Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 113
  1. #31
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
    <[email protected]> wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >"Tim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
    >>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
    >>> the U.S. market.

    >>
    >> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
    >> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
    >> down.


    >John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
    >
    >Verizon turned the iPhone down first.


    Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
    you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.

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



    See More: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent




  2. #32
    IMHO IIRC
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

    In news:[email protected],
    John Navas <[email protected]> typed:
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
    > <[email protected]> wrote in
    > <[email protected]>:
    >
    >> "Tim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
    >>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
    >>>> the U.S. market.
    >>>
    >>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
    >>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
    >>> down.

    >
    >> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
    >>
    >> Verizon turned the iPhone down first.

    >
    > Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
    > you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.



    There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
    iPhone deal.

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

    Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
    says?

    OR do we just take your word for this.






  3. #33
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:25:20 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >In news:[email protected],
    >John Navas <[email protected]> typed:
    >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> <[email protected]>:
    >>
    >>> "Tim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
    >>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player in
    >>>>> the U.S. market.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
    >>>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
    >>>> down.

    >>
    >>> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
    >>>
    >>> Verizon turned the iPhone down first.

    >>
    >> Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
    >> you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.

    >
    >There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
    >iPhone deal.
    >
    >http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm


    It's the same old same old story based entirely on Verizon spin.

    >Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
    >says?


    Can you direct us to any independent credible confirmation of the
    Verizon claim?

    >OR do we just take your word for this.


    Whatever you want to do is OK with me. If you want to believe the Earth
    is flat, that's OK with me too.

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



  4. #34
    IMHO IIRC
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

    In news:[email protected],
    John Navas <[email protected]> typed:
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:25:20 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]>
    > wrote in <[email protected]>:
    >
    >> In news:[email protected],
    >> John Navas <[email protected]> typed:
    >>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44:49 -0800, "Ness-Net"
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>> <[email protected]>:
    >>>
    >>>> "Tim Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>>>> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>> The bet by AT&T on GSM and 3G looks has been paying off well, and
    >>>>>> beating out Verizon for the iPhone has made it the strongest player
    >>>>>> in the U.S. market.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
    >>>>> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
    >>>>> down.
    >>>
    >>>> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.
    >>>>
    >>>> Verizon turned the iPhone down first.
    >>>
    >>> Wishful thinking won't make it so, and insulting those who disagree with
    >>> you only serves to make your unsupported claim even less credible.

    >>
    >> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected
    >> Apple iPhone deal.
    >>
    >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm

    >
    > It's the same old same old story based entirely on Verizon spin.
    >
    >> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
    >> says?

    >
    > Can you direct us to any independent credible confirmation of the
    > Verizon claim?
    >
    >> OR do we just take your word for this.

    >
    > Whatever you want to do is OK with me. If you want to believe the Earth
    > is flat, that's OK with me too.


    I guess we can take that to mean you have posted wishfull thinking and an
    unsupported claim.






  5. #35
    DTC
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent

    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> John has not been known in the past for his accuracy.

    >
    > Ooooo! Oooooo! My turn!
    >
    > Ummmm....let's see.....so many to choose from.....
    >
    > Oh, OK:
    >
    > Rubbish.


    Sorry Elmo..I beat ya to it!

    > >John Navas wrote:
    >> >> My own experience is quite authoritative to me. Whether or not it's
    >> >> persuasive to you is not something that concerns me,

    notwithstanding the
    >> >> not-so-subtle attempt to call me a liar.

    > >
    > >John Navas wrote in another shortly before:
    >> > > Really? Then you'll have no problem backing that up with
    >> > > authoritative evidence. Otherwise it's no more persuasive
    >> > > than any other unsubstantiated claim.





  6. #36
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent

    Dennis Ferguson wrote:

    > I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't
    > change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it
    > to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without
    > any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't
    > help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have
    > anything to do with this.


    One big advantage of CDMA for voice, which was why Australia used it out
    in the bush, is the fact that the range is so much greater. The
    Australian government recently denie Telstra permission to shut down
    CDMA because Telstra cannot switch-off its CDMA network without first
    proving equivalent Next G coverage, and Next G coverage is so far not
    able to provide equivalent coverage (though like all 3G networks it's
    also based on CDMA).

    This past weekend I was up in Lassen Volcanic National Park. While both
    Verizon and AT&T had service in Mineral (the closest town south of the
    park), there was no GSM coverage within the park itself, but Verizon had
    excellent coverage (digital) for as far as we skied into the park on
    snow-covered highway 89, despite to coverage map showing "Moderate"
    coverage.



  7. #37
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent

    Robert Coe wrote:

    > Even international travellers shouldn't care very much, since the rest of the
    > GSM world doesn't use the same spectrum bands that we do. Phones that handle
    > all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and expensive.


    Actually they're pretty common, and not too expensive. Some tri-band
    phones sold in the U.S. are also fine in Europe and Asia as they are
    850/900/1900. In most places you can get by with only 900 MHz, you just
    have to be careful when buying a prepaid SIM card that you don't use one
    of the secondary carriers that got stuck up at 1800 MHz. What you want
    to avoid if you're in the U.S. but traveling to Europe or Asia is an
    850/1800/1900, and what you want to avoid if you're in Europe or Asia
    and traving to the U.S. is a 900/1800/1900 (these were very common when
    the only U.S. GSM service was at 1900 MHz).



  8. #38
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent

    IMHO IIRC wrote:

    > There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
    > iPhone deal.
    >
    > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
    >
    > Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
    > says?
    >
    > OR do we just take your word for this.


    John isn't known for ever providing references.

    Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke,
    I was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of
    the story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so
    it's pretty clear that the story was accurate.



  9. #39
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:23:50 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    >
    >> I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't
    >> change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it
    >> to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without
    >> any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't
    >> help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have
    >> anything to do with this.

    >
    >One big advantage of CDMA for voice, which was why Australia used it out
    >in the bush, is the fact that the range is so much greater. The
    >Australian government recently denie Telstra permission to shut down
    >CDMA because Telstra cannot switch-off its CDMA network without first
    >proving equivalent Next G coverage, and Next G coverage is so far not
    >able to provide equivalent coverage (though like all 3G networks it's
    >also based on CDMA).


    No matter how many times you repeat it, total nonsense is still total
    nonsense.

    >This past weekend I was up in Lassen Volcanic National Park. While both
    >Verizon and AT&T had service in Mineral (the closest town south of the
    >park), there was no GSM coverage within the park itself, but Verizon had
    >excellent coverage (digital) for as far as we skied into the park on
    >snow-covered highway 89, despite to coverage map showing "Moderate"
    >coverage.


    Just like your claimed coverage in the Bay Area that ins't on Verizon's
    coverage maps?

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



  10. #40
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

    On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:32:51 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >IMHO IIRC wrote:
    >
    >> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected Apple
    >> iPhone deal.
    >>
    >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
    >>
    >> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
    >> says?
    >>
    >> OR do we just take your word for this.

    >
    >John isn't known for ever providing references.


    That would actually be you.

    >Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke,
    >I was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of
    >the story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so
    >it's pretty clear that the story was accurate.


    Same old nonsense.

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



  11. #41
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

    "SMS" wrote:
    > IMHO IIRC wrote:
    >
    >> There was an article in USA Today which stated that Verizon rejected
    >> Apple iPhone deal.
    >>
    >> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...n-iphone_x.htm
    >>
    >> Can you direct us to a source that retracts/contradicts what this article
    >> says?
    >>
    >> OR do we just take your word for this.

    >
    > John isn't known for ever providing references.
    >
    > Actually when the story about Verizon passing on the iPhone first broke, I
    > was sure that within hours there would be a strongly worded denial of the
    > story by Apple, AT&T or both companies. The denials never came, so it's
    > pretty clear that the story was accurate.


    If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the guy
    posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But since
    you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is some sort of
    new development.

    Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being repeated
    by the clueless...

    And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted logic
    is ridiculous.


    --
    Mike




  12. #42
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent

    DTC wrote:
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> Is it accurate to say AT&T "beat out" Verizon for the iPhone? Most
    >> reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
    >> down.

    >
    > More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
    > date was over early in the evening.


    Verizon had no interest in Apple's plan for revenue sharing of monthly
    fees, while Apple felt that the added upside in new customers that the
    iPhone would bring the carrier entitled them to part of the revenue.

    Both had strong bargaining positions, Verizon as the premier carrier in
    the U.S. in terms of quality, with the largest base of retail
    subscribers, and Apple with its consumer electronics marketing
    expertise. Reportedly Verizon did offer a compromise where they would
    revenue share on new subscribers but not current subscribers that
    switched to the iPhone, but that wasn't sufficient for Apple so they
    went to their second choice.



  13. #43
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent

    Tinman wrote:

    > If you could see the forest for the trees you would have seen that the
    > guy posted a link to the same damn article that was out a year ago. But
    > since you hate Navas so much you never saw that and act like this is
    > some sort of new development.


    Huh? I know he was posting a link to last year's article, it was true
    then and it's true now.

    > Gotta love how one article has now become gospel, simply by being
    > repeated by the clueless...


    LOL, so how many articles, repeating the same facts, do you think are
    required?

    > And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
    > logic is ridiculous.


    No it isn't. When a major newspaper has a story that is negative to a
    major corporation you will always see a response if the story is untrue.
    In this case you would have seen denials from both Apple and AT&T if the
    story was false. With Sarbanes-Oxley, you no longer have executives of
    major corporations running around making up stories that are so easy to
    verify.

    Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
    carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
    its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
    quality carrier?



  14. #44
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent

    Dennis Ferguson wrote:
    > On 2008-01-19, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:46:08 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote in
    >> <6da5f0e5-6cf7-498b-aefc-a73189a886f7@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
    >>
    >>> On Jan 18, 6:38 pm, 4phun <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> Verizon's shares fell $1.91, or 4.7 percent, to $39. AT&T's shares
    >>>> fell $1.29, or 3.5 percent, to $36.01.
    >>> HA HA HA, shoulda went with GSM...those Lucifer radio cards should be
    >>> good for some gold and silver scrap value....JG

    >> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
    >> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
    >> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.

    >
    > ?? Over the past 52 weeks Verizon shares are up 5%, AT&T up 3% and Sprint
    > down 50%. The S&P is down 7%.
    >
    > Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated
    > to me.


    I'm sure that John is well aware that Sprint's current problems are
    totally unrelated to CDMA. They paid a huge premium for Nextel, because
    of Nextel's high ARPU, and thought they could convert all those Nextel
    iDEN customers into Sprint customers. Instead, those customers fled to
    other carriers.

    OTOH, Verizon and Alltel's success in terms of being the top quality
    networks in the U.S., _is_ partly related to using CDMA which is able to
    provide better coverage and fewer dropped calls. The financial success
    of Verizon Wireless is very much tied to their lower capital costs
    because even though CDMA infrastructure equipment is more expensive, you
    need fewer sites to cover the same area and fewer sites to provide
    equivalent capacity (compared with GSM). Even Cingular admitted this,
    and used it as an excuse for their poorer financial performance,
    claiming that once they completed build-out of their network that their
    margins would increase to close to Verizon's.



  15. #45
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:37:07 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Dennis Ferguson wrote:


    >> Sprint and Verizon don't look like the ones which are closely correlated
    >> to me.

    >
    >I'm sure that John is well aware that Sprint's current problems are
    >totally unrelated to CDMA.


    On the contrary -- CDMA2000 has made it difficult to migrate Nextel
    customers, a problem I pointed out way back at the beginning. You just
    don't like admitting that.

    >OTOH, Verizon and Alltel's success in terms of being the top quality
    >networks in the U.S., _is_ partly related to using CDMA which is able to
    >provide better coverage and fewer dropped calls. The financial success
    >of Verizon Wireless is very much tied to their lower capital costs
    >because even though CDMA infrastructure equipment is more expensive, you
    >need fewer sites to cover the same area and fewer sites to provide
    >equivalent capacity (compared with GSM). Even Cingular admitted this,
    >and used it as an excuse for their poorer financial performance,
    >claiming that once they completed build-out of their network that their
    >margins would increase to close to Verizon's.


    Total lack of citations, as usual, but of course that's no surprise,
    since that's totally false.

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



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast