I have to disagree with this, too. While I usually disagree with Samab views for Verizon and against AT&T you can hold a conversation with him, he actually comprehends what you write even if he doesn’t agree with it, he never flips his position when he feels cornered, and he defends his PoV well with specific details and links to sites to support his view. I would think Samab would be insulted by such a comment. I know I would be.
I think you're giving him a little too much credit. He's obviously an "interested" party with a CDMA axe to grind and his arguments are often entirely disingenuous, and usually misleading. For example, his repeated claims in these forums that choice of a single technology standard in Europe's wireless industry was a "failure" because of technical flaws of GSM, when in fact, the problems experienced by Europe's wireless carriers in recent years had absolutely nothing to do with GSM. Yes, it's true they chose a single technology standard. Yes, it's true that wireless carriers in Europe have experienced some financial difficulties in recent years. But the 2 facts are not causally connected, and there's no way someone with samab's knowledge of the industry didn't know that, yet he continued to imply that it was the case.
So, basically, anything you read from samab should be examined very carefully because it's quite likely that he's manipulating and obfuscating the facts, and only telling part of the story or rewriting the story.
For at&t, if you're using 3G, both voice AND data go over 3G at the same time, thus reducing the spectrum dedicated for data (voice always has a higher priority than data, and sucks a lot of resources given its "real time / always on" needs, unlike data), so in real life Verizon's 3G speeds kick ass vs. at&t's, it's as simple as that.
This is continuously being improved. That is the purpose of upgrading to HSPA. It sends larger packets of information and is more efficient than UTMS. More information can be sent out faster.
AT&T is switching its HSPA to the 850Mhz spectrum that provides better coverage.
Quote:
One last thing people don't look at here: RADIO SPECTRUM. Even if HSPA is theoretically slightly faster than EVDO, it all boils down to how much spectrum at&t owns vs. how much spectrum Verizon owns..
They both own ample spectrum,this isn't a problem for either.
It's not enough to prove that the statement is factually correct. Verizon will also have to prove that they didn't mislead customers. By using white space and identifying it in their key as 'no coverage', and by implying in their ads (such as the misfit toys ad) that the iPhone is worthless in most of the country, they're on pretty shaky grounds. AT&T could win this one.
No, AT&T is suing --- they are the party that has to prove its case.
It's not like Americans are having the cell phone for the first time ever in their lives. It's not like the typical iphone users are the uneducated masses.
I think you're giving him a little too much credit. He's obviously an "interested" party with a CDMA axe to grind and his arguments are often entirely disingenuous, and usually misleading. For example, his repeated claims in these forums that choice of a single technology standard in Europe's wireless industry was a "failure" because of technical flaws of GSM, when in fact, the problems experienced by Europe's wireless carriers in recent years had absolutely nothing to do with GSM. Yes, it's true they chose a single technology standard. Yes, it's true that wireless carriers in Europe have experienced some financial difficulties in recent years. But the 2 facts are not causally connected, and there's no way someone with samab's knowledge of the industry didn't know that, yet he continued to imply that it was the case.
So, basically, anything you read from samab should be examined very carefully because it's quite likely that he's manipulating and obfuscating the facts, and only telling part of the story or rewriting the story.
Somehow, the technology heterogeneous USA is the land of the iphone, where people talk 4x as much as everybody else, that the average American sends 15 SMS per day, where the much hated AT&T provides the 3rd fastest iphone speed in the world, with the largest data allowance per month, with the 2nd cheapest iphone rate plans, where Qualcomm is the largest cell phone technology company in the world, where Verizon using dead end technology with zero economy of scales has the highest profit margin in the US, where Verizon nickel and diming has the highest consumer satisfaction in the industry, where the supposedly open GSM world has the iphone which is the most closed cell phone in the world....
It is not just 2 facts --- it's millions and millions of other facts combining.
So, basically, anything you read from samab should be examined very carefully because it's quite likely that he's manipulating and obfuscating the facts, and only telling part of the story or rewriting the story.
He certainly does throw around a lot of financial 'facts' as though he is an industry authority. Perhaps he is, but some of it does not seem to hold up well under scrutiny.
So far, he has pointedly avoided answering my prior post where I have pointed out actual financial facts (see post #93).
This is continuously being improved. That is the purpose of upgrading to HSPA. It sends larger packets of information and is more efficient than UTMS. More information can be sent out faster.
Not sure where you get your info from, but something tells me you're not an engineer. That much more efficient? Really? Based on what? Your crystal ball? So are you telling me that putting a Ferrari engine in my old VW Beetle will let me go as fast as a Ferrari? That's where people get misled here, there are many other factor than just the technology. Main reasons why this is a bunch of crap: size of cells / spectrum available per cell / number of simultaneous users per cell / handoffs between cells are the main reasons why the quality rocks or sucks. at&t's major culprits: where they have 3G, they have way too large cells (to keep it cheap), so the cells naturally shrink (cell exhaustion) due to the fact that they get overcrowded, and the direct effect is degraded quality and poor handoffs between cells. It's not just HSPA that will save the day, it's how they engineer their network that matters the most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
AT&T is switching its HSPA to the 850Mhz spectrum that provides better coverage.
Not better coverage in term of throughput, the Shannon-Hartley law remains the same whether you're at 850MHz or 1,900MHz or any frequency for that matter, lower freqs like 850MHz simply help increasing the size of the cells, better propagation/penetration since lower frequency. By the way, note that it helps them have bigger cells, in other words less cells to cover the same area... It makes the cost of coverage for them cheaper, not better! And I just told you what it leads to. Kudos at&t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
They both own ample spectrum,this isn't a problem for either.
That, my friend, you don't know. At the game of who owns the most spectrum, there is a clear winner between at&t and Verizon, I'll let you find out who...
On a side note, I don't get why people need to defend at&t so much. The iPhone is a great phone, and we're not complaining about it, but the at&t 3G coverage is a joke, it's a fact. In 3G markets where both at&t and T-Mobile are present, my peers on T-Mobile / Android have better 3G coverage and better throughput than me! And they're both UMTS/HSPA, I won't even mention what kind of throughput folks on Verizon's Droid get, so don't tell me I'm a Verizon fanboy...
He certainly does throw around a lot of financial 'facts' as though he is an industry authority. Perhaps he is, but some of it does not seem to hold up well under scrutiny.
So far, he has pointedly avoided answering my prior post where I have pointed out actual financial facts (see post #93).
Well, none of it holds up under scrutiny, samab throws around a bunch of facts, uses a lot of technical jargon, then slips in a plausible but misleading conclusion, seemingly based on the facts. But, if you actually take the time to investigate his conclusions, or the set of facts he presents, you will often find that there is a complete disconnect between the facts and the conclusion, or the facts have no relationship to each other at all beyond coincidence. He's clearly a shill, getting paid to post here.
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.
(A) It means Verizon without the iphone is better than AT&T with the iphone.
(B) Verizon loaded up its debt for one specific reason --- Verizon doesn't want to give a Verizon Wireless dividend to Vodafone (a 45% owner of VZW). Basically, Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on network build-out and building up Alltel. As long as VZW is loaded with debt, it ain't going to be a single cent in dividend to Vodafone. Verizon finalized its Alltel merger in January 2009 and Verizon had no problem accessing the debt market for $22 billions for the Alltel merger during the worst economic crisis since the depression era. And your talk about Verizon having difficulties in accessing the debt market just doesn't fly.
(C) Verizon share comes with a higher P/E ratio than AT&T --- which means that it's the exact opposite of what you said. Verizon share is pricier than AT&T and won't suffer dilation as much as AT&T.
(D) Verizon isn't afraid of spending money on capex --- like their $22+ billion investment on FIOS. Wall Street was concerned at that number initially, but nobody is laughing anymore. Verizon is willing to make big technology bets --- Verizon's initial 3G national build-out (vs AT&T 6 city build-out as part of DoCoMo investment), their FIOS build-out, their LTE build-out.... And all the history has indicated that they know what they are doing.
(E) Wall Street doesn't agree with you --- see the P/E ratios.
(A) It means Verizon without the iphone is better than AT&T with the iphone.
(B) Verizon loaded up its debt for one specific reason --- Verizon doesn't want to give a Verizon Wireless dividend to Vodafone (a 45% owner of VZW). Basically, Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on network build-out and building up Alltel. As long as VZW is loaded with debt, it ain't going to be a single cent in dividend to Vodafone. Verizon finalized its Alltel merger in January 2009 and Verizon had no problem accessing the debt market for $22 billions for the Alltel merger during the worst economic crisis since the depression era. And your talk about Verizon having difficulties in accessing the debt market just doesn't fly.
(C) Verizon share comes with a higher P/E ratio than AT&T --- which means that it's the exact opposite of what you said. Verizon share is pricier than AT&T and won't suffer dilation as much as AT&T.
(D) Verizon isn't afraid of spending money on capex --- like their $22+ billion investment on FIOS. Wall Street was concerned at that number initially, but nobody is laughing anymore. Verizon is willing to make big technology bets --- Verizon's initial 3G national build-out (vs AT&T 6 city build-out as part of DoCoMo investment), their FIOS build-out, their LTE build-out.... And all the history has indicated that they know what they are doing.
(E) Wall Street doesn't agree with you --- see the P/E ratios.
There you go, FUD-ing again.
(A) No, it does not. It proves nothing, other than the fact that you could not understand an elementary argument I made.
(B) You seem unable to read what I wrote, and seem to see what I didn't: I did not say that Verizon will have 'difficulties.' I made a point about debt capacity. If you think that greater debt capacity does not come with lower cost of debt, you don't know the basics on that front. Moreover, it was all in specific response to an utterly unsubstantiated comment on your part, where you said that Verizon has "more financial muscle".
(C) The P/E ratio to focus on is the forward P/E ratio, not the current (any idea why?). Verizon's forward P/E is 12.1. ATT's 11.7. That is an irrelevant difference - basically, they have the same P/E.
(D) To repeat, you seem unable to read what I wrote, and seem to see what I didn't say -- at some point, it begins to sound like willful misrepresentation, and that's not cool: I said nowhere that Verizon is 'afraid' to do anything. I simply said that their capex needs are likely to be greater (for reasons I also spelt out), a point you have not rebutted.
(E) Points (A)-(D) above tell us all we need to know about your knowledge of Wall Street.
(A) No, it does not. It proves nothing, other than the fact that you could not understand an elementary argument I made.
(B) You seem unable to read what I wrote, and seem to see what I didn't: I did not say that Verizon will have 'difficulties.' I made a point about debt capacity. If you think that greater debt capacity does not come with lower cost of debt, you don't know the basics on that front. Moreover, it was all in specific response to an utterly unsubstantiated comment on your part, where you said that Verizon has "more financial muscle".
(C) The P/E ratio to focus on is the forward P/E ratio, not the current (any idea why?). Verizon's forward P/E is 12.1. ATT's 11.7. That is an irrelevant difference - basically, they have the same P/E.
(D) To repeat, you seem unable to read what I wrote, and seem to see what I didn't say -- at some point, it begins to sound like willful misrepresentation, and that's not cool: I said nowhere that Verizon is 'afraid' to do anything. I simply said that their capex needs are likely to be greater (for reasons I also spelt out), a point you have not rebutted.
(E) Points (A)-(D) above tell us all we need to know about your knowledge of Wall Street.
(A) You disagree with my comment, fine. But you haven't shown any reason to support your side of the story either.
(B) All the big money items are gone --- the FIOS build-out, the Alltel merger. And Verizon Wireless intends to pay down all of its debt in 2 years.
(C) It's a much more meaningful than your argument --- which doesn't even have a basis on why it would dilute Verizon more to raise money. If there is a secondary offering, Verizon can obtain more money and dilute less --- just because they have a higher P/E ratio.
(D) You have to spend money to make money. Even iphone fanbois are saying that AT&T should stop paying their lawyers' bills and use that money on network build-out. Verizon has no problem with spending vast amounts of money on technology build-outs, so that they can maintain their premium networks to charge premium prices.
Up until AT&T got the iPhone, they were considered one of the worst wireless servers. I don't think Verizon's ads should be taken off; They are competitive companies and therefore they need to continue to outshine the other. It's Verizons loss for not taking the offer of the iPhone because it sure would have given them way more business. Because more people are demanding the iPhone, Verizon is focusing on their coverage rather than just the phone itself.
Comments
I just realized samab = teckstud.
I have to disagree with this, too. While I usually disagree with Samab views for Verizon and against AT&T you can hold a conversation with him, he actually comprehends what you write even if he doesn’t agree with it, he never flips his position when he feels cornered, and he defends his PoV well with specific details and links to sites to support his view. I would think Samab would be insulted by such a comment. I know I would be.
I think you're giving him a little too much credit. He's obviously an "interested" party with a CDMA axe to grind and his arguments are often entirely disingenuous, and usually misleading. For example, his repeated claims in these forums that choice of a single technology standard in Europe's wireless industry was a "failure" because of technical flaws of GSM, when in fact, the problems experienced by Europe's wireless carriers in recent years had absolutely nothing to do with GSM. Yes, it's true they chose a single technology standard. Yes, it's true that wireless carriers in Europe have experienced some financial difficulties in recent years. But the 2 facts are not causally connected, and there's no way someone with samab's knowledge of the industry didn't know that, yet he continued to imply that it was the case.
So, basically, anything you read from samab should be examined very carefully because it's quite likely that he's manipulating and obfuscating the facts, and only telling part of the story or rewriting the story.
I just realized samab = teckstud.
I am all that and a bag of hurt too.
There is no iphone profit.
Apple is spending the money that was supposed to be spent on network build-up --- on iphone subsidies.
For at&t, if you're using 3G, both voice AND data go over 3G at the same time, thus reducing the spectrum dedicated for data (voice always has a higher priority than data, and sucks a lot of resources given its "real time / always on" needs, unlike data), so in real life Verizon's 3G speeds kick ass vs. at&t's, it's as simple as that.
This is continuously being improved. That is the purpose of upgrading to HSPA. It sends larger packets of information and is more efficient than UTMS. More information can be sent out faster.
AT&T is switching its HSPA to the 850Mhz spectrum that provides better coverage.
One last thing people don't look at here: RADIO SPECTRUM. Even if HSPA is theoretically slightly faster than EVDO, it all boils down to how much spectrum at&t owns vs. how much spectrum Verizon owns..
They both own ample spectrum,this isn't a problem for either.
It's not enough to prove that the statement is factually correct. Verizon will also have to prove that they didn't mislead customers. By using white space and identifying it in their key as 'no coverage', and by implying in their ads (such as the misfit toys ad) that the iPhone is worthless in most of the country, they're on pretty shaky grounds. AT&T could win this one.
No, AT&T is suing --- they are the party that has to prove its case.
It's not like Americans are having the cell phone for the first time ever in their lives. It's not like the typical iphone users are the uneducated masses.
I think you're giving him a little too much credit. He's obviously an "interested" party with a CDMA axe to grind and his arguments are often entirely disingenuous, and usually misleading. For example, his repeated claims in these forums that choice of a single technology standard in Europe's wireless industry was a "failure" because of technical flaws of GSM, when in fact, the problems experienced by Europe's wireless carriers in recent years had absolutely nothing to do with GSM. Yes, it's true they chose a single technology standard. Yes, it's true that wireless carriers in Europe have experienced some financial difficulties in recent years. But the 2 facts are not causally connected, and there's no way someone with samab's knowledge of the industry didn't know that, yet he continued to imply that it was the case.
So, basically, anything you read from samab should be examined very carefully because it's quite likely that he's manipulating and obfuscating the facts, and only telling part of the story or rewriting the story.
Somehow, the technology heterogeneous USA is the land of the iphone, where people talk 4x as much as everybody else, that the average American sends 15 SMS per day, where the much hated AT&T provides the 3rd fastest iphone speed in the world, with the largest data allowance per month, with the 2nd cheapest iphone rate plans, where Qualcomm is the largest cell phone technology company in the world, where Verizon using dead end technology with zero economy of scales has the highest profit margin in the US, where Verizon nickel and diming has the highest consumer satisfaction in the industry, where the supposedly open GSM world has the iphone which is the most closed cell phone in the world....
It is not just 2 facts --- it's millions and millions of other facts combining.
So, basically, anything you read from samab should be examined very carefully because it's quite likely that he's manipulating and obfuscating the facts, and only telling part of the story or rewriting the story.
He certainly does throw around a lot of financial 'facts' as though he is an industry authority. Perhaps he is, but some of it does not seem to hold up well under scrutiny.
So far, he has pointedly avoided answering my prior post where I have pointed out actual financial facts (see post #93).
This is continuously being improved. That is the purpose of upgrading to HSPA. It sends larger packets of information and is more efficient than UTMS. More information can be sent out faster.
Not sure where you get your info from, but something tells me you're not an engineer. That much more efficient? Really? Based on what? Your crystal ball? So are you telling me that putting a Ferrari engine in my old VW Beetle will let me go as fast as a Ferrari? That's where people get misled here, there are many other factor than just the technology. Main reasons why this is a bunch of crap: size of cells / spectrum available per cell / number of simultaneous users per cell / handoffs between cells are the main reasons why the quality rocks or sucks. at&t's major culprits: where they have 3G, they have way too large cells (to keep it cheap), so the cells naturally shrink (cell exhaustion) due to the fact that they get overcrowded, and the direct effect is degraded quality and poor handoffs between cells. It's not just HSPA that will save the day, it's how they engineer their network that matters the most.
AT&T is switching its HSPA to the 850Mhz spectrum that provides better coverage.
Not better coverage in term of throughput, the Shannon-Hartley law remains the same whether you're at 850MHz or 1,900MHz or any frequency for that matter, lower freqs like 850MHz simply help increasing the size of the cells, better propagation/penetration since lower frequency. By the way, note that it helps them have bigger cells, in other words less cells to cover the same area... It makes the cost of coverage for them cheaper, not better! And I just told you what it leads to. Kudos at&t.
They both own ample spectrum,this isn't a problem for either.
That, my friend, you don't know. At the game of who owns the most spectrum, there is a clear winner between at&t and Verizon, I'll let you find out who...
On a side note, I don't get why people need to defend at&t so much. The iPhone is a great phone, and we're not complaining about it, but the at&t 3G coverage is a joke, it's a fact. In 3G markets where both at&t and T-Mobile are present, my peers on T-Mobile / Android have better 3G coverage and better throughput than me! And they're both UMTS/HSPA, I won't even mention what kind of throughput folks on Verizon's Droid get, so don't tell me I'm a Verizon fanboy...
He certainly does throw around a lot of financial 'facts' as though he is an industry authority. Perhaps he is, but some of it does not seem to hold up well under scrutiny.
So far, he has pointedly avoided answering my prior post where I have pointed out actual financial facts (see post #93).
Well, none of it holds up under scrutiny, samab throws around a bunch of facts, uses a lot of technical jargon, then slips in a plausible but misleading conclusion, seemingly based on the facts. But, if you actually take the time to investigate his conclusions, or the set of facts he presents, you will often find that there is a complete disconnect between the facts and the conclusion, or the facts have no relationship to each other at all beyond coincidence. He's clearly a shill, getting paid to post here.
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.
(A) It means Verizon without the iphone is better than AT&T with the iphone.
(B) Verizon loaded up its debt for one specific reason --- Verizon doesn't want to give a Verizon Wireless dividend to Vodafone (a 45% owner of VZW). Basically, Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on network build-out and building up Alltel. As long as VZW is loaded with debt, it ain't going to be a single cent in dividend to Vodafone. Verizon finalized its Alltel merger in January 2009 and Verizon had no problem accessing the debt market for $22 billions for the Alltel merger during the worst economic crisis since the depression era. And your talk about Verizon having difficulties in accessing the debt market just doesn't fly.
(C) Verizon share comes with a higher P/E ratio than AT&T --- which means that it's the exact opposite of what you said. Verizon share is pricier than AT&T and won't suffer dilation as much as AT&T.
(D) Verizon isn't afraid of spending money on capex --- like their $22+ billion investment on FIOS. Wall Street was concerned at that number initially, but nobody is laughing anymore. Verizon is willing to make big technology bets --- Verizon's initial 3G national build-out (vs AT&T 6 city build-out as part of DoCoMo investment), their FIOS build-out, their LTE build-out.... And all the history has indicated that they know what they are doing.
(E) Wall Street doesn't agree with you --- see the P/E ratios.
(A) It means Verizon without the iphone is better than AT&T with the iphone.
(B) Verizon loaded up its debt for one specific reason --- Verizon doesn't want to give a Verizon Wireless dividend to Vodafone (a 45% owner of VZW). Basically, Verizon is spending Vodafone's money on network build-out and building up Alltel. As long as VZW is loaded with debt, it ain't going to be a single cent in dividend to Vodafone. Verizon finalized its Alltel merger in January 2009 and Verizon had no problem accessing the debt market for $22 billions for the Alltel merger during the worst economic crisis since the depression era. And your talk about Verizon having difficulties in accessing the debt market just doesn't fly.
(C) Verizon share comes with a higher P/E ratio than AT&T --- which means that it's the exact opposite of what you said. Verizon share is pricier than AT&T and won't suffer dilation as much as AT&T.
(D) Verizon isn't afraid of spending money on capex --- like their $22+ billion investment on FIOS. Wall Street was concerned at that number initially, but nobody is laughing anymore. Verizon is willing to make big technology bets --- Verizon's initial 3G national build-out (vs AT&T 6 city build-out as part of DoCoMo investment), their FIOS build-out, their LTE build-out.... And all the history has indicated that they know what they are doing.
(E) Wall Street doesn't agree with you --- see the P/E ratios.
There you go, FUD-ing again.
(A) No, it does not. It proves nothing, other than the fact that you could not understand an elementary argument I made.
(B) You seem unable to read what I wrote, and seem to see what I didn't: I did not say that Verizon will have 'difficulties.' I made a point about debt capacity. If you think that greater debt capacity does not come with lower cost of debt, you don't know the basics on that front. Moreover, it was all in specific response to an utterly unsubstantiated comment on your part, where you said that Verizon has "more financial muscle".
(C) The P/E ratio to focus on is the forward P/E ratio, not the current (any idea why?). Verizon's forward P/E is 12.1. ATT's 11.7. That is an irrelevant difference - basically, they have the same P/E.
(D) To repeat, you seem unable to read what I wrote, and seem to see what I didn't say -- at some point, it begins to sound like willful misrepresentation, and that's not cool: I said nowhere that Verizon is 'afraid' to do anything. I simply said that their capex needs are likely to be greater (for reasons I also spelt out), a point you have not rebutted.
(E) Points (A)-(D) above tell us all we need to know about your knowledge of Wall Street.
There you go, FUD-ing again.
(A) No, it does not. It proves nothing, other than the fact that you could not understand an elementary argument I made.
(B) You seem unable to read what I wrote, and seem to see what I didn't: I did not say that Verizon will have 'difficulties.' I made a point about debt capacity. If you think that greater debt capacity does not come with lower cost of debt, you don't know the basics on that front. Moreover, it was all in specific response to an utterly unsubstantiated comment on your part, where you said that Verizon has "more financial muscle".
(C) The P/E ratio to focus on is the forward P/E ratio, not the current (any idea why?). Verizon's forward P/E is 12.1. ATT's 11.7. That is an irrelevant difference - basically, they have the same P/E.
(D) To repeat, you seem unable to read what I wrote, and seem to see what I didn't say -- at some point, it begins to sound like willful misrepresentation, and that's not cool: I said nowhere that Verizon is 'afraid' to do anything. I simply said that their capex needs are likely to be greater (for reasons I also spelt out), a point you have not rebutted.
(E) Points (A)-(D) above tell us all we need to know about your knowledge of Wall Street.
(A) You disagree with my comment, fine. But you haven't shown any reason to support your side of the story either.
(B) All the big money items are gone --- the FIOS build-out, the Alltel merger. And Verizon Wireless intends to pay down all of its debt in 2 years.
(C) It's a much more meaningful than your argument --- which doesn't even have a basis on why it would dilute Verizon more to raise money. If there is a secondary offering, Verizon can obtain more money and dilute less --- just because they have a higher P/E ratio.
(D) You have to spend money to make money. Even iphone fanbois are saying that AT&T should stop paying their lawyers' bills and use that money on network build-out. Verizon has no problem with spending vast amounts of money on technology build-outs, so that they can maintain their premium networks to charge premium prices.