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

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.

--
--Tim Smith

---

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

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.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:35:04 -0800, Tim Smith
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[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?

Yes.

>Most
>reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>down.

That's all from one story based on spin from Verizon.

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

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>

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.

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>

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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>

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>

"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

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.