"RadioShack net drops as wireless sales falter"

Scott wrote:

> I love it when the experts prove you to be the putz we all know and
> tolerate.

Hey, YOU might tolerate him. I don't.

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

---

› See More: "RadioShack net drops as wireless sales falter"

SMS wrote:

> When I saw Cingular's poor results for the first quarter, and the
> falling number of net additions, despite much lower churn, I knew that
> it was bad news for Radio Shack.


Ah, I see I'm not the only one who has been noticing that. Cingular is
#1 in subscriber numbers *right now*, but they're constantly being
outstripped in new subscriber adds by Verizon, and are often matched or
sometimes also surpassed by Sprint. If this continues, the only way for
them to remain at #1 would be to do another acquisition of a major
carrier to get a one-time major jump in subscribers. But even that
would again be temporary so long as they keep losing customers like a
sieve, and get continually beaten in organic net adds.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> When I saw Cingular's poor results for the first quarter, and the
>> falling number of net additions, despite much lower churn, I knew that
>> it was bad news for Radio Shack.
>
>
> Ah, I see I'm not the only one who has been noticing that. Cingular is
> #1 in subscriber numbers *right now*, but they're constantly being
> outstripped in new subscriber adds by Verizon, and are often matched or
> sometimes also surpassed by Sprint. If this continues, the only way for
> them to remain at #1 would be to do another acquisition of a major
> carrier to get a one-time major jump in subscribers. But even that
> would again be temporary so long as they keep losing customers like a
> sieve, and get continually beaten in organic net adds.

The top three carriers are within a few million subscribers of each
other. Being able to brag that you have the largest subscriber base is
of limited value. None of the carriers are going to drop their pants on
price in order to have a big spike in net additions. Cingular hoped that
the addition of 5000 Radio Shack stores as outlets would help their
net-additions (and maybe it did, without Radio Shack, Cingular's results
would have been even worse).

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:19:02
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>The top three carriers are within a few million subscribers of each
>other. Being able to brag that you have the largest subscriber base is
>of limited value. ...

Funny how you've changed your tune now that Verizon isn't the biggest carrier.


--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:10:46
-0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> Who said they hated Cingular? I won't speak for Steve, but the only thing I
>> dislike around here is your inability to recognize your own cluelessness.
>
>I don't love or hate any company.

Your actions say differently.

>I just state the facts about the
>different carriers.

You actually make things up.

>I can give you five reasons why I like or dislike
>any of the carriers.

But not accurate ones.

>None of this changes the facts as stated by Radio
>Shack regarding Cingular.

Indeed. It's quite clear that the problem is Radio Shack, not Cingular, not
Verizon.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:10:46
> -0700, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Who said they hated Cingular? I won't speak for Steve, but the only
>>> thing I
>>> dislike around here is your inability to recognize your own
>>> cluelessness.
>>
>>I don't love or hate any company.
>
> Your actions say differently.

Why? Because he uses facts that negate your uneducated opinions?

>
>>I just state the facts about the
>>different carriers.
>
> You actually make things up.

You'd be the voice of experience in that arena.

>
>>I can give you five reasons why I like or dislike
>>any of the carriers.
>
> But not accurate ones.

Only according to you- you are the only fabricator here.

>
>>None of this changes the facts as stated by Radio
>>Shack regarding Cingular.
>
> Indeed. It's quite clear that the problem is Radio Shack, not Cingular,
> not
> Verizon.
>

Wrong again.