3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.

See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
graphical form.

There are graphs for the following:

Market Share
Market Share over Time
Market Share Change over Time
ARPU
ARPU Over Time
Churn
Churn Over Time

---

› See More: 3Q 2006 Wireless Carrier Results

In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>
> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
> graphical form.
>
> There are graphs for the following:
>
> Market Share
> Market Share over Time
> Market Share Change over Time
> ARPU
> ARPU Over Time
> Churn
> Churn Over Time

The text format you posted here is incomplete.

It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
share goes.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

In alt.cellular.verizon Pegleg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
>>market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
>>of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
>>100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>>share goes.
>
> Agreed that there are other carriers.
>
> But is the "other" category significant enough to really matter or
> consider?

I am sure that over the nation, it is several percent. Supplying this value
shows a clear change in relationship between the remaining values. In
particular, it affects the way you compare the top three carriers.
Statistically, it is not irrelavent ... and he is supplying statistics,
correct?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

>
> It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100%
for
> market share when that is simply not true.

While I enjoy these quarterly posts of Steven's, I agree 100% with you,
Tom.

> That is like saying that the total
> of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this
year is
> 100% of all the candidates.

Although that would probably be statistically more correct than Steven's
chart- Dems & GOP's probably make a larger total "market share" of
candidates than the big 5 wireless guys do of total wireless subscribers.
While there are no successful regional political parties, there are
successful regional wireless companies!

> There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
> share goes.

Agreed, but that would make Steven's job a lot harder!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:18:43 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

>> There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>> share goes.
>
>Agreed, but that would make Steven's job a lot harder!

And a lot more meaningful, but of course that's not his purpose.

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

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>>
>> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
>> graphical form.
>>
>> There are graphs for the following:
>>
>> Market Share
>> Market Share over Time
>> Market Share Change over Time
>> ARPU
>> ARPU Over Time
>> Churn
>> Churn Over Time
>
>The text format you posted here is incomplete.
>
>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
>market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
>of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
>100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>share goes.

Of course, but then his objective isn't objective.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>
> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
> graphical form.
>
> There are graphs for the following:
>
> Market Share
> Market Share over Time
> Market Share Change over Time
> ARPU
> ARPU Over Time
> Churn
> Churn Over Time

Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.

And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
will have more customers than Cingular.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In alt.cellular.verizon Pegleg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
> >>market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the
> >>total
> >>of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year
> >>is
> >>100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as
> >>market
> >>share goes.
> >
> > Agreed that there are other carriers.
> >
> > But is the "other" category significant enough to really matter or
> > consider?
>
> I am sure that over the nation, it is several percent. Supplying this value
> shows a clear change in relationship between the remaining values. In
> particular, it affects the way you compare the top three carriers.
> Statistically, it is not irrelavent ... and he is supplying statistics,
> correct?

Still trying to CYA for Sprint?

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100% for
> market share when that is simply not true. That is like saying that the total
> of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this year is
> 100% of all the candidates. There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
> share goes.

The other carriers are so small that it's lost in the noise. But the
other problem is that companies like U.S. Cellular are not reporting
their results.

Jackzwick wrote:

> Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.

Sprint is in serious trouble. It's really too bad as they actually are
pretty good, with their off-network roaming and their extensive data
network. They actually do have better coverage in terms of area, when
you include roaming, than Cingular or Verizon, though in the metro areas
where Sprint has coverage, their coverage is worse than Verizon or Cingular.

> And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
> will have more customers than Cingular.

We'll see. If the trends continue that will be the case, but things can
change.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:18:43 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>>> There should be an OTHER column, as far as market
>>> share goes.
>>
>>Agreed, but that would make Steven's job a lot harder!
>
> And a lot more meaningful, but of course that's not his purpose.
>

Quit whining, Novice. He forgot more about the industry today than you
have ever been able to learn.

Oh wait- you're John Navas. You never learn. You simply regurgitate
whatever you find through Google. Sorry- my bad.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.t-mobile SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The results for 3Q2006 are in, with T-Mobile reporting today.
>>>
>>> See "http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/" for the results in
>>> graphical form.
>>>
>>> There are graphs for the following:
>>>
>>> Market Share
>>> Market Share over Time
>>> Market Share Change over Time
>>> ARPU
>>> ARPU Over Time
>>> Churn
>>> Churn Over Time
>>
>>The text format you posted here is incomplete.
>>
>>It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total
>>100% for market share when that is simply not true. That is like
>>saying that the total of the democratic and republican candidates that
>>ran for office this year is 100% of all the candidates. There should
>>be an OTHER column, as far as market share goes.
>
> Of course, but then his objective isn't objective.
>


Really? You are incapable of being objective and yet you point out the
flaw in others.

Stones- glass houses... do you get the picture, or should I be much
simpler about it for your dinosaur brain to process?

Scott wrote:

> Really? You are incapable of being objective and yet you point out the
> flaw in others.
>
> Stones- glass houses... do you get the picture, or should I be much
> simpler about it for your dinosaur brain to process?

The data is what it is. I honestly don't know what he's so upset about.
Cingular is no longer losing market share, and their churn, while up a
little, is still a lot lower than it was a year ago. Their ARPU has been
recovering as well, and the only reason that it lags Verizon is that the
high speed Cingular data network is not yet fully deployed, so they
don't have as many high-revenue data customers as Verizon does to drive
up the average. I think that within six months, as Cingular completes
their HSDPA network, that Cingular's ARPU will be about equal to
Verizon's--it's not that long ago that Cingular had a slightly higher ARPU.

As I explained, the data for the very small carriers is often not
available in a timely manner. U.S. Cellular has had big problems
reporting their results, though they seem to be caught up except for the
third quarter of 2006. I have all the U.S. Cellular and Dobson data
entered other than the final data for 3Q2006 (still no 3Q2006 ARPU).

So to make people happy, I've updated the site for the top seven
carriers, but with the ARPU for US Cellular for 3Q2006 as an estimate
for now.

I'm not doing anything for the carriers smaller than Dobson, as these
tiny carriers will not affect the market share numbers of the other
carriers in a material way.

Thanks for all the interest. The number of hits on this page has been
extremely high, as a compilation of this data is not available anywhere
else.

"http://nordicgroup.us/marketshare/3Q2006/"

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 09 Nov 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>> It still concerns me that you use the five large carriers to total 100%
> for
>> market share when that is simply not true.
>
> While I enjoy these quarterly posts of Steven's, I agree 100% with you,
> Tom.
>
>> That is like saying that the total
>> of the democratic and republican candidates that ran for office this
> year is
>> 100% of all the candidates.
>
> Although that would probably be statistically more correct than Steven's
> chart- Dems & GOP's probably make a larger total "market share" of
> candidates than the big 5 wireless guys do of total wireless subscribers.

Probably not. All the small carriers put together are well under 5% of
total subscribers.

In any case, I've added number 6 and 7, snd the remaining carriers are
now less than 2% of the total subscribers.

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jackzwick wrote:
>
> > Yup Sprint Marketshare and profitability down, churn up.
>
> Sprint is in serious trouble. It's really too bad as they actually are
> pretty good, with their off-network roaming and their extensive data
> network. They actually do have better coverage in terms of area, when
> you include roaming, than Cingular or Verizon, though in the metro areas
> where Sprint has coverage, their coverage is worse than Verizon or Cingular.
>
> > And soon, despite Navas insisting to me it could never happen, Verizon
> > will have more customers than Cingular.
>
> We'll see. If the trends continue that will be the case, but things can
> change.

Duh, where do you think Sprint gets the offnetwork coverage from? - Most
of it is Verizon !!!