Comparing Verizon vs Cingular

Anon E. Muss wrote:

> The problem for a lot of us is that when the AMPS towers get shut
> down, there is gonna be a lot of area in the US where we won't be able
> to get service where we did before because the cellphone companies are
> unwilling to fill in all those areas in with digital service.

I think that similar to the government supported rural electrification,
there should be some sort of "rural cellufication" program that replaces
AMPS with digital in areas where digital would otherwise not be
economically feasible.

---

› See More: Comparing Verizon vs Cingular

Tinman wrote:

> Finally, you seem hung-up on "salable land" when speaking about
> developers. Their goal isn't to sell land; it's to make money by
> _developing_ that land into something that is financially more
> attractive (e.g., usually involving "buildings"). A tiny percentage
> set-aside for a tower or two--that will be purchased anyway--is not
> going have a huge effect (heck, if they lease the tower, it could very
> well be a profit center).

In reality, the tower can be placed where it would not add any extra
land beyond the non-salable land that the developer already is providing
as part of a new development. The key is to put it in in advance, not
try to force it through after the fact.

Tinman,

Dude, you are DA-MAN!! I bow down and beat my head on the ground!!

Congratulations for taking on the NIMBYs and defeating them. The NIMBYs must
go down!

Best Regards,

-mij


"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> I would like to see a federal government law that would prevent
>> NIMBYs from stopping the placement of cell phone towers.
>
> It's a local issue, Mij, and needs to be treated as such (unless it needs
> escalating! <g>).
>
> When several NIMBYs threatened to sue my city; wanting several towers
> already built *removed* I was infuriated.
>
> And I fought back.
>
> First, I contacted Sprint and SBA Communications (the builder/owner of the
> towers) and asked if I could help. They were happy to suggest that I, a
> member of the local CoC, help set up a meeting between the Chamber and
> Sprint/SBA (to explain the need for the towers, the benefits to
> businesses, etc.). The CoC soon came out in favor of the towers.
>
> I also found out (from SBA) that the NIMBYs were basing their lawsuit on
> the fact that they weren't notified. SBA used the county's own tax records
> for the required notifications. Turns out the three NIMBYs were NOT on the
> report supplied to SBA. Hmmm.
>
> I then contacted the reporter for the local newspaper, who didn't seem to
> have a clue as to what he was writing about (he slanted his articles in
> favor of the NIMBYs). The only thing he quoted me on, in one of his later
> articles, was the answer to his question, "Would you like one of these
> towers in your backyard?" I replied, "First, the towers aren't in anyone's
> backyard. Second, if offered, YES, I would like one in my backyard!"
>
> In addition, two of the NIMBYs complained the towers would destroy the
> natural beauty of the "equestrian district" where they lived. I took
> photos and video of that area, and found out it looked like, and smelled
> like, crap--literally. Horse**** was everywhere, manure stacked sky-high
> in yards, and the tower in question was barely visible (it was painted to
> match the color of the mountains).
>
> After these NIMBYs gave their little speech at the city council meeting, I
> showed what the place *really* looked like. I had no Smell-a-Vision but
> the pics clearly showed I wasn't lying about it. I further brought up some
> of the issues I was told by Sprint and SBA.
>
> SBA and Sprint spoke next, reinforcing my comments with many (many) more
> of their own, pretty much blowing the NIMBYs out of the water.
>
> The other NIMBY, a doctor (another one not on the property tax report),
> complained about a tower on a high-school football field. A few photos of
> the field, with huge bleachers and powerful lighting at night, showed the
> tower to be rather insignificant--not to mention a badly-needed
> revenue-generator for the school district.
>
> The final blow was the announcement of a countersuit, filed by Sprint
> (maybe SBA too), against the NIMBYs. Somehow Sprint or SBA were able to
> move the suit into federal court (the towers transmitted RF onto tribal
> lands, and those tribal nations had already granted approval for it).
>
> The NIMBYs folded, and the towers stayed.
>
> I say: FIGHT BACK!
>
> BTW: SBA Communications, not SBA (Small Business Administration).
>
>
> --
> Mike
>

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:51:32 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>
>> My yardstick is the route from Prescott Arizona to Las Vegas Nevada.
>> The road takes 89 to Ashfork, I-40 to Kingman and 93 to Las Vegas
>> across Hoover Dam. Only a couple of years ago, coverage on that route
>> was spotty at best. Ever so often you would have enough signal to
>> make a quick call. Now, it is a completely different story. There
>> are cell phone towers on nearly every mountain top. Cingular coverage
>> is excellent now, except for a few miles south of Hoover Dam. Also
>> where I live was serviced by Verizon only. Now, that too has been
>> corrected. What I am seeing is cell towers being added at an amazing
>> pace. I don't think we will have those huge dead spots much longer.
>> And I am no longer sorry I switched from Verizon to Cingular.
>
>Cingular does seem to be adding towers at a rapid pace, but
>unfortunately there are a lot of places where it isn't possible to add
>towers.

It is interesting that in one of our areas where Verizon had a lock on
coverage, and Cingular was missing, was at our new mall. At the
entrance to the mall, they put up three very tall flag poles. Inside
the top of the middle one is a Cingular cell. You would never know it
was in there unless you had prior knowledge. I just happened to see
it the day the electronics went in, and the cover was off. I
confirmed it at a Cingular kiosk in the mall. They are getting really
clever at disguising these things. The other day my wife spotted a
big pine tree that looked too symetrical not to be man-made. I
pointed out the antenna at the very top. That one was easy to spot,
but the flagpole would be impossible to figure out.

Dick

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:41:40 -0500, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>They are listed as public utilities or common carriers and thus are planned
>in. Cellular towers require salable plots of land and are not a utility or
>common carrier [or other similar designation].

Not necessarily. Cells are often located in church steeples and other
suitable buildings, and can also be located on other non-salable
locations.

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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:13:56 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> The problem for a lot of us is that when the AMPS towers get shut
>> down, there is gonna be a lot of area in the US where we won't be able
>> to get service where we did before because the cellphone companies are
>> unwilling to fill in all those areas in with digital service.
>
>I think that similar to the government supported rural electrification,
>there should be some sort of "rural cellufication" program that replaces
>AMPS with digital in areas where digital would otherwise not be
>economically feasible.

Really Bad Idea(c). That kind of government interference in the market
tends to produce more bad consequences than good.

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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:28:16 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>
>> Not when you factor in the tri-mode phones that support D-AMPS. In
>> that case, carriers that support it (e.g., Verizon and Sprint) "edge
>> out" Cingular.
>
>Even with all-digital, Cingular has some big gaps in the tri-valley area
>where Verizon has good coverage.

Cingular actually has much better coverage in the Tri-Valley part of the
SF Bay Area than Verizon.

>Verizon has gotten a lot of new
>customers in that area from people that I know, [SNIP]

Dealers I've talked to say that Cingular is taking share from other
carriers, particularly Sprint, but also Verizon.

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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:51:32 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>I have several yardsticks with which I measure coverage, places we go to
>frequently that are outside the urban area. CA Hwy 88 to Kirkwood and on
>to Lake Tahoe, Marin Headlands, CA Hwy 25 to Pinnacles National Park,
>Yosemite, Santa Cruz mountains, and the non-populated areas of the San
>Mateo and Santa Cruz coastline. No, I'm not just intentionally choosing
>places with no GSM coverage, these are places we go to a lot. ...

Right. And pigs have wings.

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

How do we really know that Cingular is taking share from Sprint and Verizon?
A Cingular dealer will say that, however, a Sprint dealer will say that
Sprint rules and that all other carriers drool. Therefore, we need to take
most of this stuff with a grain of salt and choose the cell phone provider
that works the best in the areas that we work, play, travel, and live.

We all know that Verizon is the best because "it's the Network". Only
kidding... This kind of stuff is proof that we are drinking way too much
KoolAid!

p.s. Also be aware that there are shills in this here newsgroup. The shills
are on the payroll of the Cellular carriers or they are resellers of the
cellular service and one of their goals is to get you to switch providers to
the company that they are a shill for. Therefore, be carefull not to drink
the KoolAid and watch out for the Shills.


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:28:16 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>>
>>> Not when you factor in the tri-mode phones that support D-AMPS. In
>>> that case, carriers that support it (e.g., Verizon and Sprint) "edge
>>> out" Cingular.
>>
>>Even with all-digital, Cingular has some big gaps in the tri-valley area
>>where Verizon has good coverage.
>
> Cingular actually has much better coverage in the Tri-Valley part of the
> SF Bay Area than Verizon.
>
>>Verizon has gotten a lot of new
>>customers in that area from people that I know, [SNIP]
>
> Dealers I've talked to say that Cingular is taking share from other
> carriers, particularly Sprint, but also Verizon.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

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

>
> Dealers I've talked to say that Cingular is taking share from other
> carriers, particularly Sprint, but also Verizon.
>

Right. And pigs have wings.

Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Dealers I've talked to say that Cingular is taking share from other
>> carriers, particularly Sprint, but also Verizon.
>>
>
> Right. And pigs have wings.
>
>
This Is true in my area. In another month and a half I'm going to split
from verizon after 12 yrs. C/S problems, Phone problems, Etc. Verizon
still can't fix my phones voice mail problem.

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> How do we really know that Cingular is taking share from Sprint and Verizon?
> A Cingular dealer will say that, however, a Sprint dealer will say that
> Sprint rules and that all other carriers drool. Therefore, we need to take
> most of this stuff with a grain of salt and choose the cell phone provider
> that works the best in the areas that we work, play, travel, and live.

You can look at the net additions from quarter to quarter to see who is
gaining market share and who is losing it.

Look at "http://www.cellular-news.com/story/18056.php"

Verizon is gaining market share, Sprint and Cingular are losing market
share at about an equal rate, and T-Mobile is losing market share at a
rapid rate.

It doesn't really matter what the dealers say, the actual numbers are
public.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:04:45 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> How do we really know that Cingular is taking share from Sprint and Verizon?
>> A Cingular dealer will say that, however, a Sprint dealer will say that
>> Sprint rules and that all other carriers drool. Therefore, we need to take
>> most of this stuff with a grain of salt and choose the cell phone provider
>> that works the best in the areas that we work, play, travel, and live.
>
>You can look at the net additions from quarter to quarter to see who is
>gaining market share and who is losing it.
>
>Look at "http://www.cellular-news.com/story/18056.php"
>
>Verizon is gaining market share, Sprint and Cingular are losing market
>share at about an equal rate, and T-Mobile is losing market share at a
>rapid rate.
>
>It doesn't really matter what the dealers say, the actual numbers are
>public.

But only on an aggregate basis by quarter, in arrears, so they don't say
anything about the area in question or even the time period in question.
In addition, these shifts in market share are quite small and erratic in
relative terms. And Cingular remains the largest carrier, contrary to
your many forecasts and efforts to spin it otherwise.

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

This simply means that folks are swallowing the Verizon Marketing. That's
all there is to it. Drinkin the Koolaid.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> How do we really know that Cingular is taking share from Sprint and
>> Verizon? A Cingular dealer will say that, however, a Sprint dealer will
>> say that Sprint rules and that all other carriers drool. Therefore, we
>> need to take most of this stuff with a grain of salt and choose the cell
>> phone provider that works the best in the areas that we work, play,
>> travel, and live.
>
> You can look at the net additions from quarter to quarter to see who is
> gaining market share and who is losing it.
>
> Look at "http://www.cellular-news.com/story/18056.php"
>
> Verizon is gaining market share, Sprint and Cingular are losing market
> share at about an equal rate, and T-Mobile is losing market share at a
> rapid rate.
>
> It doesn't really matter what the dealers say, the actual numbers are
> public.

Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Dealers I've talked to say that Cingular is taking share from other
>> carriers, particularly Sprint, but also Verizon.
>>
>
> Right. And pigs have wings.

Navas is lying again, of course. Here are the actual results in terms of
market share, for the last five quarters, with the Merrill Lynch
estimate for 2Q 06:

Q1 05 Q2 05 Q3 05 Q4 05 Q1 06 Q206 est
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Cingular 32.10% 31.73% 31.22% 30.97% 30.58% 30.52%
Sprint 27.33% 27.31% 27.23% 27.25% 27.95% 27.79%
T-Mobile 11.66% 11.81% 12.12% 12.42% 12.44% 12.49%
Verizon 28.92% 29.15% 29.43% 29.36% 29.04% 29.21%

Cingular has been losing market share for the past four quarters (about
1.5%), Sprint has gained about 0.6% over the past four quarters,
T-Mobile has gained about 0.8% over the past four quarters, and Verizon
has gained about 0.1% over the past four quarters.

Note that Sprint and Nextel are combined, even though they reported
separately up to and including Q2 05.

I'll add the actual Q206 numbers when they become available.

The raw data is as follows (in millions):

1Q2005 2Q2005 3Q2005 4Q2005 1Q2006 2Q2006E
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------
Cingular 50.5 51.6 52.3 54.1 55.8 57.05
Sprint 43 44.4 45.615 47.6 51 51.95
T-Mobile 18.34 19.2 20.3 21.7 22.7 23.35
Verizon 45.5 47.4 49.3 51.3 53 54.6


Navas's claim about dealers telling him that Cingular is taking market
share from other carriers reminds me of his "proof" that extended range
GSM is in use in the U.S.. Funny stuff, though rather sad to see his
endless shilling and lying.