I think there is a good argument that using an obscure network technology that limits your access to the best phones on the market as the best long term plan.
The 4G transition should prove to be a challenge for VZW, it won't be straight forward and simple. For the next couple of years VZW will be split between its old network and a brand new untested network.
While in theory AT&T should have a smoother transition through HSPA+ to LTE. But history has shown VZW more competent at network build outs than AT&T. It'll be interesting to watch.
Every GSM fanbois think that having an obscure network technology would push Verizon's cost way up --- yet in reality, VZW has the highest gross profit margin in the wireless industry in the US.
The 4G transition shouldn't be too difficult for VZW --- Qualcomm is the largest patent holder in LTE.
There you go with Tracfone again. Tracfone is owned by a Mexican company named América Móvil and has nothing directly to do with AT&T.
Precisely --- I agree with you --- Tracfone has nothing to do with how AT&T is doing and how the iphone is doing. So why are you people lumping Tracfone's net add numbers into how AT&T and the iphone are doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Verizon wasn?t really "forward think? by going with EVDO and refusing the iPhone.
Why? Because EV-DO is a "dead end technology" that can't do voice/data at the same time. This issue is only coming up RIGHT NOW --- when Verizon Wiress is ready to migrate to 4G. Sounds pretty forward thinking to me --- because this issue never actually came up during the useful life of ev-do.
Verizon share price has held up better than AT&T share price for the last 2.5 years --- refusing the the iphone has been the correct call.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
AT&T is paying roughly $400 upfront subsidy for the iPhone. Over 24 months iPhone user is paying AT&T an average $2,160. How is AT&T not making money from this?
There is more than 1 way to make that money --- AT&T could have given you a zero dollar phone (that they subsidize for $75) and charge you $99 a month for unlimited voice.
The 4G transition shouldn't be too difficult for VZW --- Qualcomm is the largest patent holder in LTE.
So? The network isn?t going to snap into place simply because Qualcomm holds patents in CDMA and LTE. They have patents in WCDMA, too. Likely the most patents, that has nothing to do with compatibility.
Quote:
Why? Because EV-DO is a "dead end technology" that can't do voice/data at the same time. This issue is only coming up RIGHT NOW --- when Verizon Wiress is ready to migrate to 4G. Sounds pretty forward thinking to me --- because this issue never actually came up during the useful life of ev-do.
EVDO Rev. A can?t do simultaneous voice and data. EVDO Rev. B can, but Verizon and Sprint both saw that is a fruitless upgrade path. Sprint went with WiMAX foolishly and Verizon is going with LTE.
This issue has been on going since 3G was first introduced, not just now. THe difference is that AT&T wasn?t so bright about advertising this fact. Hell, even in their new ad where they lose the message when they make mention it.
4G isn?t going to be a player for several years. NTT DoMoCo won?t even have smartphones with LTE until 2011 and they are one of the most advanced mobile network in the world. They?ll be turning off all their 2G before Verizon even has an LTE phone on the market.
Quote:
Verizon share price has held up better than AT&T share price for the last 2.5 years --- refusing the the iphone has been the correct call.
AT&T would not have beat Verizon this last quarter had it not been for the iPhone. AT&T would not have less churn than Verizon had it not been for the iPhone. Verizon?s share price would have liekyl skyrocketed instead of just not sucking as much if they had the iPhone. Verizon?s CEO has stated that they want the iPhone.
Every GSM fanbois think that having an obscure network technology would push Verizon's cost way up --- yet in reality, VZW has the highest gross profit margin in the wireless industry in the US.
Does that fact that Verizon charges a lot of money for its service have anything to do with that?
Quote:
The 4G transition shouldn't be too difficult for VZW --- Qualcomm is the largest patent holder in LTE.
We shall see. You like to imbue VZW with supernatural ability to over come all challenges. Even VZW is loosing its still winning.
Quote:
Precisely --- I agree with you --- Tracfone has nothing to do with how AT&T is doing and how the iphone is doing. So why are you people lumping Tracfone's net add numbers into how AT&T and the iphone are doing.
What are you talking about? You are the one who brings up Tracfone, you are the one who says its apart of AT&T.
Quote:
Verizon share price has held up better than AT&T share price for the last 2.5 years --- refusing the the iphone has been the correct call.
Where would VZW be if it had taken the iPhone?
Quote:
There is more than 1 way to make that money --- AT&T could have given you a zero dollar phone (that they subsidize for $75) and charge you $99 a month for unlimited voice.
AT&T could have done that, but they didn't because it would make absolutely no sense.
Does that fact that Verizon charges a lot of money for its service have anything to do with that?
We shall see. You like to imbue VZW with supernatural ability to over come all challenges. Even VZW is loosing its still winning.
What are you talking about? You are the one who brings up Tracfone, you are the one who says its apart of AT&T.
Where would VZW be if it had taken the iPhone?
AT&T could have done that, but they didn't because it would make absolutely no sense.
You have to spend money to make money --- nothing wrong with that. Somehow, VZW subscribers are happy to pay premium fees and have the highest customer satisfaction rating at the same time.
I am not imbuing VZW with supernatural ability to overcome all challenges. This has nothing to do with VZW. It has everything to do with Qualcomm --- the world's largest mobile technology company in the world.
No, because you people kept on playing that AT&T is beating VZW's numbers by a mile (ie. AT&T's 2 million net adds vs. VZW's 1.2 million net adds) --- but you people forgot to tell others that 40% of the AT&T numbers are wholesale numbers (which is really Tracfone numbers). The real retail numbers are AT&T 1.2 million vs. VZW 1 million.
Why does it make no sense? (1) AT&T had to match VZW's $99 unlimited voice plan less than 2 days after VZW's announcement. (2) less subsidy and still get the same ARPU. So it makes sense for AT&T to pay massive amount of handset subsidy for the iphone, get the same ARPU as the $99 unlimited voice plan and your network gets trashed at the same time.
You have to spend money to make money --- nothing wrong with that. Somehow, VZW subscribers are happy to pay premium fees and have the highest customer satisfaction rating at the same time.
It?s not a mystery. It?s how things work in all areas of business. If your customers pay you can offer then more. Apple does the same thing with their products, mostly. If you call Apple Support about a Mac or and iPhone you?ll likely get an American. They have a worthy markup on their devices so they can do that.
Quote:
I am not imbuing VZW with supernatural ability to overcome all challenges. This has nothing to do with VZW. It has everything to do with Qualcomm --- the world's largest mobile technology company in the world.
Qualcomm has nothing to do with Verizon?s customer service.
Quote:
No, because you people kept on playing that AT&T is beating VZW's numbers by a mile (ie. AT&T's 2 million net adds vs. VZW's 1.2 million net adds) --- but you people forgot to tell others that 40% of the AT&T numbers are wholesale numbers (which is really Tracfone numbers). The real retail numbers are AT&T 1.2 million vs. VZW 1 million.
If you aren?t going to put Verizon?s numbers into perspective then don?t expect others to do so with AT&T has a win. For the quarter, AT&T beat Verizon in net ads. It shows that both are growing. Nothing more, nothing less. We?ll have to see AT&T continue for a few quarters to start seeing a distinct pattern of AT&T catching up to Verizon, though being first is pretty pointless, especially when each can buy a crap mobile company to leapfrog ahead of the other.
Quote:
Why does it make no sense? (1) AT&T had to match VZW's $99 unlimited voice plan less than 2 days after VZW's announcement. (2) less subsidy and still get the same ARPU. So it makes sense for AT&T to pay massive amount of handset subsidy for the iphone, get the same ARPU as the $99 unlimited voice plan and your network gets trashed at the same time.
It sounds like your indirectly saying that Verizon is simply better at screwing over their customers better than AT&T.
If you aren?t going to put Verizon?s numbers into perspective then don?t expect others to do so with AT&T has a win. For the quarter, AT&T beat Verizon in net ads. It shows that both are growing. Nothing more, nothing less. We?ll have to see AT&T continue for a few quarters to start seeing a distinct pattern of AT&T catching up to Verizon, though being first is pretty pointless, especially when each can buy a crap mobile company to leapfrog ahead of the other.
It sounds like your indirectly saying that Verizon is simply better at screwing over their customers better than AT&T.
I AM putting the numbers into perspective --- 2.5 years of net adds numbers and a significant amount of subscriber net adds came from the MVNO side. And the last quarter was an iphone launch full quarter --- that's perspective, isn't it?
Alltel was a well-run carrier with high ARPU customers --- VZW bought a good carrier. AT&T Wireless was a crappy carrier with actual net subscriber loss in 2003-2004 --- Cingular bought a crappy carrier.
Of course, I am saying that. This is a corporate businss discussion ---- and Verizon/AT&T have a different agenda than you the end user.
Again VZW is always right in everything it does, AT&T is wrong in everything it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Alltel was a well-run carrier with high ARPU customers --- VZW bought a good carrier. AT&T Wireless was a crappy carrier with actual net subscriber loss in 2003-2004 --- Cingular bought a crappy carrier.
You have to spend money to make money --- nothing wrong with that. Somehow, VZW subscribers are happy to pay premium fees and have the highest customer satisfaction rating at the same time.
You have to put consumer satisfaction in perspective. Consumers are happy with VZW service, they are not happy with VZW as a company.
Quote:
I am not imbuing VZW with supernatural ability to overcome all challenges. This has nothing to do with VZW. It has everything to do with Qualcomm --- the world's largest mobile technology company in the world.
Qualcomm has nothing to do with VZW business choices.
Quote:
No, because you people kept on playing that AT&T is beating VZW's numbers by a mile (ie. AT&T's 2 million net adds vs. VZW's 1.2 million net adds) --- but you people forgot to tell others that 40% of the AT&T numbers are wholesale numbers (which is really Tracfone numbers). The real retail numbers are AT&T 1.2 million vs. VZW 1 million.
Well that is simply a fact. You cannot ignore the success of the iPhone for AT&T. You certainly would like to ignore it because you don't want to give AT&T credit for anything.
Quote:
Why does it make no sense? (1) AT&T had to match VZW's $99 unlimited voice plan less than 2 days after VZW's announcement. (2) less subsidy and still get the same ARPU. So it makes sense for AT&T to pay massive amount of handset subsidy for the iphone, get the same ARPU as the $99 unlimited voice plan and your network gets trashed at the same time.
VZW wasn't the first to introduce $99 unlimited plans. Both VZW and AT&T were matching Sprint and T-Mobile.
In the long run AT&T is going to make back more revenue from each iPhone than it pays into the subsidy. You keep bringing up the subsidy as though AT&T does not charge a premium for the service.
You have to put consumer satisfaction in perspective. Consumers are happy with VZW service, they are not happy with VZW as a company.
Qualcomm has nothing to do with VZW business choices.
Well that is simply a fact. You cannot ignore the success of the iPhone for AT&T. You certainly would like to ignore it because you don't want to give AT&T credit for anything.
VZW wasn't the first to introduce $99 unlimited plans. Both VZW and AT&T were matching Sprint and T-Mobile.
In the long run AT&T is going to make back more revenue from each iPhone than it pays into the subsidy. You keep bringing up the subsidy as though AT&T does not charge a premium for the service.
Normal people don't have such artificial separation in terms of consumer satisfaction. Fanbois do have such artificial separation --- but the problem especially with the Apple fanbois is that some are Apple shareholders as well. And what's with not liking VZW as a company --- they are the first carrier to do nationalwide pro-rated ETF, and they aren't the company whose CEO (AT&T) who loudly proclaimed that Google should pay AT&T money to get faster service.
Qualcomm being historically a smaller company --- actually listens to their customers. Thus 10 years after 3G was launched across the world, the CDMA carriers still don't have idiotic technologies like video calling.
Those aren't excuses, those are small print hidden inside their SEC filings. AT&T Wireless beat VZW in retail net subscriber additions by 200K in a iphone launch full quarter --- I am giving them the credit right now.
Verizon Wireless was the FIRST carrier to do $99 unlimited voice, AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile followed within a couple of days.
Normal people don't have such artificial separation in terms of consumer satisfaction. Fanbois do have such artificial separation --- but the problem especially with the Apple fanbois is that some are Apple shareholders as well. And what's with not liking VZW as a company --- they are the first carrier to do nationalwide pro-rated ETF, and they aren't the company whose CEO (AT&T) who loudly proclaimed that Google should pay AT&T money to get faster service.
Qualcomm being historically a smaller company --- actually listens to their customers. Thus 10 years after 3G was launched across the world, the CDMA carriers still don't have idiotic technologies like video calling.
Those aren't excuses, those are small print hidden inside their SEC filings. AT&T Wireless beat VZW in retail net subscriber additions by 200K in a iphone launch full quarter --- I am giving them the credit right now.
Verizon Wireless was the FIRST carrier to do $99 unlimited voice, AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile followed within a couple of days.
In the long run, Verizon charges the same price as AT&T without the iphone handset subsidy.
You really like that "fanboi" formulation, don't you? I notice that you've also decided that anyone that doesn't share your enthusiasm for Verizon is a "GSM fanboy", which is actually comical, in a pathetic sort of way.
In general, relying on painting people who disagree with you as fanbois suggests that your arguments and mind are weak. Which is ironic, in that you appear to be one of the more slavishly devoted to particular technologies/brands posters around here.
But I wouldn't care to speculate what that makes you.
Again VZW is always right in everything it does, AT&T is wrong in everything it does.
I didn't say that.
But it is a fact that the old AT&T Wireless was a massive business failure --- actually losing subscribers (like Sprint has been doing in the last year or so).
You really like that "fanboi" formulation, don't you? I notice that you've also decided that anyone that doesn't share your enthusiasm for Verizon is a "GSM fanboy", which is actually comical, in a pathetic sort of way.
In general, relying on painting people who disagree with you as fanbois suggests that your arguments and mind are weak. Which is ironic, in that you appear to be one of the more slavishly devoted to particular technologies/brands posters around here.
But I wouldn't care to speculate what that makes you.
There has to be some sort of evidence supporting their claim.
VZW became the first carrier to do nationwide pro-rated ETF --- wow, normal Americans really hate VZW.
AT&T CEO loudly started the war against network neutrality by suggesting that Google should pay more money to get faster service --- wow, normal Americans really love AT&T.
Normal people don't have such artificial separation in terms of consumer satisfaction. Fanbois do have such artificial separation --- but the problem especially with the Apple fanbois is that some are Apple shareholders as well. And what's with not liking VZW as a company --- they are the first carrier to do nationalwide pro-rated ETF, and they aren't the company whose CEO (AT&T) who loudly proclaimed that Google should pay AT&T money to get faster service.
I would argue most people do understand the difference. Consumer satisfaction between industries, the mobile phone industry always ranks at the bottom. People understand Verizon has comparatively the best mobile phone service, that's different from agreeing with Verizon's business practices.
Quote:
Qualcomm being historically a smaller company --- actually listens to their customers. Thus 10 years after 3G was launched across the world, the CDMA carriers still don't have idiotic technologies like video calling.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Quote:
Verizon Wireless was the FIRST carrier to do $99 unlimited voice, AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile followed within a couple of days.
Alright, but my point was that was an effort to one up Sprint and T-Mobile who were offering better value plans than Verizon was offering at the time.
Quote:
In the long run, Verizon charges the same price as AT&T without the iphone handset subsidy.
Not exactly, with the iPhone you don't have to pay for visual voice, navigation, and other features that VZW charges for. But VZW is slowly beginning to change this practice.
AT&T was not a massive business failure. Its true it was having problems. But it was a larger company than Alltel was when VZW bought it.
The problem with your rational is that you don't recognize that the merger of AT&T/Cingular created a stronger company than they were apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
I didn't say that.
But it is a fact that the old AT&T Wireless was a massive business failure --- actually losing subscribers (like Sprint has been doing in the last year or so).
They pro-rated ETF just as the FCC began to do an investigation into the ETF practice. Don't try to spin this like VZW was doing it purely for the consumer.
Normal Americans dislike all the mobile carrier options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
There has to be some sort of evidence supporting their claim.
VZW became the first carrier to do nationwide pro-rated ETF --- wow, normal Americans really hate VZW.
AT&T CEO loudly started the war against network neutrality by suggesting that Google should pay more money to get faster service --- wow, normal Americans really love AT&T.
I would argue most people do understand the difference. Consumer satisfaction between industries, the mobile phone industry always ranks at the bottom. People understand Verizon has comparatively the best mobile phone service, that's different from agreeing with Verizon's business practices.
Not exactly, with the iPhone you don't have to pay for visual voice, navigation, and other features that VZW charges for. But VZW is slowly beginning to change this practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
They pro-rated ETF just as the FCC began to do an investigation into the ETF practice. Don't try to spin this like VZW was doing it purely for the consumer.
Normal Americans dislike all the mobile carrier options.
I agree with you --- and I have repeated this for many times now --- cell phone carriers are ranked as low as used car salesmen in consumer satisfaction surveys. I never said that you have to "love" Verizon's business practices --- I just said that normal Americans are going to hate AT&T's business practices more (because AT&T is the carrier who was late on pro-rated ETF, who really hate network neutrality...).
Yeah, you don't have to pay Verizon a single cent for nav app for the Droid --- but you have to pay hundreds of dollars for tomtom nav app on the iphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
AT&T was not a massive business failure. Its true it was having problems. But it was a larger company than Alltel was when VZW bought it.
The problem with your rational is that you don't recognize that the merger of AT&T/Cingular created a stronger company than they were apart.
When carriers actually lose subscribers ---- that's a massive business failure. Hell, you people are painting Verizon's 1 million retail net adds gain as a massive failure because they didn't have the iphone.
It's a comparative exercise --- Verizon is the best run wireless carrier in the US and Alltel was a well run carrier --- and together they are creating an even stronger company than they were apart.
I agree with you --- and I have repeated this for many times now --- cell phone carriers are ranked as low as used car salesmen in consumer satisfaction surveys. I never said that you have to "love" Verizon's business practices --- I just said that normal Americans are going to hate AT&T's business practices more (because AT&T is the carrier who was late on pro-rated ETF, who really hate network neutrality...).
Yeah, you don't have to pay Verizon a single cent for nav app for the Droid --- but you have to pay hundreds of dollars for tomtom nav app on the iphone.
You are projecting your personal feelings of AT&T on to everyone else. I see no evidence that people hate AT&T's business practices more than Verizon, they are all pretty well derided.
AT&T has made a big step in neutrality by allowing its flagship phone to have open development. The only real limitation AT&T has placed on iPhone apps are bandwidth hogs and apps that will use its network to compete against its own voice business.
The only reason Verizon is embracing Android and its open development platform is because the iPhone's massive success.
Quote:
When carriers actually lose subscribers ---- that's a massive business failure. Hell, you people are painting Verizon's 1 million retail net adds gain as a massive failure because they didn't have the iphone.
It's a comparative exercise --- Verizon is the best run wireless carrier in the US and Alltel was a well run carrier --- and together they are creating an even stronger company than they were apart.
Carriers are always loosing subscribers, you just want to try to gain more than you loose. If they loose a lot it is a problem, I suppose if you are into hyperbole you can call it a "massive business failure" but it is one that they can recover from.
No one has said AT&T adding more subs than VZW this last quarter was a "massive business failure". In the larger picture its not really that big of a deal. The only reason we keep pointing it out is because you don't want to give AT&T credit for anything.
You are projecting your personal feelings of AT&T on to everyone else. I see no evidence that people hate AT&T's business practices more than Verizon, they are all pretty well derided.
Carriers are always loosing subscribers, you just want to try to gain more than you loose. If they loose a lot it is a problem, I suppose if you are into hyperbole you can call it a "massive business failure" but it is one that they can recover from.
No one has said AT&T adding more subs than VZW this last quarter was a "massive business failure". In the larger picture its not really that big of a deal. The only reason we keep pointing it out is because you don't want to give AT&T credit for anything.
So if they are pretty well both derided, then Verizon with its higher consumer satisfaction rating --- still wins.
The old AT&T Wireless --- had a NET LOSS in subscribers. It is very different than a carrier losing 2 million subscribers (gross) and gaining 3 million subcribers (gross) in the same quarter --- and come up with a 1 million NET subscriber GAIN.
And I have to keep pointing out that you have to give credit to Verizon for only trailing AT&T in retail net adds by a mere 200K in a iphone launch full quarter. Which one should be given more credit --- Verizon is like Harry Potter, the boy who didn't die against you'd know who. Verizon is the carrier who didn't die against the you'd know what Jesus phone.
So if they are pretty well both derided, then Verizon with its higher consumer satisfaction rating --- still wins.
The old AT&T Wireless --- had a NET LOSS in subscribers. It is very different than a carrier losing 2 million subscribers (gross) and gaining 3 million subcribers (gross) in the same quarter --- and come up with a 1 million NET subscriber GAIN.
And I have to keep pointing out that you have to give credit to Verizon for only trailing AT&T in retail net adds by a mere 200K in a iphone launch full quarter. Which one should be given more credit --- Verizon is like Harry Potter, the boy who didn't die against you'd know who. Verizon is the carrier who didn't die against the you'd know what Jesus phone.
Wait, so the standard for success is "didn't go out of business for not having the iPhone?" Isn't that setting the bar a little low?
Comments
I think there is a good argument that using an obscure network technology that limits your access to the best phones on the market as the best long term plan.
The 4G transition should prove to be a challenge for VZW, it won't be straight forward and simple. For the next couple of years VZW will be split between its old network and a brand new untested network.
While in theory AT&T should have a smoother transition through HSPA+ to LTE. But history has shown VZW more competent at network build outs than AT&T. It'll be interesting to watch.
Every GSM fanbois think that having an obscure network technology would push Verizon's cost way up --- yet in reality, VZW has the highest gross profit margin in the wireless industry in the US.
The 4G transition shouldn't be too difficult for VZW --- Qualcomm is the largest patent holder in LTE.
http://www.wirelessweek.com/News/200...ad-4G-Patents/
There you go with Tracfone again. Tracfone is owned by a Mexican company named América Móvil and has nothing directly to do with AT&T.
Precisely --- I agree with you --- Tracfone has nothing to do with how AT&T is doing and how the iphone is doing. So why are you people lumping Tracfone's net add numbers into how AT&T and the iphone are doing.
Verizon wasn?t really "forward think? by going with EVDO and refusing the iPhone.
Why? Because EV-DO is a "dead end technology" that can't do voice/data at the same time. This issue is only coming up RIGHT NOW --- when Verizon Wiress is ready to migrate to 4G. Sounds pretty forward thinking to me --- because this issue never actually came up during the useful life of ev-do.
Verizon share price has held up better than AT&T share price for the last 2.5 years --- refusing the the iphone has been the correct call.
AT&T is paying roughly $400 upfront subsidy for the iPhone. Over 24 months iPhone user is paying AT&T an average $2,160. How is AT&T not making money from this?
There is more than 1 way to make that money --- AT&T could have given you a zero dollar phone (that they subsidize for $75) and charge you $99 a month for unlimited voice.
The 4G transition shouldn't be too difficult for VZW --- Qualcomm is the largest patent holder in LTE.
So? The network isn?t going to snap into place simply because Qualcomm holds patents in CDMA and LTE. They have patents in WCDMA, too. Likely the most patents, that has nothing to do with compatibility.
Why? Because EV-DO is a "dead end technology" that can't do voice/data at the same time. This issue is only coming up RIGHT NOW --- when Verizon Wiress is ready to migrate to 4G. Sounds pretty forward thinking to me --- because this issue never actually came up during the useful life of ev-do.
EVDO Rev. A can?t do simultaneous voice and data. EVDO Rev. B can, but Verizon and Sprint both saw that is a fruitless upgrade path. Sprint went with WiMAX foolishly and Verizon is going with LTE.
This issue has been on going since 3G was first introduced, not just now. THe difference is that AT&T wasn?t so bright about advertising this fact. Hell, even in their new ad where they lose the message when they make mention it.
4G isn?t going to be a player for several years. NTT DoMoCo won?t even have smartphones with LTE until 2011 and they are one of the most advanced mobile network in the world. They?ll be turning off all their 2G before Verizon even has an LTE phone on the market.
Verizon share price has held up better than AT&T share price for the last 2.5 years --- refusing the the iphone has been the correct call.
AT&T would not have beat Verizon this last quarter had it not been for the iPhone. AT&T would not have less churn than Verizon had it not been for the iPhone. Verizon?s share price would have liekyl skyrocketed instead of just not sucking as much if they had the iPhone. Verizon?s CEO has stated that they want the iPhone.
Verizon share price has held up better than AT&T share price for the last 2.5 years --- refusing the the iphone has been the correct call.
Judging by how desperate they re for it and how desperate they are to offer a viable competitor for it (but none exists yet), it doesn't look like it.
It's ALL about the iPhone, and despite AT&T's service issues, people are flocking to them.
Every GSM fanbois think that having an obscure network technology would push Verizon's cost way up --- yet in reality, VZW has the highest gross profit margin in the wireless industry in the US.
Does that fact that Verizon charges a lot of money for its service have anything to do with that?
The 4G transition shouldn't be too difficult for VZW --- Qualcomm is the largest patent holder in LTE.
We shall see. You like to imbue VZW with supernatural ability to over come all challenges. Even VZW is loosing its still winning.
Precisely --- I agree with you --- Tracfone has nothing to do with how AT&T is doing and how the iphone is doing. So why are you people lumping Tracfone's net add numbers into how AT&T and the iphone are doing.
What are you talking about? You are the one who brings up Tracfone, you are the one who says its apart of AT&T.
Verizon share price has held up better than AT&T share price for the last 2.5 years --- refusing the the iphone has been the correct call.
Where would VZW be if it had taken the iPhone?
There is more than 1 way to make that money --- AT&T could have given you a zero dollar phone (that they subsidize for $75) and charge you $99 a month for unlimited voice.
AT&T could have done that, but they didn't because it would make absolutely no sense.
Does that fact that Verizon charges a lot of money for its service have anything to do with that?
We shall see. You like to imbue VZW with supernatural ability to over come all challenges. Even VZW is loosing its still winning.
What are you talking about? You are the one who brings up Tracfone, you are the one who says its apart of AT&T.
Where would VZW be if it had taken the iPhone?
AT&T could have done that, but they didn't because it would make absolutely no sense.
You have to spend money to make money --- nothing wrong with that. Somehow, VZW subscribers are happy to pay premium fees and have the highest customer satisfaction rating at the same time.
I am not imbuing VZW with supernatural ability to overcome all challenges. This has nothing to do with VZW. It has everything to do with Qualcomm --- the world's largest mobile technology company in the world.
No, because you people kept on playing that AT&T is beating VZW's numbers by a mile (ie. AT&T's 2 million net adds vs. VZW's 1.2 million net adds) --- but you people forgot to tell others that 40% of the AT&T numbers are wholesale numbers (which is really Tracfone numbers). The real retail numbers are AT&T 1.2 million vs. VZW 1 million.
Why does it make no sense? (1) AT&T had to match VZW's $99 unlimited voice plan less than 2 days after VZW's announcement. (2) less subsidy and still get the same ARPU. So it makes sense for AT&T to pay massive amount of handset subsidy for the iphone, get the same ARPU as the $99 unlimited voice plan and your network gets trashed at the same time.
You have to spend money to make money --- nothing wrong with that. Somehow, VZW subscribers are happy to pay premium fees and have the highest customer satisfaction rating at the same time.
It?s not a mystery. It?s how things work in all areas of business. If your customers pay you can offer then more. Apple does the same thing with their products, mostly. If you call Apple Support about a Mac or and iPhone you?ll likely get an American. They have a worthy markup on their devices so they can do that.
I am not imbuing VZW with supernatural ability to overcome all challenges. This has nothing to do with VZW. It has everything to do with Qualcomm --- the world's largest mobile technology company in the world.
Qualcomm has nothing to do with Verizon?s customer service.
No, because you people kept on playing that AT&T is beating VZW's numbers by a mile (ie. AT&T's 2 million net adds vs. VZW's 1.2 million net adds) --- but you people forgot to tell others that 40% of the AT&T numbers are wholesale numbers (which is really Tracfone numbers). The real retail numbers are AT&T 1.2 million vs. VZW 1 million.
If you aren?t going to put Verizon?s numbers into perspective then don?t expect others to do so with AT&T has a win. For the quarter, AT&T beat Verizon in net ads. It shows that both are growing. Nothing more, nothing less. We?ll have to see AT&T continue for a few quarters to start seeing a distinct pattern of AT&T catching up to Verizon, though being first is pretty pointless, especially when each can buy a crap mobile company to leapfrog ahead of the other.
Why does it make no sense? (1) AT&T had to match VZW's $99 unlimited voice plan less than 2 days after VZW's announcement. (2) less subsidy and still get the same ARPU. So it makes sense for AT&T to pay massive amount of handset subsidy for the iphone, get the same ARPU as the $99 unlimited voice plan and your network gets trashed at the same time.
It sounds like your indirectly saying that Verizon is simply better at screwing over their customers better than AT&T.
If you aren?t going to put Verizon?s numbers into perspective then don?t expect others to do so with AT&T has a win. For the quarter, AT&T beat Verizon in net ads. It shows that both are growing. Nothing more, nothing less. We?ll have to see AT&T continue for a few quarters to start seeing a distinct pattern of AT&T catching up to Verizon, though being first is pretty pointless, especially when each can buy a crap mobile company to leapfrog ahead of the other.
It sounds like your indirectly saying that Verizon is simply better at screwing over their customers better than AT&T.
I AM putting the numbers into perspective --- 2.5 years of net adds numbers and a significant amount of subscriber net adds came from the MVNO side. And the last quarter was an iphone launch full quarter --- that's perspective, isn't it?
Alltel was a well-run carrier with high ARPU customers --- VZW bought a good carrier. AT&T Wireless was a crappy carrier with actual net subscriber loss in 2003-2004 --- Cingular bought a crappy carrier.
Of course, I am saying that. This is a corporate businss discussion ---- and Verizon/AT&T have a different agenda than you the end user.
Alltel was a well-run carrier with high ARPU customers --- VZW bought a good carrier. AT&T Wireless was a crappy carrier with actual net subscriber loss in 2003-2004 --- Cingular bought a crappy carrier.
You have to spend money to make money --- nothing wrong with that. Somehow, VZW subscribers are happy to pay premium fees and have the highest customer satisfaction rating at the same time.
You have to put consumer satisfaction in perspective. Consumers are happy with VZW service, they are not happy with VZW as a company.
I am not imbuing VZW with supernatural ability to overcome all challenges. This has nothing to do with VZW. It has everything to do with Qualcomm --- the world's largest mobile technology company in the world.
Qualcomm has nothing to do with VZW business choices.
No, because you people kept on playing that AT&T is beating VZW's numbers by a mile (ie. AT&T's 2 million net adds vs. VZW's 1.2 million net adds) --- but you people forgot to tell others that 40% of the AT&T numbers are wholesale numbers (which is really Tracfone numbers). The real retail numbers are AT&T 1.2 million vs. VZW 1 million.
Well that is simply a fact. You cannot ignore the success of the iPhone for AT&T. You certainly would like to ignore it because you don't want to give AT&T credit for anything.
Why does it make no sense? (1) AT&T had to match VZW's $99 unlimited voice plan less than 2 days after VZW's announcement. (2) less subsidy and still get the same ARPU. So it makes sense for AT&T to pay massive amount of handset subsidy for the iphone, get the same ARPU as the $99 unlimited voice plan and your network gets trashed at the same time.
VZW wasn't the first to introduce $99 unlimited plans. Both VZW and AT&T were matching Sprint and T-Mobile.
In the long run AT&T is going to make back more revenue from each iPhone than it pays into the subsidy. You keep bringing up the subsidy as though AT&T does not charge a premium for the service.
You have to put consumer satisfaction in perspective. Consumers are happy with VZW service, they are not happy with VZW as a company.
Qualcomm has nothing to do with VZW business choices.
Well that is simply a fact. You cannot ignore the success of the iPhone for AT&T. You certainly would like to ignore it because you don't want to give AT&T credit for anything.
VZW wasn't the first to introduce $99 unlimited plans. Both VZW and AT&T were matching Sprint and T-Mobile.
In the long run AT&T is going to make back more revenue from each iPhone than it pays into the subsidy. You keep bringing up the subsidy as though AT&T does not charge a premium for the service.
Normal people don't have such artificial separation in terms of consumer satisfaction. Fanbois do have such artificial separation --- but the problem especially with the Apple fanbois is that some are Apple shareholders as well. And what's with not liking VZW as a company --- they are the first carrier to do nationalwide pro-rated ETF, and they aren't the company whose CEO (AT&T) who loudly proclaimed that Google should pay AT&T money to get faster service.
Qualcomm being historically a smaller company --- actually listens to their customers. Thus 10 years after 3G was launched across the world, the CDMA carriers still don't have idiotic technologies like video calling.
Those aren't excuses, those are small print hidden inside their SEC filings. AT&T Wireless beat VZW in retail net subscriber additions by 200K in a iphone launch full quarter --- I am giving them the credit right now.
Verizon Wireless was the FIRST carrier to do $99 unlimited voice, AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile followed within a couple of days.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technol...999/index.html
In the long run, Verizon charges the same price as AT&T without the iphone handset subsidy.
Normal people don't have such artificial separation in terms of consumer satisfaction. Fanbois do have such artificial separation --- but the problem especially with the Apple fanbois is that some are Apple shareholders as well. And what's with not liking VZW as a company --- they are the first carrier to do nationalwide pro-rated ETF, and they aren't the company whose CEO (AT&T) who loudly proclaimed that Google should pay AT&T money to get faster service.
Qualcomm being historically a smaller company --- actually listens to their customers. Thus 10 years after 3G was launched across the world, the CDMA carriers still don't have idiotic technologies like video calling.
Those aren't excuses, those are small print hidden inside their SEC filings. AT&T Wireless beat VZW in retail net subscriber additions by 200K in a iphone launch full quarter --- I am giving them the credit right now.
Verizon Wireless was the FIRST carrier to do $99 unlimited voice, AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile followed within a couple of days.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technol...999/index.html
In the long run, Verizon charges the same price as AT&T without the iphone handset subsidy.
You really like that "fanboi" formulation, don't you? I notice that you've also decided that anyone that doesn't share your enthusiasm for Verizon is a "GSM fanboy", which is actually comical, in a pathetic sort of way.
In general, relying on painting people who disagree with you as fanbois suggests that your arguments and mind are weak. Which is ironic, in that you appear to be one of the more slavishly devoted to particular technologies/brands posters around here.
But I wouldn't care to speculate what that makes you.
Again VZW is always right in everything it does, AT&T is wrong in everything it does.
I didn't say that.
But it is a fact that the old AT&T Wireless was a massive business failure --- actually losing subscribers (like Sprint has been doing in the last year or so).
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/191742_attw21.html
Alltel was far from being a crappy carrier as solipsism suggested.
You really like that "fanboi" formulation, don't you? I notice that you've also decided that anyone that doesn't share your enthusiasm for Verizon is a "GSM fanboy", which is actually comical, in a pathetic sort of way.
In general, relying on painting people who disagree with you as fanbois suggests that your arguments and mind are weak. Which is ironic, in that you appear to be one of the more slavishly devoted to particular technologies/brands posters around here.
But I wouldn't care to speculate what that makes you.
There has to be some sort of evidence supporting their claim.
VZW became the first carrier to do nationwide pro-rated ETF --- wow, normal Americans really hate VZW.
AT&T CEO loudly started the war against network neutrality by suggesting that Google should pay more money to get faster service --- wow, normal Americans really love AT&T.
Normal people don't have such artificial separation in terms of consumer satisfaction. Fanbois do have such artificial separation --- but the problem especially with the Apple fanbois is that some are Apple shareholders as well. And what's with not liking VZW as a company --- they are the first carrier to do nationalwide pro-rated ETF, and they aren't the company whose CEO (AT&T) who loudly proclaimed that Google should pay AT&T money to get faster service.
I would argue most people do understand the difference. Consumer satisfaction between industries, the mobile phone industry always ranks at the bottom. People understand Verizon has comparatively the best mobile phone service, that's different from agreeing with Verizon's business practices.
Qualcomm being historically a smaller company --- actually listens to their customers. Thus 10 years after 3G was launched across the world, the CDMA carriers still don't have idiotic technologies like video calling.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Verizon Wireless was the FIRST carrier to do $99 unlimited voice, AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile followed within a couple of days.
Alright, but my point was that was an effort to one up Sprint and T-Mobile who were offering better value plans than Verizon was offering at the time.
In the long run, Verizon charges the same price as AT&T without the iphone handset subsidy.
Not exactly, with the iPhone you don't have to pay for visual voice, navigation, and other features that VZW charges for. But VZW is slowly beginning to change this practice.
The problem with your rational is that you don't recognize that the merger of AT&T/Cingular created a stronger company than they were apart.
I didn't say that.
But it is a fact that the old AT&T Wireless was a massive business failure --- actually losing subscribers (like Sprint has been doing in the last year or so).
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/191742_attw21.html
Alltel was far from being a crappy carrier as solipsism suggested.
Normal Americans dislike all the mobile carrier options.
There has to be some sort of evidence supporting their claim.
VZW became the first carrier to do nationwide pro-rated ETF --- wow, normal Americans really hate VZW.
AT&T CEO loudly started the war against network neutrality by suggesting that Google should pay more money to get faster service --- wow, normal Americans really love AT&T.
I would argue most people do understand the difference. Consumer satisfaction between industries, the mobile phone industry always ranks at the bottom. People understand Verizon has comparatively the best mobile phone service, that's different from agreeing with Verizon's business practices.
Not exactly, with the iPhone you don't have to pay for visual voice, navigation, and other features that VZW charges for. But VZW is slowly beginning to change this practice.
They pro-rated ETF just as the FCC began to do an investigation into the ETF practice. Don't try to spin this like VZW was doing it purely for the consumer.
Normal Americans dislike all the mobile carrier options.
I agree with you --- and I have repeated this for many times now --- cell phone carriers are ranked as low as used car salesmen in consumer satisfaction surveys. I never said that you have to "love" Verizon's business practices --- I just said that normal Americans are going to hate AT&T's business practices more (because AT&T is the carrier who was late on pro-rated ETF, who really hate network neutrality...).
Yeah, you don't have to pay Verizon a single cent for nav app for the Droid --- but you have to pay hundreds of dollars for tomtom nav app on the iphone.
AT&T was not a massive business failure. Its true it was having problems. But it was a larger company than Alltel was when VZW bought it.
The problem with your rational is that you don't recognize that the merger of AT&T/Cingular created a stronger company than they were apart.
When carriers actually lose subscribers ---- that's a massive business failure. Hell, you people are painting Verizon's 1 million retail net adds gain as a massive failure because they didn't have the iphone.
It's a comparative exercise --- Verizon is the best run wireless carrier in the US and Alltel was a well run carrier --- and together they are creating an even stronger company than they were apart.
I agree with you --- and I have repeated this for many times now --- cell phone carriers are ranked as low as used car salesmen in consumer satisfaction surveys. I never said that you have to "love" Verizon's business practices --- I just said that normal Americans are going to hate AT&T's business practices more (because AT&T is the carrier who was late on pro-rated ETF, who really hate network neutrality...).
Yeah, you don't have to pay Verizon a single cent for nav app for the Droid --- but you have to pay hundreds of dollars for tomtom nav app on the iphone.
You are projecting your personal feelings of AT&T on to everyone else. I see no evidence that people hate AT&T's business practices more than Verizon, they are all pretty well derided.
AT&T has made a big step in neutrality by allowing its flagship phone to have open development. The only real limitation AT&T has placed on iPhone apps are bandwidth hogs and apps that will use its network to compete against its own voice business.
The only reason Verizon is embracing Android and its open development platform is because the iPhone's massive success.
When carriers actually lose subscribers ---- that's a massive business failure. Hell, you people are painting Verizon's 1 million retail net adds gain as a massive failure because they didn't have the iphone.
It's a comparative exercise --- Verizon is the best run wireless carrier in the US and Alltel was a well run carrier --- and together they are creating an even stronger company than they were apart.
Carriers are always loosing subscribers, you just want to try to gain more than you loose. If they loose a lot it is a problem, I suppose if you are into hyperbole you can call it a "massive business failure" but it is one that they can recover from.
No one has said AT&T adding more subs than VZW this last quarter was a "massive business failure". In the larger picture its not really that big of a deal. The only reason we keep pointing it out is because you don't want to give AT&T credit for anything.
You are projecting your personal feelings of AT&T on to everyone else. I see no evidence that people hate AT&T's business practices more than Verizon, they are all pretty well derided.
Carriers are always loosing subscribers, you just want to try to gain more than you loose. If they loose a lot it is a problem, I suppose if you are into hyperbole you can call it a "massive business failure" but it is one that they can recover from.
No one has said AT&T adding more subs than VZW this last quarter was a "massive business failure". In the larger picture its not really that big of a deal. The only reason we keep pointing it out is because you don't want to give AT&T credit for anything.
So if they are pretty well both derided, then Verizon with its higher consumer satisfaction rating --- still wins.
The old AT&T Wireless --- had a NET LOSS in subscribers. It is very different than a carrier losing 2 million subscribers (gross) and gaining 3 million subcribers (gross) in the same quarter --- and come up with a 1 million NET subscriber GAIN.
And I have to keep pointing out that you have to give credit to Verizon for only trailing AT&T in retail net adds by a mere 200K in a iphone launch full quarter. Which one should be given more credit --- Verizon is like Harry Potter, the boy who didn't die against you'd know who. Verizon is the carrier who didn't die against the you'd know what Jesus phone.
So if they are pretty well both derided, then Verizon with its higher consumer satisfaction rating --- still wins.
The old AT&T Wireless --- had a NET LOSS in subscribers. It is very different than a carrier losing 2 million subscribers (gross) and gaining 3 million subcribers (gross) in the same quarter --- and come up with a 1 million NET subscriber GAIN.
And I have to keep pointing out that you have to give credit to Verizon for only trailing AT&T in retail net adds by a mere 200K in a iphone launch full quarter. Which one should be given more credit --- Verizon is like Harry Potter, the boy who didn't die against you'd know who. Verizon is the carrier who didn't die against the you'd know what Jesus phone.
Wait, so the standard for success is "didn't go out of business for not having the iPhone?" Isn't that setting the bar a little low?