Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

>> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone
>> Group PLC of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in
>> attracting new customers. It added 2 million subscribers in the
>> quarter for a total of 65.7 million, while AT&T last week reported
>> extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1 million."
>>
>> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...d-official-wir
>> eless-service-provider/
>>
>> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T
>> as the official wireless service provider for the party's convention
>> in August."

> Guess that just goes to prove that bigger isn't always better

It also proves that wireless customers prefer AT&T to Verizon. What's
outstanding about those numbers is that many AT&T customers can (and do)
easily switch to T-mobile without purchasing a new phone, while Verizon
pretty much locks customers to their phones. So AT&T has higher numbers
even with higher competition.

---

› See More: Verizon Wireless getting its butt kicked by ATT

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:06:04 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "M.L." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>What's
>>outstanding about those numbers is that many AT&T customers can (and do)
>>easily switch to T-mobile without purchasing a new phone, while Verizon
>>pretty much locks customers to their phones.
>
>No, they don't. I had no trouble at all taking a VZW phone and
>activating it on Alltel.

Not in this area.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:37:43 -0800, "Ness-Net"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Stand by for the inevitable spin by Verizon apologist and resident
>>> anti-AT&T troll Steven Scharf, whose forecasts of doom for AT&T look
>>> ever more absurd.
>>
>>John, have YOU looked in the proverbial mirror?
>>
>>Other than the Apple fanboy(s), (and maybe Larry and Skype / Alltel)
>>I haven't seen a more rabid supporter of a company - than YOU.
>>Well past the point of absurdity.
>
> What company? What support? Specifically.
>
>>Pot calling the kettle black??
>
> Hardly.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

You are kidding, right?

Not a funny joke, however... More like really sad - or pathetic...

"M.L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone
>>> Group PLC of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in
>>> attracting new customers. It added 2 million subscribers in the
>>> quarter for a total of 65.7 million, while AT&T last week reported
>>> extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1 million."
>>>
>>> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...d-official-wir
>>> eless-service-provider/
>>>
>>> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T
>>> as the official wireless service provider for the party's convention
>>> in August."
>
>> Guess that just goes to prove that bigger isn't always better
>
> It also proves that wireless customers prefer AT&T to Verizon. What's
> outstanding about those numbers is that many AT&T customers can (and do)
> easily switch to T-mobile without purchasing a new phone, while Verizon
> pretty much locks customers to their phones. So AT&T has higher numbers
> even with higher competition.

While it may be easier to switch from ATT, if you've got the best network,
as Verizon does, you have less desire to leave
>

John Navas has brought this to us :
> On 2 Feb 2008 19:52:55 -0000, [email protected] (Lenny) wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VPVzgD8UF4I400
>>
>> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
>> of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
>> It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
>> while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
>> million."
>>
>> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...d-official-wir
>> eless-service-provider/
>>
>> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T as the
>> official wireless service provider for the party's convention in August."
>
>
> Stand by for the inevitable spin by Verizon apologist and resident
> anti-AT&T troll Steven Scharf, whose forecasts of doom for AT&T look
> ever more absurd.

I always stand by for the troll Navas who has never added anything
helpful to a newsgroup for a carrier he does not use.

John Navas formulated on Sunday :
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:37:43 -0800, "Ness-Net"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Stand by for the inevitable spin by Verizon apologist and resident
>>> anti-AT&T troll Steven Scharf, whose forecasts of doom for AT&T look
>>> ever more absurd.
>>
>> John, have YOU looked in the proverbial mirror?
>>
>> Other than the Apple fanboy(s), (and maybe Larry and Skype / Alltel)
>> I haven't seen a more rabid supporter of a company - than YOU.
>> Well past the point of absurdity.
>
> What company? What support? Specifically.
>
>> Pot calling the kettle black??
>
> Hardly.

The question is not what company you support but in which cellular
group you cross post to but do not support.

Again I won't disagree. You are fortunate to be in areas where ATT works
well



"Scott in SoCal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:58:31 -0500, "RBM" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I won't disagree, they do indeed suck. But they also have the best
>>network,
>>and at the end of the day, it's a phone
>
> Having used both, I can honestly say I noticed no differences
> whatsoever in the two networks. Both are equally good phones; the
> difference is that Verizon's comes with more rapacious business
> practices attached to it.

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...VPVzgD8UF4I400
>
> "Verizon's wireless arm, which is a joint venture with Vodafone Group PLC
> of Britain, continued to lag behind AT&T Inc. in attracting new customers.
> It added 2 million subscribers in the quarter for a total of 65.7 million,
> while AT&T last week reported extending its lead by 4.4 million to 70.1
> million."

A 6.27% difference in total subscribers is "getting it's butt kicked?"

M.L. wrote:

> It also proves that wireless customers prefer AT&T to Verizon.

Huh? Verizon continues to add retail, postpaid customers at a far higher
rate than AT&T.

At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million retail post paid
customers, while Verizon had 61 million, and continues to add new retail
customers at a faster rate than AT&T.

What you need to understand is a fundamental difference between the
business models of the two carriers. AT&T has a _lot_ of MVNOs,
including TracFone, Net10, SpeakOut, etc. So AT&T gets to report a lot
of network users, but they consistently lag in signing up direct
customers under contract, and the gap continues to widen. The reason for
this is that retail, postpaid customers are more cautious when selecting
a carrier, because they are making a two year commitment, plus any
equipment costs not covered by the initial phone discount. AT&T
consistently lags in margins and ARPU as well, though the high revenue
and ARPU of the iPhone has helped them narrow the gap.

> What's
> outstanding about those numbers is that many AT&T customers can (and do)
> easily switch to T-mobile without purchasing a new phone, while Verizon
> pretty much locks customers to their phones.

That may matter for expensive handsets, but most customers choose free,
or nearly free handsets when they get a new contract.

> So AT&T has higher numbers even with higher competition.

If that were true, AT&T would be signing up more customers on new
contracts, which they are not doing.

Pegleg wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2008 19:52:55 -0000, [email protected] (Lenny) wrote:
>
>> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T as the
>> official wireless service provider for the party's convention in August."
>
> And the significance of that is?

Navas is becoming a Democrat.

aemeijers wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in news:elmop-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I'm using PagePlus Cellular.
>>> Prepay? Don't you pay your bills?
>>
>> For many people who only need to make occasional calls, prepaid
>> can be a much better deal than the ridiculous minimum plans that
>> the postpaid carriers offer. Not everyone spends their life on
>> their cell phone.
>>
>> Bill
>
> That is for damn sure. I use my cell maybe 10-15 minutes per month. With
> a prepay, it costs me maybe 8 bucks a month. (Don't need it real often,
> but when I need it, I need it.) Cheapest 'real' plan I could get would
> be 30 or so per month. Only downside is I have over a hundred bucks in
> time sitting on it, because I use it so little.

15 minutes a month would cost you about $2.50/month on Page Plus.

>>>>> I'm using PagePlus Cellular.
>>>> Prepay? Don't you pay your bills?
>>>
>>> For many people who only need to make occasional calls, prepaid
>>> can be a much better deal than the ridiculous minimum plans that
>>> the postpaid carriers offer. Not everyone spends their life on
>>> their cell phone.

>> That is for damn sure. I use my cell maybe 10-15 minutes per month.
>> With a prepay, it costs me maybe 8 bucks a month. (Don't need it
>> real often, but when I need it, I need it.) Cheapest 'real' plan I
>> could get would be 30 or so per month. Only downside is I have over
>> a hundred bucks in time sitting on it, because I use it so little.
>
> 15 minutes a month would cost you about $2.50/month on Page Plus.

Does that $2.50/month include their monthly service charge? Regardless,
15 minutes/month would last over 5 years on the T-mobile $100./1000
minutes plan. Since a year's renewal with rollover is only $10., that
comes out to $140. for 5 years. That's less than $2.33/month. And you
won't have as many expiration dates to worry about.

At 04 Feb 2008 06:59:55 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Huh? Verizon continues to add retail, postpaid customers at a far higher
rate than AT&T.


Last quarter it was about even, wasn't it?


> At the end of 2007, AT&T wireless had 55 million retail post paid
> customers, while Verizon had 61 million, and continues to add new
> retail customers at a faster rate than AT&T.

This "horse race" is a little silly, since both Verizon and AT&T are
amalgams of many regional wireless operators, and both continue to "buy"
more customers as they add small regional carriers to their portfolios.

> What you need to understand is a fundamental difference between
> the business models of the two carriers. AT&T has a _lot_ of MVNOs,
> including TracFone, Net10, SpeakOut, etc. So AT&T gets to report a
> lot of network users, but they consistently lag in signing up direct
> customers under contract, and the gap continues to widen.

So why is this "bad?" AT&T chooses to make money as both a retailer and a
wholesaler.

> The reason for this is that retail, postpaid customers are more
> cautious when selecting a carrier, because they are making a two
> year commitment, plus any equipment costs not covered by the initial
> phone discount. AT&T consistently lags in margins and ARPU as well,

Not really. They're a bit behind Verizon, but considering the relatively
high number of wholesale/prepaid customers, who are typically lower
margin/ARPU, AT&T is quite strong. (Surprisingly strong in fact!)

> though the high revenue and ARPU of the iPhone has helped them
> narrow the gap.

Yeah, AT&T finally has a high-margin, overpriced, crippled phone. A page
right out of Verizon's playbook! ;-)


> That may matter for expensive handsets, but most customers choose
> free, or nearly free handsets when they get a new contract.


The margin and data ARPU numbers don't necessarily support that- Verizon
sells a lot of data.

In reality, "locking" (either "real" via firmware or technological via CDMA
<> GSM) isn't really a problem even with high-end handsets in these days of
two-year contracts- even high-end handset owners rarely keep handsets
longer than two-years- few people are lamenting that they can't bring their
old battered Treo 600 to a new carrier.


> > So AT&T has higher numbers even with higher competition.
>
> If that were true, AT&T would be signing up more customers on new
> contracts, which they are not doing.

Again, it's fairly neck and neck. I'm a believer in the free market- if
either carrier was geometrically better than the other, it wouldn't be this
close- cellular is a mature industry- if AT&T was nearly as crummy as you
think or say, it would've bled off it's customer base long ago. The fact
that all carriers have churn, and all are still growing (except Sprint!)
seemsto indicate that quite a few consumers tend to jump from carrier to
carrier every contract renewal, likely swayed by the shiny new phone du jour,
confident than any carrier has acceptable coverage in this day and age.

At 04 Feb 2008 07:04:16 -0800 SMS wrote:

> >> "The Democratic National Convention Committee on Friday named AT&T as
the
> >> official wireless service provider for the party's convention in
> > August."
> >
> > And the significance of that is?
>
> Navas is becoming a Democrat.


I doubt he'd belong to either party; he doesn't believe in the scientific
validity of election results- it's a self-selected sample, after all...

"Scott in SoCal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>I switched from Verizon Wireless to Cingular (now AT&T) 5 years ago,
> and haven't regretted it for a moment. Looks like lots of other people
> are doing the same. Verizon sucks, and the word is getting out...

Yup, Cingular always had better coverage and better service than Verizon.
Yes, there are horror stories from both companies, but if Cingular (now ATT)
is winning new customers faster, it is because they have earned it. -Dave