reply to discussion
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 98
  1. #31
    Kurt
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

    > At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
    >
    > > > When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?

    > >
    > >
    > > For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
    > > Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I
    > > saw was a Target store trying to be classy.

    >
    > Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared Macy's,
    > when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.


    And Target has quite a positive cachet these day. They've reinvented
    themselves very well.

    --
    To reply by email, remove the word "space"



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




  2. #32
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    Carl wrote:
    > My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.


    Your analogy was asinine.

    Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
    Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling its
    network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If they
    tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
    commoditized as mobile phones. And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as
    advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be
    well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year).


    --
    Mike





  3. #33
    Carl
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    Todd Allcock wrote:
    > At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
    >
    >>> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?

    >>
    >>
    >> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
    >> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost.
    >> What I saw was a Target store trying to be classy.

    >
    > Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared
    > Macy's, when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.


    >

    I dunno Todd. I thought Scott's remark supported MY position: Macy's charges
    more, is not a store of the "masses", but goes for the big bucks while
    somehow managing to foster an image which retains clientele across the
    socio-economic spectrum.

    Either way, we've beaten this point to death. Dontcha just love usenet? :-)







  4. #34
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    "Carl" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Todd Allcock wrote:
    >> At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
    >>
    >>>> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
    >>> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost.
    >>> What I saw was a Target store trying to be classy.

    >>
    >> Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared
    >> Macy's, when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.

    >
    >>

    > I dunno Todd. I thought Scott's remark supported MY position: Macy's
    > charges more, is not a store of the "masses", but goes for the big
    > bucks while somehow managing to foster an image which retains
    > clientele across the socio-economic spectrum.
    >
    > Either way, we've beaten this point to death. Dontcha just love
    > usenet? :-)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    One last thing from me. Before you go touting Macy's position, I should
    point out that when I left, there was a single customer actually buying
    something despite the fact that it was about two weeks before Christmas.

    My point is that image does not pay the bills. Macy's desire to be
    "classy" or "not for the masses" has led to it typically posting earnings
    that allow it to simply hang on, as opposed to many other retailers not so
    focused on image that make money hand over fist, some of them with many of
    the products found in a Macy's store.

    I hope that your position is not that somehow that product increases in
    value or reliability because it is bought at Macy's, or that the extra
    money is well spent because it is not spent at a Target or similar store.



  5. #35
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
    On 2007-12-24, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

    > One last thing from me. Before you go touting Macy's position, I should
    > point out that when I left, there was a single customer actually buying
    > something despite the fact that it was about two weeks before Christmas.
    >
    > My point is that image does not pay the bills. Macy's desire to be
    > "classy" or "not for the masses" has led to it typically posting earnings
    > that allow it to simply hang on, as opposed to many other retailers not so
    > focused on image that make money hand over fist, some of them with many of
    > the products found in a Macy's store.


    Funny, I thought that department stores of all types were losing business
    because people don't want to pay a premium for the privilege of shopping alone
    and having only one person on each floor of the building. ;p


    --
    Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
    Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol




  6. #36
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    Tinman wrote:
    > Carl wrote:
    >> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.

    >
    > Your analogy was asinine.
    >
    > Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
    > Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling its
    > network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If they
    > tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
    > commoditized as mobile phones.


    This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
    Verizon network. I was on Nevada 431, the road that connects North Lake
    Tahoe to Reno over Mount Rose. There was CDMA coverage on Verizon, and
    roaming onto Verizon by Sprint, but there was no AT&T or T-Mobile
    coverage. I was stopped at a snowplay area and was on the phone, and
    talking to someone who had no signal on his AT&T phone, and he was using
    his friend's Sprint phone. 431 is a fairly major state highway for
    Nevada, it's not some back-country Forest Service Road. Similarly, up at
    the Mount Rose Ski Area, you can only get coverage on AMPS, there is no
    CDMA or GSM at the lodge (though at the top of the mountain you can get
    CDMA coverage.

    > And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as
    > advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be
    > well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year).


    In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms of
    retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs, so the
    AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less subscribers.

    See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"




  7. #37
    Carl
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?


    "SMS ???. ?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Tinman wrote:
    >> Carl wrote:
    >>> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.

    >>
    >> Your analogy was asinine.
    >>
    >> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
    >> Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling
    >> its network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If
    >> they tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
    >> commoditized as mobile phones.

    >
    > This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the Verizon
    > network. I was on Nevada 431, the road that connects North Lake Tahoe to
    > Reno over Mount Rose. There was CDMA coverage on Verizon, and roaming onto
    > Verizon by Sprint, but there was no AT&T or T-Mobile coverage. I was
    > stopped at a snowplay area and was on the phone, and talking to someone
    > who had no signal on his AT&T phone, and he was using his friend's Sprint
    > phone. 431 is a fairly major state highway for Nevada, it's not some
    > back-country Forest Service Road. Similarly, up at the Mount Rose Ski
    > Area, you can only get coverage on AMPS, there is no CDMA or GSM at the
    > lodge (though at the top of the mountain you can get CDMA coverage.
    >
    >> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some assert
    >> (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T by the end of
    >> this year).

    >
    > In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms of
    > retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs, so the
    > AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less subscribers.
    >
    > See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"
    >

    So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-) And one point to you,
    tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing part of your
    point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more to Verizon because
    their network is superior, not because of the phones they offer. All of my
    posts have been about service over price and that too many people shop price
    over service.

    You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but many,
    including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the premium for it.
    So, name-call if you will, but my position is clear and I believe in the
    correctness of it, including that of my analogy, a tough one to form,
    admittedly, but the best I could come up with on the spot.





  8. #38
    Tinman
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    Carl wrote:
    > "SMS ???. ?" wrote:
    >> Tinman wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to
    >>> cellphones. Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better
    >>> phones; it's selling its network and it's not priced that much
    >>> higher than the competition. If they tried to truly go high-end
    >>> they would likely fail in an industry as commoditized as mobile
    >>> phones.

    >>
    >> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
    >> Verizon network...

    <snippola>

    This past week I had another chance to see no advantage to Verizon's
    network. In Lake Havasu City, AZ I was able to get Sprint (both CDMA and
    iDEN) as well as AT&T. Zero, and I do mean zero, native Verizon coverage so
    all Verizon users must roam on Sprint.

    Whatever network advantage Verizon may have, or had, is negligible to most
    people and isn't worth it to me especially if it comes with crippled
    handsets too.


    >>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some
    >>> assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T
    >>> by the end of this year).

    >>
    >> In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms
    >> of retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs,
    >> so the AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less
    >> subscribers. See
    >> "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"


    That data was from Q4 2006--ancient news. It merely relates to "Retail
    subscribers." Only you and a few others thought that meant anything, and in
    your case entirely to tease Navas. But the fact remains there are more
    people--right now--using AT&T's network than Verizon's. You predicted that
    Verizon would be well ahead of AT&T by now and that didn't happen. (And for
    the record Q4 2006 actually saw AT&T's Cingular add more net subscribers
    than Verizon.)

    Moreover, 2007, particularly after the iPhone's announcement and even more
    so after its release has seen AT&T increase subs at a record pace. And last
    I checked, back in November of *this* year, AT&T was still the largest
    carrier in the U.S. (65.7 mil Vs. Verizon's 63.7 mil)

    Either way you were wrong in your prediction.


    >>

    > So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-)


    It was asinine.


    > And one point
    > to you, tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing
    > part of your point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more
    > to Verizon because their network is superior, not because of the
    > phones they offer.


    Just like the same brand of jeans is somehow better if bought at Macy's
    instead of Target?

    Either way Verizon is not high-end, and that's what you originally asserted.


    > All of my posts have been about service over price
    > and that too many people shop price over service.
    >


    Not quite. This is what you actually wrote:
    "I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?"

    Yes, the can-you-hear-me-now dweeb exudes high end!

    Seriously though, why is that guy still around? The ads are painful to watch
    lately. And this isn't due to Verizon per se: the ads themselves seem
    horrible.


    > You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but
    > many, including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the
    > premium for it.


    Good thing you weren't where I was this week: you'd have had zero native
    Verizon coverage. And we wouldn't want you to have to slum it and uses
    Sprint's now would we? <snerk>

    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.


    --
    Mike





  9. #39
    Carl
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?


    "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Carl wrote:
    >> "SMS ???. ?" wrote:
    >>> Tinman wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to
    >>>> cellphones. Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better
    >>>> phones; it's selling its network and it's not priced that much
    >>>> higher than the competition. If they tried to truly go high-end
    >>>> they would likely fail in an industry as commoditized as mobile
    >>>> phones.
    >>>
    >>> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
    >>> Verizon network...

    > <snippola>
    >
    > This past week I had another chance to see no advantage to Verizon's
    > network. In Lake Havasu City, AZ I was able to get Sprint (both CDMA and
    > iDEN) as well as AT&T. Zero, and I do mean zero, native Verizon coverage
    > so all Verizon users must roam on Sprint.
    >
    > Whatever network advantage Verizon may have, or had, is negligible to most
    > people and isn't worth it to me especially if it comes with crippled
    > handsets too.
    >
    >
    >>>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some
    >>>> assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T
    >>>> by the end of this year).
    >>>
    >>> In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms
    >>> of retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs,
    >>> so the AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less
    >>> subscribers. See
    >>> "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"

    >
    > That data was from Q4 2006--ancient news. It merely relates to "Retail
    > subscribers." Only you and a few others thought that meant anything, and
    > in your case entirely to tease Navas. But the fact remains there are more
    > people--right now--using AT&T's network than Verizon's. You predicted that
    > Verizon would be well ahead of AT&T by now and that didn't happen. (And
    > for the record Q4 2006 actually saw AT&T's Cingular add more net
    > subscribers than Verizon.)
    >
    > Moreover, 2007, particularly after the iPhone's announcement and even more
    > so after its release has seen AT&T increase subs at a record pace. And
    > last I checked, back in November of *this* year, AT&T was still the
    > largest carrier in the U.S. (65.7 mil Vs. Verizon's 63.7 mil)
    >
    > Either way you were wrong in your prediction.
    >
    >
    >>>

    >> So, my analogy was not THAT asinine, eh SMS?... ;-)

    >
    > It was asinine.
    >
    >
    >> And one point
    >> to you, tinman, I'm not sure you followed the thread, or I'm missing
    >> part of your point. I'm the guy that thinks that we SHOULD pay more
    >> to Verizon because their network is superior, not because of the
    >> phones they offer.

    >
    > Just like the same brand of jeans is somehow better if bought at Macy's
    > instead of Target?
    >
    > Either way Verizon is not high-end, and that's what you originally
    > asserted.
    >
    >
    >> All of my posts have been about service over price
    >> and that too many people shop price over service.
    >>

    >
    > Not quite. This is what you actually wrote:
    > "I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?"
    >
    > Yes, the can-you-hear-me-now dweeb exudes high end!
    >
    > Seriously though, why is that guy still around? The ads are painful to
    > watch lately. And this isn't due to Verizon per se: the ads themselves
    > seem horrible.
    >
    >
    >> You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but
    >> many, including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the
    >> premium for it.

    >
    > Good thing you weren't where I was this week: you'd have had zero native
    > Verizon coverage. And we wouldn't want you to have to slum it and uses
    > Sprint's now would we? <snerk>
    >
    > 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)?
    http://www.jdpower.com/telecom/ratin...ings-(volume-2).

    Here's PC Magazine's survey of 8000 readers:
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2017602,00.asp. Sprint again managed to
    get the lowest overall score. Guess again who got the highest?

    Here's one more just to put the icing on the cake:
    http://www.consumersearch.com/www/el...l-phone-plans/

    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.

    Here's just one more, to drive the point home:
    http://www.letstalk.com/reviews/reviewhome.htm. I'm sure the results are
    predicitable by this time.

    The one place we agree on is that I have been considering switching to AT&T
    over the iPhone fiasco. Though the truth is I wanted a phone that did
    internet access well AND had PDA capabilities, which iPhone does not. I m
    not a text messager or someone who spends their time watching movies on
    their phone. I eventually discovered the 8xxx series Blackberry and fell in
    love with the 8130 Pearl. I bought it outright without extending my Vz
    contract 'cause I need to see what changes iPhone will bring about in the
    next few months/year and din't want to be locked in.





  10. #40
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

    At 25 Dec 2007 21:55:37 -0700 Tinman wrote:

    > Seriously though, why is that guy still around? The ads are painful to

    watch
    > lately. And this isn't due to Verizon per se: the ads themselves seem
    > horrible.



    Actually I find the "pony" ad hysterical.. (the girl who gets the pony for
    a gift while her friends rceived Verizon phones.) For some reason that ad
    breaks me up.





  11. #41
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    Carl wrote:

    > You might believe that Verizon's service isn't that much better, but many,
    > including myself, feel otherwise, and are willing to pay the premium for it.
    > So, name-call if you will, but my position is clear and I believe in the
    > correctness of it, including that of my analogy, a tough one to form,
    > admittedly, but the best I could come up with on the spot.


    The premium, if any, is small. Verizon offers a large number of
    corporate discounts, available to most customers.

    While the SERO discount on Sprint is even better, and available to
    everyone, 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).

    Also, PagePlus prepaid, a Verizon MVNO, offers rates as low as 5.3¢ per
    minute. For users that want AT&T wireless because of the selection of
    GSM phones, but also want better coverage when traveling outside urban
    areas, it makes sense to keep a prepaid PagePlus phone active for when
    they travel outside GSM coverage areas.



  12. #42
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    Carl 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. I have seen talk in other newsgroups of Sprint
    > possibly going out of business and possibly being absorbed by Verizon.


    Verizon would only acquire Sprint if it were at a fire sale price. No
    doubt they'd like the increase in subscribers, but they have no need for
    most of Sprint's network infrastructure and don't want to assume all
    those expensive store leases.



  13. #43
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    Tinman wrote:
    > Carl wrote:
    >> "SMS ???. ?" wrote:
    >>> Tinman wrote:
    >>>> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to
    >>>> cellphones. Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better
    >>>> phones; it's selling its network and it's not priced that much
    >>>> higher than the competition. If they tried to truly go high-end
    >>>> they would likely fail in an industry as commoditized as mobile
    >>>> phones.
    >>> This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
    >>> Verizon network...

    > <snippola>
    >
    > This past week I had another chance to see no advantage to Verizon's
    > network. In Lake Havasu City, AZ I was able to get Sprint (both CDMA and
    > iDEN) as well as AT&T. Zero, and I do mean zero, native Verizon coverage so
    > all Verizon users must roam on Sprint.
    >
    > Whatever network advantage Verizon may have, or had, is negligible to most
    > people and isn't worth it to me especially if it comes with crippled
    > handsets too.
    >
    >
    >>>> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as advantageous as some
    >>>> assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be well-ahead of AT&T
    >>>> by the end of this year).
    >>> In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms
    >>> of retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs,
    >>> so the AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less
    >>> subscribers. See
    >>> "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"

    >
    > That data was from Q4 2006--ancient news. It merely relates to "Retail
    > subscribers." Only you and a few others thought that meant anything, and in
    > your case entirely to tease Navas. But the fact remains there are more
    > people--right now--using AT&T's network than Verizon's.


    LOL, I didn't do it to tease Navas, I've had him filtered for so long
    that I'd largely forgotten about him other than the annoyance of reading
    other people's retorts to his periodic postings of the Cingular charter
    into the AT&T newsgroup.

    There are three metrics that analysts use when comparing carriers:

    1. Retail postpaid subscribers
    Verizon: 59.4 million
    AT&T: 52.7 million
    2. ARPU
    Verizon: $52.17
    AT&T: $50.82
    3. Retail PostPaid Churn
    Verizon: 0.96%
    AT&T: 1.3%

    It's true that AT&T has a lot more MVNO's using it's network, which
    boosts the total number of users on their network, but the fact remains
    that they now have far fewer retail postpaid subscribers than Verizon.
    The lower quality, lower revenue MVNO customers (TracFone, SpeakOut,
    Net10, etc) give AT&T the edge in total users. Verizon doesn't pursue
    the wholesale business like AT&T and Sprint.

    > 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, that could not use the iPhone on any network, and
    need PDA type phones with more functionality than the iPhone.



  14. #44
    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age ofthe iPhone?

    SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
    > Larry wrote:
    >> =?UTF-8?B?U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KAoiDlpI8=?= <[email protected]>
    >> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >>
    >>> superior coverage.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You haven't been to Myrtle Beach, have you?.....(c;

    >
    > I'm sure that there are numerous small cities and towns where Verizon
    > isn't great, but for the metro areas where most of the customers are,
    > they are much better in almost every case. I guess I'm a little skewed
    > because in the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon is so much better than
    > the other carriers in terms of coverage. The other carriers are simply
    > unusable in many of the less urban parts of the Bay Area.


    I should also point out that for many Verizon subscribers, one of the
    biggest advantages is not their native network, but the ability to roam
    on many of the smaller rural networks that moved from TDMA/AMPS to
    CDMA/AMPS. I use one of them all the time, the Golden State Cellular
    network in Northern California.

    While it's true that the major carriers will be turning off AMPS in
    urban areas, the rural carriers will keep AMPS up and running "for the
    foreseeable future" because their customers are highly dependent on
    AMPS. Verizon even just introduced a new tri-mode phone, the LG VX-5400.



  15. #45
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?

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

    > While it's true that the major carriers will be turning off AMPS in
    > urban areas, the rural carriers will keep AMPS up and running "for the
    > foreseeable future" because their customers are highly dependent on
    > AMPS. Verizon even just introduced a new tri-mode phone, the LG VX-

    5400.
    >
    >


    "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".

    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.

    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.

    Nice try, though....(c;


    Larry
    --



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.