriers use different technologies at different frequencies. Good point. > > I have been looking at SEC filings, web sites, FCC, etc. but cannot find the > > number of cell sites for each carrier in total to compute the number of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You'd still be comparing Apples and Oranges as different carriers use > different technologies at different frequencies. > Adam could have a point though. The question is not who has the largest > subscriber base in sheer total numbers. Verizon does, but that is spread [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > compare them with the GSM, TDMA carriers, because the effective geographic > coverage by a cell site might be different. All good points. I've never seen numbers that identified ideal traffic metrics for the various protocols, and I would be suspect of any numbers that covered all protocols. Keeping this in mind, I do know that both Verizon and Nextel claim to serve areas of the country where about the same number of people reside and work (I want to say they both are in the 220 million range, IIRC), and I'm sure some of the others would claim a number that is close to this. Unless Verizon has built a lot of redundancy in to the network (meaning areas served by more than one tower), being the largest would seem to indicate that their customer density would be larger than at least Nextel's, and probably most of the others. >>Which company actually has the largest native coverage area? Verizon >>Wireless claims to be the "largest", but that could be subscriber count. I should have been more clear on this statement. I was wondering which wireless carrier has the largest native coverage *area* (meaning the most square miles covered by their own infrastructure, not and not thier roaming partners'). I would guess it would be between Verizon, Cingular, or AT&T... ==AD I read somewhere that the 1X upgrade doubled their voice capacity. Does this sound correct? If it is, all those new people coming to Verizon will be buying new 1X phones and most of the people leaving will probably be using older equipment. I think that Verizon is in the best position as far as customers and cap ex to keep expanding their network. That being said, there is a finite amount of spectrum which I think is going to be a catalyst to the next round of mergers. Any thoughts? > Let me pre curse what I'm about to say. I am a current > Verizon subscriber and have been so since 1997 when they were Cellular [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > there to what has been going on lately. I hope the above never > happens, but I suppose it is a possibility. > I read somewhere that the 1X upgrade doubled their voice capacity. Does > this sound correct? If it is, all those new people coming to Verizon will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there is a finite amount of spectrum which I think is going to be a catalyst > to the next round of mergers. Any thoughts? Verizon is ==> perceived <== as having the most coverage and best customer service. It alreday had a low churn rate, and is widely expected to be a "winner" from WLNP. I think we are all missing the point of the original question-- at what point (when?) will an increase in the # of subs degrade the VZW network? > > I read somewhere that the 1X upgrade doubled their voice capacity. Does > > this sound correct? If it is, all those new people coming to Verizon will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > customer service. It alreday had a low churn rate, and is widely > expected to be a "winner" from WLNP. > I think we are all missing the point of the original question-- at what > point (when?) will an increase in the # of subs degrade the VZW network? Irrelevent question. Verizon has 4 Billion dollars budgeted for 2004 for Cellular Infrastructure improvements. So you're talking about a moving target. > > I think we are all missing the point of the original question-- at what > > point (when?) will an increase in the # of subs degrade the VZW network? > > Irrelevent question. Verizon has 4 Billion dollars budgeted for > 2004 for Cellular Infrastructure improvements. So you're talking about a > moving target. Don't you mean that the coverage is a moving target? :-) With the cell shrinking effect of CDMA, every extra user that makes a call with his phone will cause the coverage area to shrink a little more. The people in the cities will not notice a difference, but the people on the fringe areas will definitely notice. On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:10:44 GMT, ",.·*`~ Adam ~`*·.," <i.hate@spammers.com> wrote: > I was just wondering if WLNP could really hurt Verizon in the >end. Verizon has consistently had the best Network out there for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >clients cause Verizon to dread what they have avoided all these years. >An overloaded network with customers concerned about dropped calls There's one really easy way for VZW to avoid this: DON'T OVERSELL THE SERVICE! If they stop signing up new customers when the system's current capacity is reached, there'll be no problem.  Signaturehttp://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ The network is NOWHERE near capacity though! And when certain areas begin to hit a level where service begins to deteriorate.. Verizon can go in and add another CDMA Carrier, or increase the backhaul to allow CDMA to connect more calls. > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:10:44 GMT, ",.?*`~ Adam ~`*?.," <i.hate@spammers.com> > wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If they stop signing up new customers when the system's current capacity is > reached, there'll be no problem. > The network is NOWHERE near capacity though! And when certain areas begin to > hit a level where service begins to deteriorate.. Verizon can go in and add > another CDMA Carrier, You would think that they already have all the available spectrum partitioned out into CDMA carriers.. So, to add another CDMA carrier, you would have to get more spectrum, Or shut off the AMPS system on 800Mhz, which they can't do until 2008. >or increase the backhaul to allow CDMA to connect more > calls. When you do that, the loading will make the coverage look more like a poke-a-dot shirt than a solid map, as a result of cell shrinking. |
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.