Verizon just doubled it's early cancellation fee to $350.
They've been caught skimming and falsifying charges on bandwidth usage [must be hidden deep in the fine print that says < 1kb == 1MB data transfer] and no matter how much they claim their 3G cover is that jack up on the rates is going to piss off large numbers of consumers, not to mention companies like Apple.
Business partners love nickel and diming --- because they get a cut on the revenue.
There are no pissing off large number of consumers --- Verizon remains at the top of the consumer satisfaction surveys and AT&T remains at the bottom.
AT&T data coverage DOES NOT mean AT&T data 3G coverage, the AT&T guys also include their legacy, low speed 2.5G GPRS/EDGE network on their version of the map. So Verizon is technically not lying, since they're doing a head to head comparison for 3G ONLY. Honestly, browsing on 2.5G is so painful, I kinda like the fact that Verizon is kicking AT&T's butt on those ads, may eventually make them speed up their HSPA and LTE rollouts (they CLEARLY need to).
The cost/benefit to them was negligible in lieu of moving to 4G. They could give a rat's ass about you getting better performance.
Precisely, the cost/benefit is negligible. You ain't going to get much better performance and you won't notice it on a cell phone.
Which means what? The cost/benefit is also negligible on 7.2 mbps and 14.4 mbps HSDPA upgrades. You ain't going to see much of a difference on a cell phone.
The whole wall street is wondering about that, isn't it?
Verizon's share price has been doing better than AT&T's share price since the iphone was launched 2 years ago.
I don't know if "The whole wall street" is wondering or not. Perhaps you know that.
More to the point, the fact that Verizon's share price is doing better ATT's since the iPhone says zilch. Zip. For all you know, without the iPhone, ATT's share price could have done much worse. Can you prove otherwise?
I don't know if "The whole wall street" is wondering or not. Perhaps you know that.
More to the point, the fact that Verizon's share price is doing better ATT's since the iPhone says zilch. Zip. For all you know, without the iPhone, ATT's share price could have done much worse. Can you prove otherwise?
It means that Verizon has more financial muscle to spend on their network build-outs.
I don't know if "The whole wall street" is wondering or not. Perhaps you know that.
More to the point, the fact that Verizon's share price is doing better ATT's since the iPhone says zilch. Zip. For all you know, without the iPhone, ATT's share price could have done much worse. Can you prove otherwise?
The market understands that Verizon is in a much better position to remain the largest Tier 1 in North America... Verizon has merged its entities way back, is a much better oiled machine, and has really, really deep pockets, while ATT (technically SBC) is a cluster f*** of companies smashed together: Cingular, ATT Wireless (Cingular Blue), SBC and all the other MaBells. A little history about this huge mess... http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/
It means that Verizon has more financial muscle to spend on their network build-outs.
OK, since I need to call it a day, it's time to call you on your FUD-based claims.
First, between Jan 2007 (when iPhone was announced) and now, ATT?s share price has fallen 24%. Verizon, during the same time, has fallen 20%. Hardly a statistically meaningful difference.
Second, ATT?s debt capacity is much higher than that of Verizon ? i.e., they can access the debt markets more easily and cheaply than Verizon: Debt-to-Mkt Cap is 47% for ATT compared to 73% for Verizon.
Three, when it comes to size of equity base, ATT?s market cap ($155B) is much higher than that of Verizon ($86B). In other words, for equivalent dollar amounts of equity raised (not that I would recommend that), ATT?s shareholders will suffer smaller dilution than Verizon?s.
Four, Verizon?s capex spending needs are likely to be far greater than that of ATT. Why? Verizon has an obsolete, largely lonely, technology (CDMA). ATT, being GSM, is far more pervasive around the world. In other words, Verizon?s growth can only come from newer technological investments and junking what it currently has. ATT?s can not only come from its newer investments, but it can also ride the existing infrastructure for much longer than ATT.
Bottom line: From an investment spending (and financing) standpoint, ATT is better positioned than Verizon.
Bottom line: From an investment spending (and financing) standpoint, ATT is better positioned than Verizon.
Verizon?s LTE build out will likely cost them a lot more than AT&T is spending on building up HSPA. it will likely be wrought with a lot more ?hiccups? compared to the better established HSPA protocols and may even have speed-to-power efficiency gains over LTE for many years to come. I really can?t wait to see the power consumption and radio sizes for LTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
Surely you realize that AT&T subsidizes iPhone, not Apple. Apple receives full profit from all iPhone sales. Hence the contract lock in.
Every single iPhone user paying at least $69/month, having less turn over rate, higher satisfaction level, beating Verizon is net ads last quarter, and the cost savings from not having to deal with any physical or call center tech support for the device. AT&t is surely spending a lot on their network, but that would have to have been spent anyway and it?s adding to the value of their company so it?s not like it?s a bad thing.
EDGE has a theoretical download speed of 384 kbps and a real life average speed of 150 kbps. Prince likes to exaggerate.
No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.
No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.
Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.
You may be onto something. Samab linked to an article that Verizon had completely updated it’s network to EVDO Rev. A. back in mid-2007, but that wouldn’t have included any of the Altell acquisition which didn’t take place until the beginning of this year. Did Altell have EVDO Rev. 0 still active?
edit: I have no idea how accurate this site is but it shows plenty of Rev. 0 sites dating after the supposed completion of Rev. A in mid 2007.
You may be onto something. Samab linked to an article that Verizon had completely updated it?s network to EVDO Rev. A. back in mid-2007, but that wouldn?t have included any of the Altell acquisition which didn?t take place until the beginning of this year. Did Altell have EVDO Rev. 0 still active?
edit: I have no idea how accurate this site is but it shows plenty of Rev. 0 sites dating after the supposed completion of Rev. A in mid 2007.
"However, Verizon still says on its website that for users ?in Mobile Broadband markets that do not yet have EV-DO Rev. A, you can expect download speeds of 400 to 700 Kbps and upload speeds of 60- to 80 Kbps.?
Not a question of fact! Verizon plainly states that it counts its low end EVDO as 3G but doesn't count EDGE, which allows it to portray maps that indicate AT&T does not have data service across much of the US, which is not true.
I'm not suggesting AT&T's service is flawless; I have a dead zone in my house. But Verizon is clearly lying, and doing so in a way that is completely unnecessary. It could easily just claim it has a broader 3G network, even one that covers 1.25x the population of AT&T's. But Verizon has to overstate its case, and lie in the process. That's bad form. Boo.
The thing is, Verizon is really just advertising the iPhone. You never advertise the competition. AT&T doesn't post ads about Verizon and the Droid or the Storm or whatever. Advertising your competition is almost always bad news. Of course, there are exceptions. The Get a Mac ads are effective because Apple is a 10% minority underdog in PCs.
But Verizon is bigger than AT&T and it doesn't have an iPhone to sell. So yapping about "there's a (m)app for that" and claiming that the iPhone doesn't work, when clearly it does, is really just bad marketing.
Its amazing that anyone can defend AT&T in this dispute.
Verizon clearly states in the ads "3G coverage". No ambiguity. Maps are accurate.
AT&T doesn't have a case. They need to improve their coverage. Coverage even in 3G areas is horrible. All they're doing is attracting more attention to how bad their coverage is. Trying to rationalize it in all sorts of confusing ways will not work. AT&T does not excel at marketing.
Their only hope is to highlite coverage improvements (if there really are any) and hang their hat on how superior the iPhone is. Otherwise they're toast.
I just realized samab = teckstud. Both make wild trollish assertions, call Prince Dan a liar over things that aren't even wrong, and happen to always show up in the same few minutes to post lots of comments all saying the same thing over and over again until it appears to be true.
Its amazing that anyone can defend Verizon in this dispute.
Verizon clearly states (in really tiny letters) in the ads "3G coverage" (while clearly insinuating that white space = no service). No (shame). Maps are accurate (geographically, but not for service, creating false assertions to confuse users).
Verizon doesn't have (an iPhone). They need to improve their (bargaining skills). Coverage even in 3G areas is (not flawless). All they're doing is attracting more attention to how bad their (phone selection) is. Trying to (demonize the iPhone) it in all sorts of confusing ways will not work. Verizon does not excel at marketing.
Their only hope is to highlight (phone) improvements (if there really are any) and hang their (head) over how superior the iPhone is. Otherwise they're (losing subscribers and failing to maintain profitability).
Comments
There is an upgrade available through ev-do rev B. South Korea's LG Telecom is upgrading their ev-do rev A network to rev B.
http://www.telecomskorea.com/beyond-3g-7381.html
Verizon chose not to upgrade.
The cost/benefit to them was negligible in lieu of moving to 4G. They could give a rat's ass about you getting better performance.
Verizon just doubled it's early cancellation fee to $350.
They've been caught skimming and falsifying charges on bandwidth usage [must be hidden deep in the fine print that says < 1kb == 1MB data transfer] and no matter how much they claim their 3G cover is that jack up on the rates is going to piss off large numbers of consumers, not to mention companies like Apple.
Business partners love nickel and diming --- because they get a cut on the revenue.
There are no pissing off large number of consumers --- Verizon remains at the top of the consumer satisfaction surveys and AT&T remains at the bottom.
There is no iphone profit.
Apple is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.
What does this mean!? Do you mean "ATT" in the second sentence?
In any event, how do you know? If you can point to something in their financials, that would help, for starters.
The cost/benefit to them was negligible in lieu of moving to 4G. They could give a rat's ass about you getting better performance.
Precisely, the cost/benefit is negligible. You ain't going to get much better performance and you won't notice it on a cell phone.
Which means what? The cost/benefit is also negligible on 7.2 mbps and 14.4 mbps HSDPA upgrades. You ain't going to see much of a difference on a cell phone.
In any event, how do you know? If you can point to something in their financials, that would help, for starters.
The whole wall street is wondering about that, isn't it?
Verizon's share price has been doing better than AT&T's share price since the iphone was launched 2 years ago.
The whole wall street is wondering about that, isn't it?
Verizon's share price has been doing better than AT&T's share price since the iphone was launched 2 years ago.
I don't know if "The whole wall street" is wondering or not. Perhaps you know that.
More to the point, the fact that Verizon's share price is doing better ATT's since the iPhone says zilch. Zip. For all you know, without the iPhone, ATT's share price could have done much worse. Can you prove otherwise?
I don't know if "The whole wall street" is wondering or not. Perhaps you know that.
More to the point, the fact that Verizon's share price is doing better ATT's since the iPhone says zilch. Zip. For all you know, without the iPhone, ATT's share price could have done much worse. Can you prove otherwise?
It means that Verizon has more financial muscle to spend on their network build-outs.
I don't know if "The whole wall street" is wondering or not. Perhaps you know that.
More to the point, the fact that Verizon's share price is doing better ATT's since the iPhone says zilch. Zip. For all you know, without the iPhone, ATT's share price could have done much worse. Can you prove otherwise?
The market understands that Verizon is in a much better position to remain the largest Tier 1 in North America... Verizon has merged its entities way back, is a much better oiled machine, and has really, really deep pockets, while ATT (technically SBC) is a cluster f*** of companies smashed together: Cingular, ATT Wireless (Cingular Blue), SBC and all the other MaBells. A little history about this huge mess... http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/955486/
It means that Verizon has more financial muscle to spend on their network build-outs.
What does that mean? What 'financial muscle'?
It means that Verizon has more financial muscle to spend on their network build-outs.
OK, since I need to call it a day, it's time to call you on your FUD-based claims.
First, between Jan 2007 (when iPhone was announced) and now, ATT?s share price has fallen 24%. Verizon, during the same time, has fallen 20%. Hardly a statistically meaningful difference.
Second, ATT?s debt capacity is much higher than that of Verizon ? i.e., they can access the debt markets more easily and cheaply than Verizon: Debt-to-Mkt Cap is 47% for ATT compared to 73% for Verizon.
Three, when it comes to size of equity base, ATT?s market cap ($155B) is much higher than that of Verizon ($86B). In other words, for equivalent dollar amounts of equity raised (not that I would recommend that), ATT?s shareholders will suffer smaller dilution than Verizon?s.
Four, Verizon?s capex spending needs are likely to be far greater than that of ATT. Why? Verizon has an obsolete, largely lonely, technology (CDMA). ATT, being GSM, is far more pervasive around the world. In other words, Verizon?s growth can only come from newer technological investments and junking what it currently has. ATT?s can not only come from its newer investments, but it can also ride the existing infrastructure for much longer than ATT.
Bottom line: From an investment spending (and financing) standpoint, ATT is better positioned than Verizon.
There is no iphone profit.
Apple is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.
Surely you realize that AT&T subsidizes iPhone, not Apple. Apple receives full profit from all iPhone sales. Hence the contract lock in.
Bottom line: From an investment spending (and financing) standpoint, ATT is better positioned than Verizon.
Verizon?s LTE build out will likely cost them a lot more than AT&T is spending on building up HSPA. it will likely be wrought with a lot more ?hiccups? compared to the better established HSPA protocols and may even have speed-to-power efficiency gains over LTE for many years to come. I really can?t wait to see the power consumption and radio sizes for LTE.
Surely you realize that AT&T subsidizes iPhone, not Apple. Apple receives full profit from all iPhone sales. Hence the contract lock in.
Every single iPhone user paying at least $69/month, having less turn over rate, higher satisfaction level, beating Verizon is net ads last quarter, and the cost savings from not having to deal with any physical or call center tech support for the device. AT&t is surely spending a lot on their network, but that would have to have been spent anyway and it?s adding to the value of their company so it?s not like it?s a bad thing.
But we are also talking about a piece written by Prince McLean --- who tends to not be that accurate on a lot of things.
Verizon finished their ev-do rev A overlay in 2007 --- not a single part of Verizon's network is on the older ev-do rev 0 technology.
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2007/...ev-a-overhaul/
EDGE has a theoretical download speed of 384 kbps and a real life average speed of 150 kbps. Prince likes to exaggerate.
No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.
Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.
No you are wrong. The previous article linked to Verizon's claim that it had upgraded EVDO to rev A, but Verizon's site still says (prominently) that some areas are still EVDO rev 0 and therefore about 40-200 kbps or something ridiculous. Go look at the site -- Prince Dan linked it for you.
Don't do personal attacks, check the facts.
You may be onto something. Samab linked to an article that Verizon had completely updated it’s network to EVDO Rev. A. back in mid-2007, but that wouldn’t have included any of the Altell acquisition which didn’t take place until the beginning of this year. Did Altell have EVDO Rev. 0 still active?
edit: I have no idea how accurate this site is but it shows plenty of Rev. 0 sites dating after the supposed completion of Rev. A in mid 2007.
You may be onto something. Samab linked to an article that Verizon had completely updated it?s network to EVDO Rev. A. back in mid-2007, but that wouldn?t have included any of the Altell acquisition which didn?t take place until the beginning of this year. Did Altell have EVDO Rev. 0 still active?
edit: I have no idea how accurate this site is but it shows plenty of Rev. 0 sites dating after the supposed completion of Rev. A in mid 2007.
From the article AT&T defends its data network from Verizon ad attacks
"However, Verizon still says on its website that for users ?in Mobile Broadband markets that do not yet have EV-DO Rev. A, you can expect download speeds of 400 to 700 Kbps and upload speeds of 60- to 80 Kbps.?
Not a question of fact! Verizon plainly states that it counts its low end EVDO as 3G but doesn't count EDGE, which allows it to portray maps that indicate AT&T does not have data service across much of the US, which is not true.
I'm not suggesting AT&T's service is flawless; I have a dead zone in my house. But Verizon is clearly lying, and doing so in a way that is completely unnecessary. It could easily just claim it has a broader 3G network, even one that covers 1.25x the population of AT&T's. But Verizon has to overstate its case, and lie in the process. That's bad form. Boo.
The thing is, Verizon is really just advertising the iPhone. You never advertise the competition. AT&T doesn't post ads about Verizon and the Droid or the Storm or whatever. Advertising your competition is almost always bad news. Of course, there are exceptions. The Get a Mac ads are effective because Apple is a 10% minority underdog in PCs.
But Verizon is bigger than AT&T and it doesn't have an iPhone to sell. So yapping about "there's a (m)app for that" and claiming that the iPhone doesn't work, when clearly it does, is really just bad marketing.
Verizon clearly states in the ads "3G coverage". No ambiguity. Maps are accurate.
AT&T doesn't have a case. They need to improve their coverage. Coverage even in 3G areas is horrible. All they're doing is attracting more attention to how bad their coverage is. Trying to rationalize it in all sorts of confusing ways will not work. AT&T does not excel at marketing.
Their only hope is to highlite coverage improvements (if there really are any) and hang their hat on how superior the iPhone is. Otherwise they're toast.
(False claims boldly made) .
I just realized samab = teckstud. Both make wild trollish assertions, call Prince Dan a liar over things that aren't even wrong, and happen to always show up in the same few minutes to post lots of comments all saying the same thing over and over again until it appears to be true.
Its amazing that anyone can defend Verizon in this dispute.
Verizon clearly states (in really tiny letters) in the ads "3G coverage" (while clearly insinuating that white space = no service). No (shame). Maps are accurate (geographically, but not for service, creating false assertions to confuse users).
Verizon doesn't have (an iPhone). They need to improve their (bargaining skills). Coverage even in 3G areas is (not flawless). All they're doing is attracting more attention to how bad their (phone selection) is. Trying to (demonize the iPhone) it in all sorts of confusing ways will not work. Verizon does not excel at marketing.
Their only hope is to highlight (phone) improvements (if there really are any) and hang their (head) over how superior the iPhone is. Otherwise they're (losing subscribers and failing to maintain profitability).
There, fixed that for you!