Ok, but it's a statistical tie. Meaningless. Even T-Mobile barely squeaks past, statistically.
It's close in that particular survey, but there's a consistent pattern, across many surveys, of Verizon almost always coming in ahead of ATT (and behind T-Mobile).
Of course, the truly striking thing about that survey is how Sprint did.
"Customer care" means T-Mobile USA customers telephoned TMO customer care and complained by the network --- and then TMO gives them some extra free minutes for their trouble. That's why T-Mobile gets good survey scores.
At the end of the story in all of this both are about equal in revenues. They both are making money hand over fist.
You're an odd duck, Teno. When we discuss how the iPhone is doing in Europe, you're the first to say that sales/revenues don't matter, it's profit that counts. But when we move over to carriers, alluva sudden it's all about revenues? Uh-huh.
If you want to talk about profits with carriers, things like low churn and high ARPU really do matter quite a lot. Churn is a huge expense for carriers, and far as ARPU goes, obviously if you can pull more money out of the same number of customers, you increase revenue without increasing some of your associated costs... which is great for profits.
Quote:
I think this your perspective on the situation. I've never heard anyone call Verizon the king especially since ATT has the larger customer base. If anything Verizon is better at sqeezing more money from its customers.
Verizon's been called the king and a lot worse, actually... especially right after the four-way merger back in 2000 that created them. They were like Godzilla... a Godzilla that executes well.
In 2004, Cingular bought the old (and failing) ATT wireless, creating a counter-Godzilla, one that was a bit bigger, actually (it's nice when you can drop $41 billion to buy 21 million customers overnight).
But its also one that didn't execute quite as well. This is not just my opinion, there's even an interview with with past ATT CEO Stan Sigman lauding Verizon for how well they run their business, and setting them as the benchmark which ATT aspires to. It's a good read:
Now, despite that, VZW is certainly not perfect... their prepay offerings, as I've said, are weak, and their phone selection could be better. And no carrier is great in every single geographical area. But overall, VZW does execute very well, and in the carrier biz, execution certainly matters a very great deal. Just ask carriers who didn't, like Amp'd, or the old ATT wireless pre-Cingular. They either go under, or get bought out. It is a very rough business.
"Customer care" means T-Mobile USA customers telephoned TMO customer care and complained by the network --- and then TMO gives them some extra free minutes for their trouble. That's why T-Mobile gets good survey scores.
LOL, cynical. But partially true.
Honestly though, T-Mobile does do a really good job there, and has for years. Makes sense when you think about it... if you don't have the money to build the best network, at least spend a fraction of that to have the best CS. It's amazing how much of an effect very good or very bad CS can have on customer perceptions of your company, and T-Mobile, surprisingly, does quite well in net customer adds.
T-Mobile's churn is fairly high, though, but it'd be through the roof if they had the network they do plus Sprint's absolutely sheeite CS.
You're an odd duck, Teno. When we discuss how the iPhone is doing in Europe, you're the first to say that sales/revenues don't matter, it's profit that counts. But when we move over to carriers, alluva sudden it's all about revenues? Uh-huh.
No....actually I said the exact opposite. When we were discussing iPhone sales in Europe I was all about sales/revenues/new subscribers. What I said mattered less were sales projections.
Quote:
If you want to talk about profits with carriers, things like low churn and high ARPU really do matter quite a lot. Churn is a huge expense for carriers, and far as ARPU goes, obviously if you can pull more money out of the same number of customers, you increase revenue without increasing some of your associated costs... which is great for profits.
Yes they do matter. But you are taking a few points difference and attempting to inflate them into being bigger than the are. Just like the chart you posted. They average out to 98%. Statistically they are the same.
When the final sales/revenues don't put ATT and Verizon far apart.
Quote:
But its also one that didn't execute quite as well. This is not just my opinion, there's even an interview with with past ATT CEO Stan Sigman lauding Verizon for how well they run their business, and setting them as the benchmark which ATT aspires to. It's a good read:
Citing a 3 year old interview. A lot has happened since 2005.
No....actually I said the exact opposite. When we were discussing iPhone sales in Europe I was all about sales/revenues/new subscribers. What I said mattered less were sales projections.
Actually, when shown repeated news stories stating that the iPhone had missed its sales goals in Europe, you went into repeated spiels about how profit is what really mattered most. Basically, you denied that iPhone sales in Europe weren't good for the longest time, then finally sorta kinda acknowledged it while throwing up the profit argument. You probably still, deep down, want to believe that Apple is doing tres awesome in Europe.
But don't worry, they may finally, now that 3G is nearly here.
Quote:
Yes they do matter. But you are taking a few points difference and attempting to inflate them into being bigger than the are. Just like the chart you posted. They average out to 98%. Statistically they are the same.
When the final sales/revenues don't put ATT and Verizon far apart.
You continue to not really understand the wireless industry, or at least, to not want to understand it. \
Churn figures are stated the way they are (monthly figures) to minimize differences... if they were yearly or even quarterly figures, any average person viewing said churn rates would notice a pretty big difference. But one can get around this by actually doing the math... a 0.5% improvement in churn gives a carrier ATT/VZW's size 4-5 million more customers per year. Each $1 improvement in ARPU improves revenue by close to $1 billion per year. And both metrics have a big impact on a carrier's bottom line/profits.
These aren't by any stretch of the imagination negligible numbers, and you've already been informed of them, so I'm just going to assume that you're being willfully ignorant here.
Quote:
Citing a 3 year old interview. A lot has happened since 2005.
I guess if the CEO of ATT were contradicting me, I'd want to ignore/minimize what he had to say too.
But the fact is, he was right, and he's still right, because carriers don't change overnight or quickly... it takes years to significantly change how a big carrier operates (and to deploy significant new infrastructure nationally), and this assumes that you're successful in your bid for improvement. For example, Sprint has vowed for many years to improve their horrid CS, and, guess what? Their CS is still horrid, little if any improvement.
The metrics really haven't changed much since the interview... VZW still outperforms ATT in things like churn, same as they did 3 years ago. ATT still loses in things like JD Powers surveys and Consumer Reports nearly every time... same as they did 3 years ago. I would argue that the gap has narrowed a bit, but it continues most definitely to be there.
Oh, and let's not forget... Apple did offer the iPhone first to VZW, right? We will never get an official confirmation of that, but judging from the metrics, I have little doubt it's true. It certainly wouldn't have been hard for Apple to make CDMA and GSM versions of the same phone (and they likely will still)- even Motorola, the current dysfunctional class dunce among phonemakers, has been able to do that without much trouble.
In any case, there's really no reason to stick up for ATT in a 'they're Apple's buddy' sense... Apple is (rightfully) starting to ditch the single-carrier exclusive model, and there's a good chance that by this time next year, the iPhone will be officially available on multiple US carriers. Apparently the 'five-year exclusive' may not be, really.
In which case, ATT's performance (or lack thereof, depending where you live) won't be nearly as major an issue anymore, as far as US iPhone users are concerned (unless they forget about the 30-day trial period).
- - -
Anyhow, I am done with this thread, as I feel we are just repeating ourselves at this point. So Teno, you are welcome to the last word, FWIW. Lay some of that party-line thinking on us one mo' time.
Oh, and that is some scary-good combined native coverage:
Assuming federal approval, the merger will complete by year-end, and ATT will be #2.
Unless they were to buy T-Mobile or Sprint, but Deutsche Telekom has indicated they won't sell T-Mobile, and buying Sprint right now is like buying a boat anchor and throwing yourself overboard with it.
Plus Sprint is CDMA, ATT is GSM, and as Sprint and Nextel learned the hard way, technological incompatibility makes mergers even harder than they already are.
Oh, and that is some scary-good combined native coverage:
<image>
Assuming federal approval, the merger will complete by year-end, and ATT will be #2.
Unless they were to buy T-Mobile or Sprint, but Deutsche Telekom has indicated they won't sell T-Mobile, and buying Sprint right now is like buying a boat anchor and throwing yourself overboard with it.
Plus Sprint is CDMA, ATT is GSM, and as Sprint and Nextel learned the hard way, technological incompatibility makes mergers even harder than they already are.
That is pretty impressive coverage for the US. Surely they will advertise that fact and that they have the most subscribers, of course.
AT&T is only about an 11% increase to match them. While that is tougher than it looks it's also not unimaginable with their increased network coverage, faster speeds and impending 3G iPhone that probably won't work on T-Mobile's up and coming 3G network.
Except for getting T-Mobile, which is backed by Deutsche Telekom so it won't happen, I see no way for AT&T to buy it's way back into pole position with a single acquisition.
Actually, when shown repeated news stories stating that the iPhone had missed its sales goals in Europe, you went into repeated spiels about how profit is what really mattered most. Basically, you denied that iPhone sales in Europe weren't good for the longest time, then finally sorta kinda acknowledged it while throwing up the profit argument. You probably still, deep down, want to believe that Apple is doing tres awesome in Europe.
But don't worry, they may finally, now that 3G is nearly here.
I never said Apple was doing awesome in Europe, none of Apple's products have awesome sales in Europe. I always maintained that as long as the iPhone was making money for Apple and bringing in new subscribers for carriers (which it did do) everyone was mostly satisfied. Evidence of this is Apple becoming the 3rd largest seller of mobile handsets in the world, only offering one phone. Beating out many other manufacturers who have made many handsets for years.
What I acknowledged was that Apple limiting the iPhone to one carrier n 3 countries, limited sales. But of course they knew that would be the effect. I also acknowledged that Euro carriers charged too much for iPhone service. Once those prices started to go down, iPhone sales went up.
It was unrealistic to expect European sales to be like US sales.
Quote:
You continue to not really understand the wireless industry, or at least, to not want to understand it. \
Churn figures are stated the way they are (monthly figures) to minimize differences... if they were yearly or even quarterly figures, any average person viewing said churn rates would notice a pretty big difference. But one can get around this by actually doing the math... a 0.5% improvement in churn gives a carrier ATT/VZW's size 4-5 million more customers per year. Each $1 improvement in ARPU improves revenue by close to $1 billion per year. And both metrics have a big impact on a carrier's bottom line/profits.
These aren't by any stretch of the imagination negligible numbers, and you've already been informed of them, so I'm just going to assume that you're being willfully ignorant here.
It doesn't take a deep understanding of the mobile wireless industry to look at revenues/profits and see that ATT/VZW have been closely the same.
You want to highlight the minutia and ignore the end results because it does not support your argument.
Quote:
But the fact is, he was right, and he's still right, because carriers don't change overnight or quickly... it takes years to significantly change how a big carrier operates (and to deploy significant new infrastructure nationally), and this assumes that you're successful in your bid for improvement. For example, Sprint has vowed for many years to improve their horrid CS, and, guess what? Their CS is still horrid, little if any improvement.
Again you want to bog the discussion down in minutia without the final results.
Quote:
Anyhow, I am done with this thread, as I feel we are just repeating ourselves at this point. So Teno, you are welcome to the last word, FWIW. Lay some of that party-line thinking on us one mo' time.
I don't know why you are only pointing at me, others are saying much the same.
In 2004, Cingular bought the old (and failing) ATT wireless, creating a counter-Godzilla, one that was a bit bigger, actually (it's nice when you can drop $41 billion to buy 21 million customers overnight).
In 2008 Verizon drops $27 billion to buy 13.2 million customers overnight.
Is this good for AT&T customers? Will they have more competitive deals to get more subscribers to less Verizon's lead? I sure hope so.
I agree there is little room for AT&T to grow much further through acquisitions they will have to do it through competition. Which is good for AT&T customers and the whole industry in general.
Sigh. Don't know why I bother... talking to Teno is talkin' to a brick wall sometimes....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
blah blah blah, some revisionist history, some not
It was unrealistic to expect European sales to be like US sales.
Yup. But what was even more unrealistic was to expect that a product that the Euros didn't really want (2.5G, no MMS) at too high a price was going to sell in Europe at a US-pace.
Quote:
It doesn't take a deep understanding of the mobile wireless industry to look at revenues/profits and see that ATT/VZW have been closely the same.
Sigh. Teno, if revenues were all that mattered, then Nokia and Microsoft would be much better companies than Apple is. But Apple is the better company, so maybe, just maaaaybe, it's highly over-simplistic to point at similar revenues and go, "Ook ook, revenues same, companies must be just as good as each other, ook ook!"
And even the rough revenue parity will be gone once the VZW-Alltel merger completes. So, does the Alltel acquisition make Verizon a much better company, then? Or just a larger one?
If you understand the wireless industry at all (and I'm starting to have my doubts), acquisitions are a trade-off, actually, especially in the short-term. You gain coverage, but you can lose a lot in terms of execution, focus, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty/churn, and many other important things that won't be found on the revenue line of your SEC filing. Just ask Sprint-Nextel, they know.
Quote:
Again you want to bog the discussion down in minutia without the final results.
Again, what you know about the wireless industry would appear to be not much. It's not just revenues, it's how the business is run and how the companies get there. Is any company with revenues similar to Apple just as good as Apple? Nope.
Quote:
I don't know why you are only pointing at me, others are saying much the same.
If you're referring to Mel and Solip, they sound nothing like you, actually. I never get the feeling that I'm listening to some Apple/ATT press release when they post. \
It's close in that particular survey, but there's a consistent pattern, across many surveys, of Verizon almost always coming in ahead of ATT (and behind T-Mobile).
Of course, the truly striking thing about that survey is how Sprint did.
.
It's not striking to anyone who has had both T-mobile and Sprint. T-mo is cool, and Sprint had nightmarish customer service.
I agree there is little room for AT&T to grow much further through acquisitions they will have to do it through competition. Which is good for AT&T customers and the whole industry in general.
It's not striking to anyone who has had both T-mobile and Sprint. T-mo is cool, and Sprint had nightmarish customer service.
You're absolutely right. And it's scary to see that Sprint's nightmarish CS comes from the top, apparently... I remember reading an interview with Sprint's key CS guy (Vice-President of Customer something?), and it was pretty horrifying.
He took basically ZERO responsibility for Sprint's sh***y customer service, made absolutely no apologies for how they were performing, and basically had a "What me worry" attitude about it. No... accountability... WHATSOEVER.
With Dan Hesse in charge at Sprint now, one would hope that guy was one of the very first fired. Sprint's CS is an abomination, even by wireless industry standards, and until they can fix it and some of their other basics, WiMax and all the gee-whiz phones in the world won't really get them back on track. Plus, they've got potentially an even stronger competitor to deal with now, in the form of VZW-Alltel.
Increasingly, discussions about Sprint seem to revolve around not whether the company will be bought out, but when and by who. Hesse has some time to turn it around, but not much.
I agree there is little room for AT&T to grow much further through acquisitions they will have to do it through competition. Which is good for AT&T customers and the whole industry in general.
Yes, this could be good for AT&T customers, as it will likely make AT&T try harder, just like Avis, but hopefully, more successfully.
Comments
.
Ok, but it's a statistical tie. Meaningless. Even T-Mobile barely squeaks past, statistically.
It's close in that particular survey, but there's a consistent pattern, across many surveys, of Verizon almost always coming in ahead of ATT (and behind T-Mobile).
Of course, the truly striking thing about that survey is how Sprint did.
.
At the end of the story in all of this both are about equal in revenues. They both are making money hand over fist.
You're an odd duck, Teno. When we discuss how the iPhone is doing in Europe, you're the first to say that sales/revenues don't matter, it's profit that counts. But when we move over to carriers, alluva sudden it's all about revenues? Uh-huh.
If you want to talk about profits with carriers, things like low churn and high ARPU really do matter quite a lot. Churn is a huge expense for carriers, and far as ARPU goes, obviously if you can pull more money out of the same number of customers, you increase revenue without increasing some of your associated costs... which is great for profits.
I think this your perspective on the situation. I've never heard anyone call Verizon the king especially since ATT has the larger customer base. If anything Verizon is better at sqeezing more money from its customers.
Verizon's been called the king and a lot worse, actually... especially right after the four-way merger back in 2000 that created them. They were like Godzilla... a Godzilla that executes well.
In 2004, Cingular bought the old (and failing) ATT wireless, creating a counter-Godzilla, one that was a bit bigger, actually (it's nice when you can drop $41 billion to buy 21 million customers overnight).
But its also one that didn't execute quite as well. This is not just my opinion, there's even an interview with with past ATT CEO Stan Sigman lauding Verizon for how well they run their business, and setting them as the benchmark which ATT aspires to. It's a good read:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...tm?chan=search
Now, despite that, VZW is certainly not perfect... their prepay offerings, as I've said, are weak, and their phone selection could be better. And no carrier is great in every single geographical area. But overall, VZW does execute very well, and in the carrier biz, execution certainly matters a very great deal. Just ask carriers who didn't, like Amp'd, or the old ATT wireless pre-Cingular. They either go under, or get bought out. It is a very rough business.
.
"Customer care" means T-Mobile USA customers telephoned TMO customer care and complained by the network --- and then TMO gives them some extra free minutes for their trouble. That's why T-Mobile gets good survey scores.
LOL, cynical. But partially true.
Honestly though, T-Mobile does do a really good job there, and has for years. Makes sense when you think about it... if you don't have the money to build the best network, at least spend a fraction of that to have the best CS. It's amazing how much of an effect very good or very bad CS can have on customer perceptions of your company, and T-Mobile, surprisingly, does quite well in net customer adds.
T-Mobile's churn is fairly high, though, but it'd be through the roof if they had the network they do plus Sprint's absolutely sheeite CS.
.
You're an odd duck, Teno. When we discuss how the iPhone is doing in Europe, you're the first to say that sales/revenues don't matter, it's profit that counts. But when we move over to carriers, alluva sudden it's all about revenues? Uh-huh.
No....actually I said the exact opposite. When we were discussing iPhone sales in Europe I was all about sales/revenues/new subscribers. What I said mattered less were sales projections.
If you want to talk about profits with carriers, things like low churn and high ARPU really do matter quite a lot. Churn is a huge expense for carriers, and far as ARPU goes, obviously if you can pull more money out of the same number of customers, you increase revenue without increasing some of your associated costs... which is great for profits.
Yes they do matter. But you are taking a few points difference and attempting to inflate them into being bigger than the are. Just like the chart you posted. They average out to 98%. Statistically they are the same.
When the final sales/revenues don't put ATT and Verizon far apart.
But its also one that didn't execute quite as well. This is not just my opinion, there's even an interview with with past ATT CEO Stan Sigman lauding Verizon for how well they run their business, and setting them as the benchmark which ATT aspires to. It's a good read:
Citing a 3 year old interview. A lot has happened since 2005.
No....actually I said the exact opposite. When we were discussing iPhone sales in Europe I was all about sales/revenues/new subscribers. What I said mattered less were sales projections.
Actually, when shown repeated news stories stating that the iPhone had missed its sales goals in Europe, you went into repeated spiels about how profit is what really mattered most. Basically, you denied that iPhone sales in Europe weren't good for the longest time, then finally sorta kinda acknowledged it while throwing up the profit argument. You probably still, deep down, want to believe that Apple is doing tres awesome in Europe.
But don't worry, they may finally, now that 3G is nearly here.
Yes they do matter. But you are taking a few points difference and attempting to inflate them into being bigger than the are. Just like the chart you posted. They average out to 98%. Statistically they are the same.
When the final sales/revenues don't put ATT and Verizon far apart.
You continue to not really understand the wireless industry, or at least, to not want to understand it.
Churn figures are stated the way they are (monthly figures) to minimize differences... if they were yearly or even quarterly figures, any average person viewing said churn rates would notice a pretty big difference. But one can get around this by actually doing the math... a 0.5% improvement in churn gives a carrier ATT/VZW's size 4-5 million more customers per year. Each $1 improvement in ARPU improves revenue by close to $1 billion per year. And both metrics have a big impact on a carrier's bottom line/profits.
These aren't by any stretch of the imagination negligible numbers, and you've already been informed of them, so I'm just going to assume that you're being willfully ignorant here.
Citing a 3 year old interview. A lot has happened since 2005.
I guess if the CEO of ATT were contradicting me, I'd want to ignore/minimize what he had to say too.
But the fact is, he was right, and he's still right, because carriers don't change overnight or quickly... it takes years to significantly change how a big carrier operates (and to deploy significant new infrastructure nationally), and this assumes that you're successful in your bid for improvement. For example, Sprint has vowed for many years to improve their horrid CS, and, guess what? Their CS is still horrid, little if any improvement.
The metrics really haven't changed much since the interview... VZW still outperforms ATT in things like churn, same as they did 3 years ago. ATT still loses in things like JD Powers surveys and Consumer Reports nearly every time... same as they did 3 years ago. I would argue that the gap has narrowed a bit, but it continues most definitely to be there.
Oh, and let's not forget... Apple did offer the iPhone first to VZW, right? We will never get an official confirmation of that, but judging from the metrics, I have little doubt it's true. It certainly wouldn't have been hard for Apple to make CDMA and GSM versions of the same phone (and they likely will still)- even Motorola, the current dysfunctional class dunce among phonemakers, has been able to do that without much trouble.
In any case, there's really no reason to stick up for ATT in a 'they're Apple's buddy' sense... Apple is (rightfully) starting to ditch the single-carrier exclusive model, and there's a good chance that by this time next year, the iPhone will be officially available on multiple US carriers. Apparently the 'five-year exclusive' may not be, really.
In which case, ATT's performance (or lack thereof, depending where you live) won't be nearly as major an issue anymore, as far as US iPhone users are concerned (unless they forget about the 30-day trial period).
- - -
Anyhow, I am done with this thread, as I feel we are just repeating ourselves at this point. So Teno, you are welcome to the last word, FWIW. Lay some of that party-line thinking on us one mo' time.
.
http://rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...143357025/1002
.
Sry, one last thing:
http://rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...143357025/1002
.
That's a good one. It says what we've been trying to say, but with obviously more believability.
That's a good one. It says what we've been trying to say, but with obviously more believability.
Not sure what you mean there.
Anyhow, as of today, the deal looks official... VZW and Alltel came to terms:
http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...250880030/1002
Oh, and that is some scary-good combined native coverage:
Assuming federal approval, the merger will complete by year-end, and ATT will be #2.
Unless they were to buy T-Mobile or Sprint, but Deutsche Telekom has indicated they won't sell T-Mobile, and buying Sprint right now is like buying a boat anchor and throwing yourself overboard with it.
Plus Sprint is CDMA, ATT is GSM, and as Sprint and Nextel learned the hard way, technological incompatibility makes mergers even harder than they already are.
.
Not sure what you mean there.
Anyhow, as of today, the deal looks official... VZW and Alltel came to terms:
http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...250880030/1002
Oh, and that is some scary-good combined native coverage:
<image>
Assuming federal approval, the merger will complete by year-end, and ATT will be #2.
Unless they were to buy T-Mobile or Sprint, but Deutsche Telekom has indicated they won't sell T-Mobile, and buying Sprint right now is like buying a boat anchor and throwing yourself overboard with it.
Plus Sprint is CDMA, ATT is GSM, and as Sprint and Nextel learned the hard way, technological incompatibility makes mergers even harder than they already are.
That is pretty impressive coverage for the US. Surely they will advertise that fact and that they have the most subscribers, of course.
AT&T is only about an 11% increase to match them. While that is tougher than it looks it's also not unimaginable with their increased network coverage, faster speeds and impending 3G iPhone that probably won't work on T-Mobile's up and coming 3G network.
Except for getting T-Mobile, which is backed by Deutsche Telekom so it won't happen, I see no way for AT&T to buy it's way back into pole position with a single acquisition.Is this good for AT&T customers? Will they have more competitive deals to get more subscribers to less Verizon's lead? I sure hope so.
Actually, when shown repeated news stories stating that the iPhone had missed its sales goals in Europe, you went into repeated spiels about how profit is what really mattered most. Basically, you denied that iPhone sales in Europe weren't good for the longest time, then finally sorta kinda acknowledged it while throwing up the profit argument. You probably still, deep down, want to believe that Apple is doing tres awesome in Europe.
But don't worry, they may finally, now that 3G is nearly here.
I never said Apple was doing awesome in Europe, none of Apple's products have awesome sales in Europe. I always maintained that as long as the iPhone was making money for Apple and bringing in new subscribers for carriers (which it did do) everyone was mostly satisfied. Evidence of this is Apple becoming the 3rd largest seller of mobile handsets in the world, only offering one phone. Beating out many other manufacturers who have made many handsets for years.
What I acknowledged was that Apple limiting the iPhone to one carrier n 3 countries, limited sales. But of course they knew that would be the effect. I also acknowledged that Euro carriers charged too much for iPhone service. Once those prices started to go down, iPhone sales went up.
It was unrealistic to expect European sales to be like US sales.
You continue to not really understand the wireless industry, or at least, to not want to understand it.
Churn figures are stated the way they are (monthly figures) to minimize differences... if they were yearly or even quarterly figures, any average person viewing said churn rates would notice a pretty big difference. But one can get around this by actually doing the math... a 0.5% improvement in churn gives a carrier ATT/VZW's size 4-5 million more customers per year. Each $1 improvement in ARPU improves revenue by close to $1 billion per year. And both metrics have a big impact on a carrier's bottom line/profits.
These aren't by any stretch of the imagination negligible numbers, and you've already been informed of them, so I'm just going to assume that you're being willfully ignorant here.
It doesn't take a deep understanding of the mobile wireless industry to look at revenues/profits and see that ATT/VZW have been closely the same.
You want to highlight the minutia and ignore the end results because it does not support your argument.
But the fact is, he was right, and he's still right, because carriers don't change overnight or quickly... it takes years to significantly change how a big carrier operates (and to deploy significant new infrastructure nationally), and this assumes that you're successful in your bid for improvement. For example, Sprint has vowed for many years to improve their horrid CS, and, guess what? Their CS is still horrid, little if any improvement.
Again you want to bog the discussion down in minutia without the final results.
Anyhow, I am done with this thread, as I feel we are just repeating ourselves at this point. So Teno, you are welcome to the last word, FWIW. Lay some of that party-line thinking on us one mo' time.
I don't know why you are only pointing at me, others are saying much the same.
In 2004, Cingular bought the old (and failing) ATT wireless, creating a counter-Godzilla, one that was a bit bigger, actually (it's nice when you can drop $41 billion to buy 21 million customers overnight).
In 2008 Verizon drops $27 billion to buy 13.2 million customers overnight.
Is this good for AT&T customers? Will they have more competitive deals to get more subscribers to less Verizon's lead? I sure hope so.
I agree there is little room for AT&T to grow much further through acquisitions they will have to do it through competition. Which is good for AT&T customers and the whole industry in general.
blah blah blah, some revisionist history, some not
It was unrealistic to expect European sales to be like US sales.
Yup. But what was even more unrealistic was to expect that a product that the Euros didn't really want (2.5G, no MMS) at too high a price was going to sell in Europe at a US-pace.
It doesn't take a deep understanding of the mobile wireless industry to look at revenues/profits and see that ATT/VZW have been closely the same.
Sigh. Teno, if revenues were all that mattered, then Nokia and Microsoft would be much better companies than Apple is. But Apple is the better company, so maybe, just maaaaybe, it's highly over-simplistic to point at similar revenues and go, "Ook ook, revenues same, companies must be just as good as each other, ook ook!"
And even the rough revenue parity will be gone once the VZW-Alltel merger completes. So, does the Alltel acquisition make Verizon a much better company, then? Or just a larger one?
If you understand the wireless industry at all (and I'm starting to have my doubts), acquisitions are a trade-off, actually, especially in the short-term. You gain coverage, but you can lose a lot in terms of execution, focus, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty/churn, and many other important things that won't be found on the revenue line of your SEC filing. Just ask Sprint-Nextel, they know.
Again you want to bog the discussion down in minutia without the final results.
Again, what you know about the wireless industry would appear to be not much. It's not just revenues, it's how the business is run and how the companies get there. Is any company with revenues similar to Apple just as good as Apple? Nope.
I don't know why you are only pointing at me, others are saying much the same.
If you're referring to Mel and Solip, they sound nothing like you, actually. I never get the feeling that I'm listening to some Apple/ATT press release when they post.
.
It's close in that particular survey, but there's a consistent pattern, across many surveys, of Verizon almost always coming in ahead of ATT (and behind T-Mobile).
Of course, the truly striking thing about that survey is how Sprint did.
.
It's not striking to anyone who has had both T-mobile and Sprint. T-mo is cool, and Sprint had nightmarish customer service.
In 2008 Verizon drops $27 billion to buy 13.2 million customers overnight.
Turnabout is fair play, I guess.
Now we get to see if the merger hurts VZW's execution the way the ATT Wireless acquisition temporarily hurt Cingular back when they bought 'em.
.
I agree there is little room for AT&T to grow much further through acquisitions they will have to do it through competition. Which is good for AT&T customers and the whole industry in general.
Best thing you've said this whole thread. Agreed.
.
It's not striking to anyone who has had both T-mobile and Sprint. T-mo is cool, and Sprint had nightmarish customer service.
You're absolutely right. And it's scary to see that Sprint's nightmarish CS comes from the top, apparently... I remember reading an interview with Sprint's key CS guy (Vice-President of Customer something?), and it was pretty horrifying.
He took basically ZERO responsibility for Sprint's sh***y customer service, made absolutely no apologies for how they were performing, and basically had a "What me worry" attitude about it. No... accountability... WHATSOEVER.
With Dan Hesse in charge at Sprint now, one would hope that guy was one of the very first fired. Sprint's CS is an abomination, even by wireless industry standards, and until they can fix it and some of their other basics, WiMax and all the gee-whiz phones in the world won't really get them back on track. Plus, they've got potentially an even stronger competitor to deal with now, in the form of VZW-Alltel.
Increasingly, discussions about Sprint seem to revolve around not whether the company will be bought out, but when and by who. Hesse has some time to turn it around, but not much.
.
I agree there is little room for AT&T to grow much further through acquisitions they will have to do it through competition. Which is good for AT&T customers and the whole industry in general.
Yes, this could be good for AT&T customers, as it will likely make AT&T try harder, just like Avis, but hopefully, more successfully.