Is Verizon pulling ahead of the pack?
Craig
upper edge right now, so they are gaining more subscribers than the
other carriers. Now more subscribers means more revenue. More
revenue, in turn, usually means more profit, more money to invest in
their network (make sure there is enough capacity to handle new
subscribers, better coverage, better advertising, etc). Due to
economies of scale, they will be able to decrease their rates slightly
as well (if they so desire). Mainly though, better coverage, better
advertising, etc, will result in even more subscribers, more revenue,
etc and where do you think most of these customers are coming from?
Other carriers. The initial "snowball" is rolling down the hill
and getting bigger while completely destroying its competitors.
Now for some of the other providers that are losing ground. It's a
reverse snowball effect, so to speak. Churn or less subscribers
results in less revenue. Less revenue often means less capital
spending, less advertisments, etc. These companies are just trying to
keep their heads above water, but when you are losing customers you
don't have the cash flow to keep anything up. Because you are losing
customers you cant afford to enhance your network, because you can't
afford to enhance your network, you lose even more customers. It's a
downward spiral. They just cant seem to keep up with the juggernaut.
They would have to leapfrog a huge distance to just get to an even
playing field with the juggernaut.
So I guess my question is, how can you break this kind of cycle? How
can you prevent major problems with the other carriers when a clear
leader begins to emerge from the pack, even if it is slight? It seems
that once a leader emerges, even if it is only moderately better than
its counterparts, will cause a lot more damage to the other carriers
than people think.
N9WOS
and a sure sign that one is loosing touch with reality. :-o
Dan W.
subscribers, lowest churn, and the highest rates.
That carrier would be Nextel.
I can't speak for everyone, but while cost is important to me, it's far
from my #1 concern. I'd love to have a wireless provider with superior
coverage everywhere i go, vast selection of properly tested handsets,
tons of features that i can pick and choose from including SMS, Data,
PTT, Camera Capabilities, and using a technology that will still be
around in 5 years.
--
Dan W.
North Texas
hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
Provider: ATTWS-TDMA/SPCS
cga...@yahoo.com (Craig) wrote in article
<2b522c03.03060...@posting.google.com>:
> Isn't it somewhat of a "snowball" effect? Lets assume Verizon has the
> upper edge right now, so they are gaining more subscribers than the
> other carriers. Now more subscribers means more revenue. More
> revenue, in turn, usually means more profit, more money to invest in
<<snip>>
> that once a leader emerges, even if it is only moderately better than
> its counterparts, will cause a lot more damage to the other carriers
> than people think.
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Ben Skversky
same $59.99/monthly.
"Craig" <cga...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b522c03.03060...@posting.google.com...
Ben Skversky
profitable carrier? Thanks.
"Dan W." <homi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ve1mick...@corp.supernews.com...
P Howard
Nextel is the most profitable PUBLICLY TRADED wireless carrier, well
behind Verizon Wireless and Cingular.
Nextel's profit last year hovered around $200 million.
Verizon Wireless' was about $7 billion
Cingular's was about $5 billion
A whole lot more than Nextel!
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
homi...@hotmail.com (Dan W.) wrote in article
<ve1mick...@corp.supernews.com>:
P Howard
Nextel is the only profitable publicly traded wireless carrier at this
point, ahead of ATTws and Sprint PCS
But they are far behind the baby bells' wireless systems... Verizon
Wireless and Cingular Wireless, who count their income in the billions,
not millions as nextel does.
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
"Ben Skversky" <bskv...@comcast.net> wrote in article
<zYedncIKgMA...@comcast.com>:
Dan W.
--
Dan W.
North Texas
hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
Provider: ATTWS-TDMA/SPCS
"Ben Skversky" <bskv...@comcast.net> wrote in article
<zYedncIKgMA...@comcast.com>:
> Could you please refer me to your source that says Nextel is the most
> profitable carrier? Thanks.
>
>
Dan W.
--
Dan W.
North Texas
hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
Provider: ATTWS-TDMA/SPCS
thri...@aol.com (P Howard) wrote in article
<ve1p7vc...@corp.supernews.com>:
N9WOS
"P Howard" <thri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ve1p7vc...@corp.supernews.com...
> Dan W, now that is just not true and you know it!
>
> Nextel is the most profitable PUBLICLY TRADED wireless carrier, well
> behind Verizon Wireless and Cingular.
>
> Nextel's profit last year hovered around $200 million.
>
> Verizon Wireless' was about $7 billion
> Cingular's was about $5 billion
>
> A whole lot more than Nextel!
>
I think you are confusing "revenue" with "profits"/"earnings".
In this article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27646-2003Apr23¬Found=true
Nextel earned $208 million in PROFIT on the quarter
that ended in march 31.
That is from a REVENUE of 2.37 billion.
AT&T EARNED $135 million from a revenue of $3.9 billion.
Cingular had a REVENUE of $3.6 billion no stating of profit.
Verizon had reported a 14.8% boost in year over year revenue.
No stating of actual revenue of profits.
Siva Chinnasamy
http://www.verizon.com/investor
VZW's PROFITS (EBITDA number) is in BILLIONS.
For 1Q 2003, VZW's EBITDA (Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreitiation
and Amortization) is some whopping $1.8 Billion!
VZW is the EBITDA leader of all wireless companies in USA.
Operating income for wireless is $874 millions, orders of magnitude
bigger than that of NEXTEL.
Both VZW and Nextel have high debt loads, but Nextel is at a
disadvantage when it comes to migrating to 3G. Where the hell are they
going to find the billions of dollars needed to expand their network and
convert it into 3G CDMA 2000? Any advantage Nextel held over customers
will be soon lost with local number portability and upcoming PTT
offerings by Verizon, ATT and SPCS.
VZW has already completed the task of expanding their network and can
just continue to introduce new true 3G data services with their EV-DO
network, which no other carrier can match. I suspect by end of 2003 or
1Q 2004, VZW will start to benefit from the snowball effect (they will
have near 100% of their network converted to true 3G EV-DO), have PPT,
MMS, EMS together with the best customer service in the industry and
biggest and best digital 3G network. 2004 will be quite an year to
watch, especially if VZW indulges in price war for under $40 plans, just
because they can afford to.
-s.
"N9WOS" <n9...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<Fe7Ea.189769$ja4.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
N9WOS
"Siva Chinnasamy" <sivabh...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ve21mik...@corp.supernews.com...
> You can check up Verizon's quarterly statements at
> http://www.verizon.com/investor
>
> VZW's PROFITS (EBITDA number) is in BILLIONS.
>
> For 1Q 2003, VZW's EBITDA (Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreitiation
> and Amortization) is some whopping $1.8 Billion!
> VZW is the EBITDA leader of all wireless companies in USA.
I see confusion again.
That is verizon as a whole.
(ie) wireless, cable, landline ..............(bla bla bla)
Total operating revenue for the wireless segment is $5.086 billion.
Total wireless segment income is $218 million.
Total income for verizon as a whole is $1.639billion,
Not including "reconciling items"????????
N9WOS
> >
> > For 1Q 2003, VZW's EBITDA (Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreitiation
> > and Amortization) is some whopping $1.8 Billion!
> > VZW is the EBITDA leader of all wireless companies in USA.
> Total operating revenue for the wireless segment is $5.086 billion.
> Total wireless segment income is $218 million.
Me wrong,,,, you are talking about earning BEFORE tax and debt load.
The problem that brings is, they NEED to keep revenue up to
stay in the green because a large portion of their expenses
is a fixed debt bill.
Otherwise, we may see another MCI or Enron!
P Howard
statements of both of Verizon's and Cingular's parent companies.
Source: http://investor.verizon.com/news/VZ/2003-04-22_X432723.html
Verizon Wireless: $1.8 Billion in earnings vs
Nextel: $208 million in earnings
"Quarterly EBITDA increased 14.5 percent over the prior-year quarter to
$1.8 billion. Service revenues for the quarter grew 15.0 percent to $4.7
billion, with total revenues up 14.8 percent to $5.1 billion."
Verizon Wireless profit was therefor 8.65 times greater than Nextels.
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
"N9WOS" <n9...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<Fe7Ea.189769$ja4.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Robert Oliver
> Dan W, now that is just not true and you know it!
>
> Nextel is the most profitable PUBLICLY TRADED wireless carrier, well
> behind Verizon Wireless and Cingular.
Verizon is a joint venture of two publicly traded companies: Verizon
Communications and Vodafone. Cingular is a joint venture of two public
companies: SBC and BellSouth. I suspect you meant independent public
company or something. But not really relevant; I don't think the
publicly traded angle was anything the orignal poster had in mind.
>
> Nextel's profit last year hovered around $200 million.
>
> Verizon Wireless' was about $7 billion
> Cingular's was about $5 billion
>
> A whole lot more than Nextel!
I suspect what the poster below meant about Nextel's profits is that
they are the carrier with the highest profits PER USER. I.e., while
Verizon and Sprint and others spend quite a bit of money on their
infrastructure, and are always having to be adjusting their prices to
match each other, Nextel has until recently kept far out of that fray.
Most likely because of their unique "push-to-talk" (aka PTT or
"walkie-talkie") capability. This service particularly appeals to
businesses both small and large and they have no competition. Hence,
they can support higher prices and thus more profits per subscriber.
Sprint has been rumored to be introducing PTT in 2004. This may cause
Nextel to have to learn to compete on a level playing field, or be
bought up. If Congress doesn't manage to delay Local Number
Portability for cell phones past the already one-year-delayed November
2003 FCC deadline, then Nextel will really have to become competetive
in the 2004-2006 timeframe (will take time for contracts to expire).
>
> --
> Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
>
>
> homi...@hotmail.com (Dan W.) wrote in article
> <ve1mick...@corp.supernews.com>:
> > Currently, the most profitable carrier is the one with the fewest
> > subscribers, lowest churn, and the highest rates.
> >
> > That carrier would be Nextel.
> >
> > I can't speak for everyone, but while cost is important to me, it's far
> > from my #1 concern. I'd love to have a wireless provider with superior
> > coverage everywhere i go, vast selection of properly tested handsets,
> > tons of features that i can pick and choose from including SMS, Data,
> > PTT, Camera Capabilities, and using a technology that will still be
> > around in 5 years.
> > > >
> >
> > ...
Siva Chinnasamy
Wireless, not the whole verizon company. The numbers I gave were for
Verizon Wireless (VZW)!.
"N9WOS" <n9...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<Z88Ea.189852$ja4.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Charles
P Howard <thri...@aol.com> wrote:
>Yeah that's not gonna happen, ben.
>
>Nextel is the only profitable publicly traded wireless carrier at this
>point, ahead of ATTws and Sprint PCS
That's a bit misleading. VZW is profitable, but it is not a publicly
traded company, being a partnership between Verizon Communications
and Vodaphone.
N9WOS
> I dont quite understand why you get confused.
Neither do I :-)
> VZW refers to Verizon
> Wireless, not the whole verizon company. The numbers I gave were for
> Verizon Wireless (VZW)!.
I admitted I was wrong!!!!!!! :-P
The number was to close to the companies total profit
so my mind ran off with the thought that you were quoting
the total profit for the company as a whole.
That is until I looked an seen that that was the right figure.
(ie) After I had already made the post.
I'm sure you also make mistakes. :-O
jay
Nextel was reported in the last week or so as having the highest
average monthly payment per subscriber, and the highest margins in the
industry. It doesn't take ENRON accounting to conclude that they are
the most profitable in the industry. Whether or not they're publicly
traded has nothing to do with it.
Quick
"jay" <jaysk...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Nextel was reported in the last week or so as having the highest
> average monthly payment per subscriber, and the highest margins in the
> industry. It doesn't take ENRON accounting to conclude that they are
> the most profitable in the industry.
o really.... its that simple? What you have provided above does
not necessarily mean they are the most profitable in the industry
(or profitible at all for that matter). It may work for your check book
but I think there is a bit more that goes into the bottom line than that.
-Quick
Lawrence G. Mayka
news:c3c43829.0306...@posting.google.com...
> Nextel was reported in the last week or so as having the highest
> average monthly payment per subscriber, and the highest margins in the
> industry. It doesn't take ENRON accounting to conclude that they are
> the most profitable in the industry. Whether or not they're publicly
> traded has nothing to do with it.
Your reckoning ignores the number of subscribers per carrier. If Verizon
Wireless has 3 times as many subscribers as Nextel, it can be just as profitable
on 1/3 the profit per subscriber.
Ben Skversky
Thanks for the article, Dan, but where does it say they are more
profitable??
"Dan W." <homi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ve1q8q4...@corp.supernews.com...
Lawrence G. Mayka
> can you prevent major problems with the other carriers when a clear
> leader begins to emerge from the pack, even if it is slight? It seems
> that once a leader emerges, even if it is only moderately better than
> its counterparts, will cause a lot more damage to the other carriers
> than people think.
Your logic would appear to apply to many industries, not just wireless; but real
life is not nearly so simple, for typical business reasons:
1) A carrier could encounter a legally restricted bottleneck, such as spectrum.
If (hypothetically) Verizon Wireless uses up its spectrum in key metropolitan
areas and simply cannot add more subscribers or higher-bandwidth services,
competitors such as Sprint who are better endowed with spectrum suddenly have a
tremendous advantage.
2) A carrier can make a foolish, irreversible decision, such as a bad technology
choice, that has devastating long-term consequences. If (hypothetically) AT&T
Wireless tries to force its subscribers away from its ubiquitous TDMA/analog
network over to its poor-coverage, technologically obsolescent GSM network,
those subscribers may simply desert AT&T in favor of a carrier with a smoothly
upgradable, 21st-century network such as Sprint's.
3) A carrier can become so fat, so greedy, and so smug--in pricing, customer
service, or even regulatory issues--that it alienates and eventually drives away
its own subscribers. Carriers whose culture and history are based on monopoly,
such as Verizon (Wireless) and SBC (Cingular), are particularly susceptible to
this temptation.
Siva Chinnasamy
>
> I'm sure you also make mistakes. :-O
>
wasnt my intention.
-s.
N9WOS
> wasnt my intention.
No problem at all.........
Be optimistic.
I'm sure we can find an excuse to beat each other heads in,
in the future.
(hides something that looks like an 8 pound sledge behind his back)
Isn't that right, ........(wham!!!!!!!!!) X^X
Have a good day!
Siva Chinnasamy
<KzbEa.1070
> Your logic would appear to apply to many industries, not just wireless; but real
> life is not nearly so simple, for typical business reasons:
>
> 1) A carrier could encounter a legally restricted bottleneck, such as spectrum.
> If (hypothetically) Verizon Wireless uses up its spectrum in key metropolitan
> areas and simply cannot add more subscribers or higher-bandwidth services,
> competitors such as Sprint who are better endowed with spectrum suddenly have a
> tremendous advantage.
the big kid in the block (Verizon) can buy any amount of spectrum it
needs and Verizon has just recently bought the spectrum it needed. I
think later part of 2003 and 2004 will fully witness the snowballing
effect for Verizon. Some even say it has already begun.
To add more to the point, competitors such as Sprint dont have $$$ and
most of their spectrum is UNUSED, which doesnt help neither the company,
nor its users. As a result, its coverage is spotty and quality worse,
which may be one of the reasons people deserting sprint more and more.
HC
spectrum restrictions, but Verizon has not purchased any more Spectrum.
At this moment the only way they can would be by merging or aquiring
another carrier. Thus all of the speculation that Verizon will goble up
Sprint and At&t and Cingular or T-Mobile will get together. The other
way of aquiring spectrum is via auction by the government. In the last
auction, Verizon bought about 5 billion worth of spectrum that was taken
away from Nextwave in bankruptcy court, but the supreme court said the
auction was illegal because Nextwave made their payment. So they have
their spectrum back. As far as Verizon coverage, a lot of there coverage
is not even theirs. The have many agreements with Alltel and with
Sprint. So that great quality that you are refering to just might not
even be their network. Also Verizons churn right now is higher than
Sprints, so more people are deserting Verizon.
sivabh...@verizon.net (Siva Chinnasamy) wrote in article
<ve2igs7...@corp.supernews.com>:
Mij Adyaw
however, Sprint has much better data coverage. Wherever there is Sprint
Voice Coverage, there is high speed data coverage. This is not true with
Verizon.
Also, my worst complaint about Verizon is that there are no more deals!!
Airtouch used to respect customers that had service longevity and that spend
large amounts of money per month on their cell phone bills. Airtouch used to
have a "Preferred Customer Card" that provided a 25 percent discount on all
accessories. This is now a thing of the past. It is not possible to get a
better price or negotiate a deal on anything. I have been told by store
managers that they are not permitted to discount any item and that if I
insisted on a discount, I could take my business elsewhere. Verizon is
getting too arrogant. I believe that this aloof attitude is causing the
churn. If they would start treating their customers as "valued customers"
like Airtouch did, they would have a much lower churn.
jim wayda
"HC " <hug...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ve2kqd4...@corp.supernews.com...
Larry
No. Alltel is advertising 700 minutes of primetime across NC/SC + 100
minutes of nationwide (like AC on Verizon) + unlimited mobile to
mobile 24/7 + unlimited N/W + free long distance for $39 in
Charleston, SC. Alltel's "B" system here works as good or better than
Verizon's "A" system, here. Alltel's system works much better South
of Charleston into Georgia.
My bagphone roamed into Alltel on AMPS, today, in a Verizon 3W DEAD
ZONE and provided service inside 3 stores in the area I was in.
Larry
Extremely intelligent life must exist in the universe.
You can tell because they never tried to contact us.
Larry
wrote:
>Verizon Wireless' was about $7 billion
Wonder how many dead zones could have new cells for each billion
dollars of profit we divert into providing actual SERVICE we're
licensed to provide?
Y'all boys think about that $7B, next time your phone rings with an
important call you can't answer, pissing off an important client.
Follow the money.......
Siva Chinnasamy
1. Verizon recently completed acquisistion of spectrum from Northcoast
Communications, a division of Cablevision for $750 million.
As a result, now Verizon is more than specturm sufficient in all the
markets they serve and they are getting aggressive about 3G services
like EV-DO.
2. Verizon's own digital network coverage is bigger and better than
anyone else. Sprint doesnt even come close. Just have a look at Verizon
maps where they differentiate native Verizon coverage and coverage of
its America's Choice partners such as Alltel.
3. Reg Churn, if you talk about churn rate (percentage of customers that
desert a company), Verizon has the best churn rate in the industry after
Nextel. Sprint is way in the bottom. Verizon's post paid retail churn is
about 1.65% in Q1 2003, which was somthing around 2.4% for sprint.
Absolute numbers dont give the accurate picture because of huge
difference in number of customers. Churn rate, on the other hand is a
better indicator.
All this is reflected in the huge net adds Verizon has every quarter
without any major promotions (unlike say T-Mobile, which gives away
minutes and cool phones to make up for its spotty coverage). Verizon is
increasing its market share, despite being in the top and having
slightly more expensive rate plans than the competitors.
-s.
hug...@bellsouth.net (HC ) wrote in article
<ve2kqd4...@corp.supernews.com>:
Opentoe
the CEO's. It's a pattern and almost fact these days in America. High paid
executive officers would rather see their company go under then part with
their money.
"Craig" <cga...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b522c03.03060...@posting.google.com...
> Isn't it somewhat of a "snowball" effect? Lets assume Verizon has the
> upper edge right now, so they are gaining more subscribers than the
> other carriers. Now more subscribers means more revenue. More
> revenue, in turn, usually means more profit, more money to invest in
> their network (make sure there is enough capacity to handle new
> subscribers, better coverage, better advertising, etc). Due to
> economies of scale, they will be able to decrease their rates slightly
> as well (if they so desire). Mainly though, better coverage, better
> advertising, etc, will result in even more subscribers, more revenue,
> etc and where do you think most of these customers are coming from?
> Other carriers. The initial "snowball" is rolling down the hill
> and getting bigger while completely destroying its competitors.
>
> Now for some of the other providers that are losing ground. It's a
> reverse snowball effect, so to speak. Churn or less subscribers
> results in less revenue. Less revenue often means less capital
> spending, less advertisments, etc. These companies are just trying to
> keep their heads above water, but when you are losing customers you
> don't have the cash flow to keep anything up. Because you are losing
> customers you cant afford to enhance your network, because you can't
> afford to enhance your network, you lose even more customers. It's a
> downward spiral. They just cant seem to keep up with the juggernaut.
> They would have to leapfrog a huge distance to just get to an even
> playing field with the juggernaut.
RDAEX
> Delusions of grandeur is one of the first stages of insanity
> and a sure sign that one is loosing touch with reality. :-o
>
>
So is not answering questions, participating in intelligent discussions,
and generally being ambiguous enough so as not to make people realize
you have no true knowledge of that which you speak.
RDAEX
>
> Nextel was reported in the last week or so as having the highest
> average monthly payment per subscriber, and the highest margins in the
> industry. It doesn't take ENRON accounting to conclude that they are
> the most profitable in the industry. Whether or not they're publicly
> traded has nothing to do with it.
Uh.. highest ARPU has little to do with EBDITA
RDAEX
<3ee1590d....@news.usenetserver.com>:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:01:19 -0000, thri...@aol.com (P Howard)
> wrote:
>
> >Verizon Wireless' was about $7 billion
>
> Wonder how many dead zones could have new cells for each billion
> dollars of profit we divert into providing actual SERVICE we're
> licensed to provide?
Oh yea.. like the 4.xx BB last year, and the 4.xx BB this year.
But dont include those "facts" in your arguments, it may make you look
silly.
>
> Y'all boys think about that $7B, next time your phone rings with an
> important call you can't answer, pissing off an important client.
>
> Follow the money.......
>
>
> Larry
>
> Extremely intelligent life must exist in the universe.
> You can tell because they never tried to contact us.
>
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Ross Weber
spending real revenue dollars on worthless shite (I don't care of my
phone can brew a cup of coffee-that's M-life-if I have to huddle under
the tower to use it...)
VZW spends $5B on it's network yearly and is second in advertising in
the USA (behind MacDonalds, slightly ahead of Walmart)
--
RW
VZW RSA
ross....@verizonwireless.duh
Feel free to email with questions/concerns
cga...@yahoo.com (Craig) wrote in article
<2b522c03.03060...@posting.google.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
pa...@wren.cc.kux.edu
Amount of data coverage on its native digital network: No.
HC
small slice they bought. If that is enough why did they buy and lose $5
billion worth a year before, and they were still fighting for it till
the end of last year. Why? They need it badly. They will and in some
cities already are running short of space. They will probably fix this
as they always do, by buying someone out. This is the only reason they
are that large in customer base. Not by huge net adds as you say. They
have only had two quarters of huge adds. Before that they were getting
whooped by Sprint which had 15 quarters in a row were they beat
everybody in net adds. Thats more than 4 years. The only reason they had
less recently, is because they cancelled a ton of clear pay customers.
That is also why there churn was a little up. They are usually less than
Verizon. Don't look at a made up map that looks like it has more color.
Sprint covers more pops with their digital 1900 pcs service than Verizon
and anybody else. Even compared to Verizons 1900 and crappy 800 pcs. By
the way, how can you say that they get their nunbers with no new
promotions. Recently they are the king of promotions. They are giving
away the house (free phones and tons of anytime minute's) to increase
their net adds. This because before their net adds were very
dissapointing for a carrier of their size. This is hurting their revenue
big time. Also note, they are the only ones fighting number portability
because they stand the most to loose.
sivabh...@verizon.net (Siva Chinnasamy) wrote in article
<ve2ms1g...@corp.supernews.com>:
Siva Chinnasamy
post wanton untruth.
VZ wasnt fighting to get the specturm that they mistakenly overbid for
$5 billion. They were fighting against the fed to CANCEL the bid and
return their deposit money. VZ got it and are happy. Now they bought all
the spectrum they needed for a bargain from many small players and
recenly Northcoast.
VZ has publicly announced that all its spectrum needs are met and they
have enough spectrum for high bandwidth wireless data applications.
Sprint even though it has spectrum, has most of its specturm unused and
that is the reason for its pathetic network and people fleeing from it.
I am one of those unhappy former SPCS customers.
Moreover, Sprint's churn rate had NEVER been better than that of
Verizon's. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you
want other to believe what you imagine, you need to furnish proof.
The number of PCS licenses one company has, means squat! What matters is
how much of spectrum is utilized, how many cell sites the company has
and how good their network is. Sprint's network coverage is pathetic.
The nation's biggest network (whether analog or digital) is Verizon's.
Sprint can never claim to have the biggest digital network. It can only
be "biggest ALL PCS all digital" network, not "biggest all digital".
The snowball effect is obvious in case of VZW and SPCS. VZW is all set
to rollout PTT and nationwide EV-DO data network. Sprint doesnt even
have any plans for an EV-DO network and gives excuses about EV-DV (for
which no equipment isnt even available yet!)
-s.
hug...@bellsouth.net (HC ) wrote in article
<ve3nv4o...@corp.supernews.com>:
HC
information and you make no sense in your arguments. How does someone
mistakenly bid $5 billion for spectrum?? They fought for their money
back when they knew that they were not going to be awarded the spectrum
that they bid on that they desperately needed. Whether they have filled
some of those needs or not, neither one of us can really know as we are
not heading their network operations. But lets not fool ourselves in
believing that 200 million worth of spectrum will satisfy what you
previously and knowingly bid $5 billion on. Does not add up. If Sprint
has unused spectrum, that is not a negative thing, it truly a positive
thing. That means that they purchased a lot of it and it has not been
utilized yet. Spectrum gets used up by the amount of people are on it,
not on build out. Don't lets these things be mixed up in your head
because you are an upset customer. Facts are facts whether you like them
or not. I am not totally thrilled with them myself as a stockholder, but
i also hold Verizon. Having the largest network when much of it is squat
is what means squat. That is why they can not do anything nationwide.
They have a patchwork network. They don't even have one billing system.
Until they have one complete network, they can not roll out anything
nationwide. Sprint was the first to roll out 1x 3G service nationwide.
Not Verizon, they still are not 1x on their entire system, and won't be
for awhile. Thus, they will not roll out PTT nationwide, and will never
roll out EV-DO nationwide either. Sprint will roll out PTT in
July/August and it will be nationwide. Trust me as I am a beta user
testing a unit right now. As far as EV-DO or EV-DV, I am not a tech and
neither are you, so what the heck do we know!
sivabh...@verizon.net (Siva Chinnasamy) wrote in article
<ve3tfcd...@corp.supernews.com>:
P Howard
on the Verizon stock I've been buying since it hit 26.00 per share last
year. Its currently at 39.00.
Although, of the three carrier's I've tried, VZW does definitely have
the best network 'round these parts... in the northeast mainly...
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
nos...@home.com (Larry) wrote in article
<3ee1590d....@news.usenetserver.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
P Howard
able to have their first profitable year last year. Which is very
commendable, given their current stock price, about 13.00 per share.
However, Nextel has only 11 million customers, compared to VZW's 33.3
million and Cingular's 22 million. In addition, both VZW and Cingular
are mostly the conglomeration's of their parent's baby bell cellular
holdings, which they've been building out and collecting profits on well
before Nextel became a national player. Nextel also has the highest
cost per acquisition of any of the wireless carriers, at nearly 450.00
dollars per customer they add. Although they have the lowest churn rate
in the industry, they still lack any firm 3G migration path, they also
lack the financial backing of a telco parent, an advantace VZW, Cingular
and Sprint PCS all enjoy.
As a final note, according to verizon.com, looking at their financial
statement, VZW produced 900 million dollars in income for their parents
in the 1st quarter of 2003 alone. Nextel... a respectable 200 million.
For nextel, that represents the first profitable 1st quarter in their
history. vzw, on the other hand also rang up close to 800 million in
earnings last 1st quarter as well, also taken from verizon.com's
investor relations webpage.
No enron accounting here, just the facts. Because they are publicly
traded has everything to do with it. They are right now the darlings of
wireless stocks because their stock has risen 98% in the past year
alone. From 7 bucks per share to 13. Some folks have become rich
investing in Nextel. But they are by far NOT the most profitable
wireless company. They get good press because of their turnaround, and
current perfomance, not for their sustained profitability, past
performance or future technology path. As a reminder, wall street
pumped up enron before they crashed. Will this happen to Nextel... no,
but they are teetering on the edge of profitability and loss, only
because they are spending less on capex and coverage expansion then
their biggest competitors.
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
jaysk...@yahoo.com (jay) wrote in article
<c3c43829.0306...@posting.google.com>:
SA
jaysk...@yahoo.com (jay) wrote:
Yeah, apparently you didn't major in econ. Having the highest profit
margin doesn't make you the most profitable (if it did, Rolls Royce
wouldn't be bankrupt and sold off). You have the highest (profit margin
x customers) (i.e., "marginal value"). Now there is also the
relationship between capacity and # customers, and if the carrier is not
near capacity, it could be losing a ton of money even if it has a very
high payment per customer.
Siva Chinnasamy
$200 million.
When the Nextwave biddings were made, it was during peak of the wireless
bubble. Verizon, Cingular and ATTWS all bid for the spectrum. The total
amount of bidding was $8B. Verizon wireless bid around $5B (I am not
sure of the exact amount, but posting from memory). The cost wasnt a big
factor because the wireless stock market was booming, and companies
planned to raise whatever money required by going public with more
stocks. All those companies realized their folly and went to court to
have the spectrum auction cancelled. They did it because now specturm is
a lot lot cheaper than what it was. VZW has bought all the spectuum it
originally bid for more than $5 Billion now for just under $1 Bllion!
The comparable entities are the spectrum licenses and not their prices
then and now. At that time, due to inflated competition and stock
market, companies overbid (an obvious blunder, now in hindsight) for
those licenses. Spectrum efficiencies that arose out of CDMA 1xRTT
implementation and the new Northcoast licences and other minor players
that VZW boght has made VZW spectrum sufficient.
If you think otherwise, and want to pretend that the world is dark
outside while you close your eyes, please feel free.
Like any sprint fan, you claim that VZW has a patchwork network and
cannot do anything nationwide. Can you please enlgihten us what Sprint
offers that has a bigger footprint nationwide than VZW? NOTHING... NADA.
ZERO.
VZW's 1xRTT footprint is LARGER than Sprint. Now, VZW will have the
nation's only nationwide EV-DO network, leaving Sprint behind in the
dust.
Whether you like it or not, snowballing effect of being the better
carrier is benefitting VZW, while hurting Sprint and Cingular. Recently,
VZW CEO made a statement which was very enlightening. He said bulk of
new VZW customers are not first time wireless users, but those that come
from other carriers. That speaks something doesnt it? You can lure all
the kids with camera toypones, etc., but unless you have a good network,
they are going to desert to Verizon.
-s.
hug...@bellsouth.net (HC ) wrote in article
<ve443bh...@corp.supernews.com>:
P Howard
Sprint PCS launched their "nationwide" 1xrtt network, in at least 5
metropolitan areas that I know of, including Washington DC/ Baltimore,
they were using VZW's 1xrtt network, not their own. It was more cost
effective to use VZW's network in these areas then build their own. By
now, they've built up these areas, but be careful... a lot of EVERY
company's marketing is smoke and mirrors.
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
sivabh...@verizon.net (Siva Chinnasamy) wrote in article
<ve4emsa...@corp.supernews.com>:
P Howard
addresses this subject.
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
SA <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in article
<nospam-E3455D....@netnews.attbi.com>:
null
wouldn't work with the couple of single-band phones Sprint sells), while
Verizon's is almost entirely 800MHz, including DC/Baltimore. So, no,
SPCS is not, and never has, used VZW's 1xRTT network.
In article <ve4ggqg...@corp.supernews.com>,
Joshua Miller
news:fkbEa.1069$87.5...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> "jay" <jaysk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c3c43829.0306...@posting.google.com...
> > Nextel was reported in the last week or so as having the highest
> > average monthly payment per subscriber, and the highest margins in the
> > industry. It doesn't take ENRON accounting to conclude that they are
> > the most profitable in the industry. Whether or not they're publicly
> > traded has nothing to do with it.
>
> Wireless has 3 times as many subscribers as Nextel, it can be just as
profitable
> on 1/3 the profit per subscriber.
>
So you're saying if I owned a Taxi company, and I had 30 taxis which each
taxi made 3,000 a day.. that would be $90,000 revenue.
Now, if each of those taxi's had issues and needed to be upgraded, fixed,
repaired, etc etc etc and I paid on average (gas, maintenance, etc etc)
$2,000 a day, per tax.. I would essentially only be making $1,000 per tax,
making that $30,000 a day.
My competitor has 10 taxis. All of his taxi's made $4,500 day. that's
$45,000 revenue per day (1/2 what I make). But his taxi's apparently, while
using an older technology, are more stable and seem to work better and
longer with fewer repairs :-) he averages $500 per day for maintenance, etc
on each taxi.. That's only $5,000 per day, making his profit $40,000 per
day.
It isn't the number of subscribers you have that says your profit. It's
what your profit is that says what your profit is. As you can see, my
competitor has 1/3 the taxi's I have, but he makes 1/3 more than what I make
each day, on a day to day basis (due to customer loyaly, etc).
How can you say that just because Verizon has more customers that somehow
means they have a higher profit. They might also be spending alot more to
support those customers that they have, making their overall "profit" alot
lower.
Lawrence G. Mayka
news:785c31db6e8975e1...@free.teranews.com...
> How can you say that just because Verizon has more customers that somehow
> means they have a higher profit. They might also be spending alot more to
> support those customers that they have, making their overall "profit" alot
> lower.
Reread my post. I simply said that if company A has three times the customers
of company B, A can make just as much total profit as B even if A only makes 1/3
the profit-per-customer that B does.
GandalfSC
> > P Howard <thri...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Yeah that's not gonna happen, ben.
> >
> >Nextel is the only profitable publicly traded wireless carrier at this
> >point, ahead of ATTws and Sprint PCS
>
> "Charles" <ho...@exemplary.invalid>
> wrote in message news:bbr7t...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> That's a bit misleading. VZW is profitable, but it is not a publicly
> traded company, being a partnership between Verizon Communications
> and Vodaphone.
>
And, there-in lies the rub.
Both Vodaphone and Verizon Communications
ARE publicly traded. So VZW in effect is publicly traded.
--
Andy
--
This posting/e-mail has been
scanned by Norton Anti-Virus
and is virus free
Steven J. Sobol
> And, there-in lies the rub.
> Both Vodaphone and Verizon Communications
> ARE publicly traded. So VZW in effect is publicly traded.
No, VZW is a privately-owned company with two public parents. There
IS, IMHO, a difference. (VZW doesn't have to file SEC filings, do they?)
--
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge, JustThe.net
POTS: Toll Free from anywhere in the USA or Canada, 888.480.4NET (4638)
HTTP: www.JustTheNetLLC.com
MAIL: 5686 Davis Drive, Mentor on the Lake, OH 44060-2752
TriModeMan
is owned through majority control by Verizon Communications and a
minority ownership stake by Vodaphone. Even though those companies ARE
publicly traded, this does not make VZW publicly traded. It is an
investment of each. For VZW to be called (or even reasonably to be)
publicly traded, you and me would have to be able to go and buy stock
in VZW. Well, of course we can't, because it is not publicly traded.
If, as you say, VZW is publicly traded (and therefore, you can trade
its shares), why don't you go buy me some shares in it?
"GandalfSC" <gan...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:<I2IEa.19429$zm1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
P Howard
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
null <nu...@null.com> wrote in article
<null-257DEA.2...@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
null
In article <ve7p72o...@corp.supernews.com>,
HC
had a nationwide launch on their network all at once. All of it their
own. That Verizon tech is full of crap. Probably a disgruntled union
member.
thri...@aol.com (P Howard) wrote in article
<ve7p72o...@corp.supernews.com>:
Joshua Miller
ahh.. gotcha.. ok, I hear what you're saying.. My mistake.. Thanks for being
civil and not jumping straight down my throat ;-)
P Howard
any other carrier, with exception to Cingular Wireless, who makes less
than VZW.
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
"Joshua Miller" <jemi...@jem.phoenix.az.us> wrote in article
<99f263e6afdb8869...@free.teranews.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
P Howard
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
hug...@bellsouth.net (HC ) wrote in article
<ve7rpcm...@corp.supernews.com>:
P Howard
answer to (of course, without breaking the law) are their parents, not
wall street and not the sec.
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
"Steven J. Sobol" <sjs...@JustThe.net> wrote in article
<slrnbe6of9....@amethyst.nstc.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
P Howard
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
"GandalfSC" <gan...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in article
<I2IEa.19429$zm1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
P Howard
though they also have the highest capex. Cingular is a relatively close
second.
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmay...@ameritech.net> wrote in article
<JqEEa.1592$87.8...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>:
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
Dan W.
reading about? Is VZW waiting to take over the SPCS affiliates if SPCS
can't afford to bail them out of their current financial problems? If
so, what will that mean for Sprint?
--
Dan W.
North Texas
hominid7 "AT" hotmail "DOT" com
Provider: ATTWS-TDMA/SPCS
thri...@aol.com (P Howard) wrote in article
<ve9a5ig...@corp.supernews.com>:
> Regardeless, VZW's profit is by far the greatest in the industry, even
> though they also have the highest capex. Cingular is a relatively close
> second.
>
> --
P Howard
affiliates, basically telling them that if they ran their businesses in
a non-efficient manner, then it was their own fault for having financial
difficulties. More recently, spcs has adopted a more friendly approach
to dealing with the affiliates. From what I've read, they still have no
intention to bankroll any cash advances or dig any of these companies
out financially. However, they may provide strategic guidance. In the
short term, VZW may not be initially interested in the spectrum offered
by a purchase of one of the affiliates because of the recent Northcoast
PCS spectrum purchase that basically alleviated any spectrum challenges
they had short term. VZW has already publicly announced that they are
not interested in any of the Qwest Wireless assets, spectrum or
customers, that are supposedly up for sale. In most of the areas Qwest
provides service, VZW already has spectrum, and an existing embedded
base of customers, already, without having any capacity issues. So,
unless one of the affiliates seemed too good to be true, in my humble
uninformed opinion, VZW will probably not go after any of them. So...
its still in the affiliates best interest to play nice with sprint pcs,
and the opposite applies because in some areas, spcs relies upon the
affiliates for native coverage.
--
Verizon customer/ formerly Cingular user/ formerly Sprint PCS user
homi...@hotmail.com (Dan W.) wrote in article
<ve9eika...@corp.supernews.com>:
null
their network runs on in DC or any other of your unnamed "metropolitan
areas". Their answer will be 800 MHz, and that means that Sprint PCS
*cannot* be using VZW's network, because Sprint has phones (including
Vision phones) that don't support 800 MHz. Sprint has the only CDMA2000
network that covers their entire network, including places where VZW
doesn't even have digital (for example, the entire stretch from Myrtle
Beach, SC almost all the way to Charlotte, NC).
In article <ve99mqa...@corp.supernews.com>,
Steven J. Sobol
> Ask any of your Verizon "network technician" friends what frequency
> their network runs on in DC or any other of your unnamed "metropolitan
> areas". Their answer will be 800 MHz, and that means that Sprint PCS
> *cannot* be using VZW's network
Unless Sprint happens to roam analog on VZW's network. Don't forget
that VZW has large pockets of analog coverage too.
Steven J. Sobol
> Ask any of your Verizon "network technician" friends what frequency
> their network runs on in DC or any other of your unnamed "metropolitan
> areas". Their answer will be 800 MHz, and that means that Sprint PCS
> *cannot* be using VZW's network
Let me rephrase: Unless Sprint phones roam analog in certain VZW
markets, OR....
...The Sprint customer has a dual-band phone. Several SPCS phones like
my wife's Kyocera 2255 are tri-mode, and can do not only 1900CDMA but
800CDMA and 800AMPS. My wife most certainly could use a Verizon 800MHZ
digital signal.
JRW
> outside while you close your eyes, please feel free.
Is that like when my dog turns and looks away from me, she thinks I
can't see her anymore?