Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of theiPhone?

Larry <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns9A129F670AC9Anoonehomecom@
208.49.80.253:

> Nice try, though....(c;
>

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ind...ts&id=cellular

Here is where all 11 reports are for your reading. Verizon, ATT/Cing,
Alltel, Dobson want out. 3 of the reports are from AMPS users, including
Onstar and the Alarm Company lobby. The AMPS traffic is low, less than 1%
Alltel says, but the majority users like Onstar and Alarm systems are using
AMPS for signalling that digital cannot do. These systems don't "use"
airtime, only pay for it and give it back, unless something bad happens.
Is it any wonder only 1% are AMPS calls?

Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?

---

› See More: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of theiPhone?

Larry wrote:

> "Cellular Coverage Certifications
> Cellular licensees that intend to discontinue analog service after
> February 18, 2008 are permitted, in lieu of making a revised Cellular
> Geographic Service Area (CGSA) showing, to file a certification stating
> that the discontinuance of analog service will not result in any loss of
> wireless coverage throughout an affected CGSA."
>
> These words are from the FCC website on Cellular. If any of them turn
> off AMPS in 2008, I'd bet they could be busted on grounds that turning
> off AMPS WILL "result in any loss of wireless coverage throughout an
> affected CGSA".

Yeah, and what are the penalties for lying about this going to be, and
who is going to enforce this rule in the Bush FCC?

> I don't know of a single carrier that could say that, in truth, in the
> rural areas of America. They'd have to go on a major erection binge to
> fill in the holes between the AMPS towers 10 miles apart putting up
> little towers 4 miles apart to use with the toyphones.

In reality they could not put up enough towers even if they wanted to,
since many of the areas where AMPS service is now available are in areas
where more towers for digital would not be permitted.

I could tell the FCC a dozen areas just in the San Francisco Bay Area
where AMPS is the only coverage, and many of those are not off in the
woods somewhere. Of course once AMPS is shut down, how am I going to
prove to the FCC that there used to be coverage where there is now none?

> Sure would be fun to see that tested in court with very rich rural AMPS
> users like big Texas ranchers, oil companies, etc. to keep AMPS turned
> on. Just the loss of all but the very latest OnStar-equipped digital
> cars would be enough to make filing a statement that there was no effect
> a TOTAL LIE.

That's not a good example because much of the loss of OnStar coverage is
in urban areas where there is digital coverage that older OnStar cars
cannot use.

It's also possible that the urban carriers that also have AMPS networks
in rural settings will just quietly leave the rural portions turned on
in order to remain in compliance, but they understandably don't want to
get into the position of saying which areas will remain on and which
will be turned off.

Of course if they simply switch off all the AMPS, who's going to be able
to prove that their used to be coverage in areas where there is now no
coverage? AFAIK, no one is out there documenting all the AMPS only areas
in the country.

=?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <[email protected]> wrote
in news:[email protected]:

> Of course if they simply switch off all the AMPS, who's going to be able
> to prove that their used to be coverage in areas where there is now no
> coverage? AFAIK, no one is out there documenting all the AMPS only areas
> in the country.
>
>

I got interested in this thread and read through as many of the 11 parts
on:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ind...ts&id=cellular
as I could.

It's interesting to note you can read ALL of the comments from the various
company lawyers EXCEPT VERIZON, of course. One Verizon document has major
areas blacked out and looks like some kind of secret CIA document released
under pressure. The latest Verizon document is mysteriously MISSING and
refuses to load at all.

Why does this not surprise me that we cannot read what Verizon says......??
Why doesn't the FCC want us to see what Verizon says? Why the secrecy and
blackouts? Assholes.

Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?

Larry wrote:
> Larry <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns9A129F670AC9Anoonehomecom@
> 208.49.80.253:
>
>> Nice try, though....(c;
>>
>
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ind...ts&id=cellular
>
> Here is where all 11 reports are for your reading. Verizon, ATT/Cing,
> Alltel, Dobson want out. 3 of the reports are from AMPS users, including
> Onstar and the Alarm Company lobby. The AMPS traffic is low, less than 1%
> Alltel says, but the majority users like Onstar and Alarm systems are using
> AMPS for signalling that digital cannot do.


I guess all of the remote metering that uses CDMA on VZWs network that
the local power utility uses in my area doesn't really work?


These systems don't "use"
> airtime, only pay for it and give it back, unless something bad happens.
> Is it any wonder only 1% are AMPS calls?
>
> Larry

George <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I guess all of the remote metering that uses CDMA on VZWs network that
> the local power utility uses in my area doesn't really work?
>

Does it use CDMA or EVDO? I suspect 1X or EVDO....

Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?

On 2007-12-26, SMS ???? ? <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. Retail postpaid subscribers
> Verizon: 59.4 million
> AT&T: 52.7 million
> 2. ARPU
> Verizon: $52.17
> AT&T: $50.82

Of course the postpaid subscriber numbers and ARPU numbers are apples
and oranges. The ARPU number for AT&T isn't the average for those 52.7
million postpaid subscribers, it is the average revenue from all 65.7
million subscribers of any description, including the 13 million you
excluded as "lower quality".

>> Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on that
>> one big-time.
>
> It doesn't seem that way. They still have higher ARPU, more subscribers,
> and lower churn than AT&T. Clearly Verizon considered the terms Apple
> wanted as being financially undesirable, despite the hype that they
> would have gained with the iPhone. Also, Verizon is very big with
> corporate customers,

Yet, despite all that, AT&T's total revenue from providing phone service
is higher than Verizon's ($9.9 billion in the last quarter, compared to
$9.7 billion for Verizon). The total number of AT&T subscribers (not
just the numbers you cherry-picked) is enough higher than Verizon to
more than cancel the small advantage in ARPU which Verizon has.

Verizon did, however, substantially exceed AT&T's revenue from non-service
business, i.e. mostly selling phones and accessories. Verizon's near-monopoly
on phones used with their service has certainly been profitable.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> Yet, despite all that, AT&T's total revenue from providing phone service
> is higher than Verizon's ($9.9 billion in the last quarter, compared to
> $9.7 billion for Verizon).

LOL, don't look just at revenue, look at income.

AT&T had income of $1.93 billion on revenue of $10.937 billion in their
wireless business.
"http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.pdf"

Verizon had income of $3.06 billion on revenue of 11.262 billion in
their domestic wireless business.
"http://investor.verizon.com/sec/sec_frame.aspx?FilingID=5502020"

I think that it's pretty clear that concentrating on retail postpaid
subscribers, rather than dropping your pants on wholesale pricing, is
beneficial in terms of both revenue and income. AT&T views Tracfone,
Net10, etc., as pure upside from customers that would otherwise not be
on AT&T at all, while Verizon appears to believe that it's better to
write off those customers because they will cut into retail sales.

Of course my favorite prepaid MVNO, PagePlus, is probably not making
Verizon too happy, but they are so small that they don't have much of an
effect on the financials.

At 26 Dec 2007 15:22:00 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:


> LOL, don't look just at revenue, look at income.
>
> AT&T had income of $1.93 billion on revenue of $10.937 billion
> in their wireless business.
> "http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.pdf"
>
> Verizon had income of $3.06 billion on revenue of 11.262 billion
> in their domestic wireless business.
> "http://investor.verizon.com/sec/sec_frame.aspx?FilingID=5502020"
>
> I think that it's pretty clear that concentrating on retail
> postpaid subscribers, rather than dropping your pants on wholesale
> pricing, is beneficial in terms of both revenue and income.


That assumes that all else is equal, and as you know, it isn't. Arguably,
AT&T's revenue AND income would be worse without their wholesale business.
MVNOs certainly drag ARPU down a little, but it's a very profitable
business since you push the expense of accounting, handset subsidies and
support onto the MVNO. The network and capacity are already sitting there-
Dire Straits' "Money For Not in'" comes to mind... ;-) The trick isto
insure that wholesale (or prepaid) doesn't cannabalize the core postpaid
retail business.


> AT&T views Tracfone, Net10, etc., as pure upside from customers
> that would otherwise not be on AT&T at all,


Which it is...


> while Verizon appears to believe that it's better to write off
> those customers because they will cut into retail sales.

But again, all else is not equal. Verizon can afford to eschew wholesale
by riding on the perceived strength of "The Network" and protects it from
being devalued by wholesale. If AT&T dumped the wholesale business what it
get them except less revenue and income?


> Of course my favorite prepaid MVNO, PagePlus, is probably not making
> Verizon too happy, but they are so small that they don't have much
> of an effect on the financials.


Do you really think Verizon couldn't stop Page Plus if they were truly
unhappy with PP's pricing? The simple threat of not renewing PP's MVNO
contract would be all it takes to make them adjust their pricing.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 26 Dec 2007 15:22:00 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>
>> LOL, don't look just at revenue, look at income.
>>
>> AT&T had income of $1.93 billion on revenue of $10.937 billion
>> in their wireless business.
>> "http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.pdf"
>>
>> Verizon had income of $3.06 billion on revenue of 11.262 billion
>> in their domestic wireless business.
>> "http://investor.verizon.com/sec/sec_frame.aspx?FilingID=5502020"
>>
>> I think that it's pretty clear that concentrating on retail
>> postpaid subscribers, rather than dropping your pants on wholesale
>> pricing, is beneficial in terms of both revenue and income.
>
> That assumes that all else is equal, and as you know, it isn't. Arguably,
> AT&T's revenue AND income would be worse without their wholesale business.

Yes, but arguably Verizon's income would be worse if they decided to
aggressively enter the wholesale business.

You can't assume that. Verizon certainly would have chosen to
aggressively compete in the wholesale business if it believed that it
would increase its income. Clearly Verizon's position is based on their
belief that wholesaling would hurt their brand and that even if
wholesaling increased revenue it would come at the expense of income.

Sprint and AT&T have the attitude of having nothing to lose by
wholesaling to anyone that wants to start up an MVNO. They are the two
worst-rated carriers. Everything is upside, and their is no branding
left to hurt.

"Carl" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent magazine
> article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of Sprint being the
> one service provider to avoid.

The problem is that all the articles you linked are surveys of customer
service, not network coverage. I think most of us would agree that customer
service is the least important factor to consider when making a purchase.
I've had the best experience with buisnesses that provide no customer
service at all -- for example, newegg.

~None

"SMS ???. ?" <[email protected]> wrote
> the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
> areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).

Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode.

~None

Carl wrote:
> "Tinman" wrote:
>>
>> I used Sprint for years--still have three phones with them--and
>> never once did I consider switching due to "the network." Indeed
>> after hesitantly switching to AT&T for my main phone this past
>> summer I have been very impressed with AT&T's coverage--no problem
>> for me whatsoever. Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone.
>> Verizon blew it
>> on that one big-time.
>>
>>
> Here's the 2007 JD Power review of all cell phone providers. Sprint
> scored the lowest in all rated areas and in all sections of the
> country. Guess who scored highest (though granted with not 100%
> consistency)?

I wrote about network coverage gaps and you came back about customer
service? How would Verizon's customer service have helped me in an area that
has no--again, no--Verizon coverage? <shakes head>


>
> I don't get you guys. I have seen mention in at least one recent
> magazine article (sorry, I can't cite; don't recall for sure) of
> Sprint being the one service provider to avoid. I have seen talk in
> other newsgroups of Sprint possibly going out of business and
> possibly being absorbed by Verizon. None of what I've read speaks
> well for Sprint. So you guys can cite your own
> one-man-in-one-mysterious-spot experiences and feel better about
> yourselves I suppose, but the facts don't support you.

Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that
he claimed had only Verizon coverage. You said nothing. Others brought up
true-life experiences with Sprint, covering a much larger area, and you
whine? Grow up already, no one insulted one of your family--it's cellphone
carrier, that's all.

Again: I have had no problems with Sprint, for more than seven years now, as
far as coverage, phone selection, call quality, and pricing are concerned.
Yes customer service sucks but that doesn't make the other carriers "great."
They just happen to suck less in an industry that sucks a lot. But you know
what? I don't call customer service very often, so it doesn't effect me
much--certainly not enough to pay more money for it.

I've now had AT&T for nearly six months with no problems either. Since I
have had no problems with either Sprint or AT&T I fail to see why I should
be impressed with Verizon when they have zero coverage in at least one area
that I am in all of the time, and they passed up the only phone that could
have possibly gotten me to switch.


--
Mike

Tinman wrote:

> Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that
> he claimed had only Verizon coverage.

Hardly remote. These are major state highways we're talking about, not
some back-country trails or Forest Service roads. It's not just in one
place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at the
carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.

The best option for AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers that are traveling
outside metro areas is to bring along a prepaid CDMA/AMPS phone so they
have a much better chance of obtaining coverage.

For 21¢ per month, and as low as 25¢ per minute you can have a phone
that can use the American Roaming Network (outgoing only). For $2.31
per month, and as low as 5.3¢ per minute, you can have a PagePlus account.

none wrote:
> "SMS ???. ?" <[email protected]> wrote
>> the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
>> areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).
>
> Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode.

It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.

SMS ???. ? wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>> Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote
>> area that he claimed had only Verizon coverage.
>
> Hardly remote

More remote than the areas Elmo and I brought up.


>. These are major state highways we're talking about, not
> some back-country trails or Forest Service roads.

I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV 431. It's
not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway that runs through
many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it into Reno proper.

My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless for most
everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the exact same areas,
in the exact same timeframes, as you. Still I refuted the last anecdotal
report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.


> It's not just in one
> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
> with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at
> the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.

Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
roaming--on Sprint. <g>


>
> The best option for AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers that are traveling
> outside metro areas is to bring along a prepaid CDMA/AMPS phone so
> they have a much better chance of obtaining coverage.
>
> For 21� per month, and as low as 25� per minute you can have a phone
> that can use the American Roaming Network (outgoing only). For $2.31
> per month, and as low as 5.3� per minute, you can have a PagePlus
> account.

You too are being a little overly dramatic with the "need two phones"
nonsense. I travel frequently, live in the desert southwest, and have never
had coverage issues with either CDMA-only, or GSM-only during the last 2+
years of using nothing but digital. In fact I've carried my Sprint phone
with me for the last six months "just in case" and never needed it, not even
once.

Wake up, it's not 2000 anymore.


--
Mike