TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."

For entertainment value Larry, you are something...
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory rant to get a nice chuckle.

Now..... I sure hope it is only meant as entertainment.
Not to actually be taken seriously. That would be an entirely different story...

If one were to actually believe this craziness, one would most likely also
believe that ANY company in business, trying to make a profit and maximize
shareholder value is greedy and evil. That a company isn't entitled to make
a profit on the BILLIONS of dollars it spends?

This is simple capitalism vs communism.

You a commie Larry?


"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in news:f4Vjh.37257
> [email protected]:
>
>> Not sure what you are getting at. There is plenty of competition in the
>> mobile communications market. In my city I can choose between Cingular,
>> Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and a few others.
>>
>>
>
> But, is that an illusion created for the consumers?
>
> They're all members of the same "club", the CTIA (www.ctia.org)....
> They all act, approximately, the same, arrogant, aloof, demanding...
> They all play the same contract games with subsidies to prevent churning...
>
> Are they REALLY competitors, or simply tentacles of the same octopus, like
> oil companies are, bankers are, broadcasters are, cable companies are, many
> other corporations are??
>
> If I want to steal your customers, I offer them something really grand,
> really cheap and, most of all, industry shaking. Cellphone companies never
> do this. They all make lots of noise in overpriced advertising, but they
> never, just like gas companies, get far afield of what their CTIA bretheren
> are doing.....price fixing.
>
> Yes, you can choose any CTIA member for your phone, just like you can
> choose any Federal Reserve banker to hold your money.....
>

---

› See More: TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> There is plenty of competition in the
>> mobile communications market. In my city I can choose between Cingular,
>> Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and a few others.
>>
>>
>
> But, is that an illusion created for the consumers?
>
> They're all members of the same "club", the CTIA (www.ctia.org)....
> They all act, approximately, the same, arrogant, aloof, demanding...
> They all play the same contract games with subsidies to prevent churning...
>
> Are they REALLY competitors, or simply tentacles of the same octopus, like
> oil companies are, bankers are, broadcasters are, cable companies are, many
> other corporations are??
>
> If I want to steal your customers, I offer them something really grand,
> really cheap and, most of all, industry shaking. Cellphone companies never
> do this. They all make lots of noise in overpriced advertising, but they
> never, just like gas companies, get far afield of what their CTIA bretheren
> are doing.....price fixing.

Can a business afford to greatly undercut a competitor's prices if it means
losing money? Instead of imagining some grand conspiracy, could it be
that all the wireless companies have pretty much the same cost basis
and the same technological limits?

--
John Richards

"Ness net" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> If one were to actually believe this craziness, one would most likely
> also believe that ANY company in business, trying to make a profit and
> maximize shareholder value is greedy and evil. That a company isn't
> entitled to make a profit on the BILLIONS of dollars it spends?
>
> This is simple capitalism vs communism.
>
> You a commie Larry?
>
>
>

You must have read someone else's post.....??

MANY companies in business trying to maximize profits conspire with their
competitors to fix prices high. That's what the anti-trust laws are
supposed to, but are unsuccessful on purpose, prevent. There's no
difference between the collusion in cellular phone companies and gasoline
companies or telephone companies. They form a CARTEL...go look it up as
you seem to have some kind of convenient amnesia...FIX PRICES HIGH...and
they all reap in the profits. This is not a NEW concept. It has been
going on since before Pharoah freed the Jews. Duhhh.....

All companies are entitled to make as many billions of dollars as the
MARKET will bear. Mine is no different.

Now, what's the communist bull**** you've rolled out to justify corporate
cartel behaviour? Can you define a communist? Do you know what it is,
or is this the spin bull**** to deflect the idea of cartel existence and
its effect on cellular (or cable) pricing? Anyone who questions the
cartel's existence is to be attacked as an "evil commie", is that it?

God you're so transparent.....You should have a radio talk show.

Communism, by the way, has nothing to do with corporate cartels and
corporate greed....

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:P7%[email protected]:

> Can a business afford to greatly undercut a competitor's prices if it
> means losing money? Instead of imagining some grand conspiracy, could
> it be that all the wireless companies have pretty much the same cost
> basis and the same technological limits?
>
> --
> John Richards
>
>

Ask WalMart. They do it every day and it takes EIGHT armored cars to
haul it off from the new Superstore near me. It almost fills the
truck...8 times a day!

Let's have a little check.....Go to:
http://www.ctia.org/research_statist....cfm/AID/10030
the cartel's own statistics.....

Click up the number of subscribers....219,420,467
Now, click up total revenue....$60,450,669,000.00 X 2 =
120,901,338,000.00
divided by 219,420,467 = $551.00 per sub. divided by 12 = $45.91/month.
The average local monthly bill = $49.30 on another page. Maybe that's
taxes and the other add-on loads bureaucrats have dreamed up.

$120B/year is an amazing total.

Divided by 197,576 cell towers = $611,923.20 per year revenue on EACH
tower. Not a bad return on investment, minus the downsized stores with
no chairs to sit on while you're waiting for service.

Now, how much are their POTS costs? It doesn't say. They don't have
"lines" into the cells, like the old telephone systems. The cell has a
microwave link and a data server someplace. Phone numbers are CHEAP!
Skype sells me an incoming telephone number for $28/year. I doubt that's
at cost, don't you? Interconnect must be even cheaper in the US and
Canada. Skype sells me outgoing service to POTS, an interconnect from
their system, for $15/year....truly unlimited service...no "airtime", no
time limits, no monthly fee. I can't believe Ebay is losing its ass
providing this next year, can you? There's gotta be a small profit in
it. Even if it were at cost, $43/year - $551 per sub is a reasonable
profit margin for any business. I wish mine were that much! I bet
$43/sub/year is double what it really costs. Of course, this is just a
guess.

We seem to average 322 minutes a month, if you divide the 850B+ airtime
minutes here by the 219,420,467 of us in June of 06. I'm about average
on that. Alarmingly, divided by the 197,576 towers you get 4,302,141
airtime minutes per cell average. Does anyone know what kind of average
loading this is and how close to capacity this average represents? Of
course, it means nothing because so many towers are along interstates and
virtually unloaded while other towers are located on Wall Street making a
"few more calls" per hour...(c;

My point is, they're not going broke at these prices.

Click up cell sites for fun.....
From Jun 05 to Jun 06, the GRAND TOTAL new cell sites for ALL carriers
across the entire country was a measily 19,551 new sites. I, personally,
think someone with revenues of $121,000,000,000.00 can afford to fill in
a few more holes than these, don't you?

Anyone that read this far without falling over asleep....think about
those numbers next time you can't make a phone call from your living
room....(c;

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> decaturtxcowboy <[email protected]> wrote in news:XBVjh.41289
> [email protected]:
>
>> Considering that Texas can overlay most of eastern Europe.
>>
>>
>
> Americans' geography training is fun to play with.

Blatant diversionary tactic.


> I lived and worked in
> Iran for a little over 2 years back in the late 70's, leaving 28 days
> before the Shahanshah fled the country.

Maybe you should have stayed there.


> He just the
> opposite of the bloodthirsty, Islamic terrorist America's Jewish TV wants
> you to think about to keep the bankers' war machine running.

"Jewish TV?" You just lost all credibility, and revealed your true colors.


--
Mike

John Richards wrote:

> Can a business afford to greatly undercut a competitor's prices if it means
> losing money? Instead of imagining some grand conspiracy, could it be
> that all the wireless companies have pretty much the same cost basis and
> the same technological limits?

Not the same cost basis at all, which is why similar prices for service
don't result in identical profit margins. The carriers that went from
AMPS to TDMA to GSM, spent a lot more money on capital expenditures than
the ones that went from AMPS to CDMA. This is why Verizon's margins have
been so much higher. Now that Cingular has completed its GSM conversion,
its margins are going up, but still lag considerably.

Unfortunately, you can't price your products higher just because your
cost basis is higher, unless you offer some other compelling advantage.
As the Consumer Reports and JD Power surveys show, there is no
compelling advantage that Cingular could charge more for.

Larry wrote:

> Just because it's deployed in the USA, doesn't mean it's any good or "the
> best".

The converse is true too. Europe would have been much better off with a
transition to CDMA, and the carriers wanted to switch, but the
governments wouldn't allow it.

> Why does this thread have so many defenders of our crazy oddball digital
> schemes? Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with
> in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that
> matters more than what modulation scheme it's using.

Whatever the reason for our plethora of systems, and the differences,
the fact remains that Nokia is writing off a lot of potential business.

CDMA, in one form or another, is taking over, all over the globe. It'd
have been nice to settle on one system, but that didn't happen.

The reason that CDMA dominates in the U.S. has a practical basis. It's
much more bandwidth efficient, and there is more limited spectrum
available in the U.S.. It also has much greater range, which doesn't
matter in dense European cities, but matters a lot when you're trying to
cover the most possible area of a sparsely populated large country like
the U.S.. Look at GM's OnStar system, which is going from AMPS to CDMA,
due to their effort to keep as much coverage as possible.

Larry, just pointing out the absurdity of making blanket statements.
Deliberately yanking your chain so you'd dig your hole a bit deeper.

Rabid paranoia and gross generalization are both quite stupid.
Yet, you seem to do both quite regularly.

Doctors are all bad a while back....
Broadcasters ("Jewish")...
Gas companies...
Telephone companies...
Bankers....
Cable companies....

Who did I miss?
Why don't you just say ALL corporations...?
ALL business...?

God.... you are so paranoid and negative.... (and really easy BTW)




"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Ness net" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> If one were to actually believe this craziness, one would most likely
>> also believe that ANY company in business, trying to make a profit and
>> maximize shareholder value is greedy and evil. That a company isn't
>> entitled to make a profit on the BILLIONS of dollars it spends?
>>
>> This is simple capitalism vs communism.
>>
>> You a commie Larry?
>>
>>
>>
>
> You must have read someone else's post.....??
>
> MANY companies in business trying to maximize profits conspire with their
> competitors to fix prices high. That's what the anti-trust laws are
> supposed to, but are unsuccessful on purpose, prevent. There's no
> difference between the collusion in cellular phone companies and gasoline
> companies or telephone companies. They form a CARTEL...go look it up as
> you seem to have some kind of convenient amnesia...FIX PRICES HIGH...and
> they all reap in the profits. This is not a NEW concept. It has been
> going on since before Pharoah freed the Jews. Duhhh.....
>
> All companies are entitled to make as many billions of dollars as the
> MARKET will bear. Mine is no different.
>
> Now, what's the communist bull**** you've rolled out to justify corporate
> cartel behaviour? Can you define a communist? Do you know what it is,
> or is this the spin bull**** to deflect the idea of cartel existence and
> its effect on cellular (or cable) pricing? Anyone who questions the
> cartel's existence is to be attacked as an "evil commie", is that it?
>
> God you're so transparent.....You should have a radio talk show.
>
> Communism, by the way, has nothing to do with corporate cartels and
> corporate greed....
>

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

> "Jewish TV?" You just lost all credibility, and revealed your true
> colors.
>
>

Do you dispute that Jews own and control American commercial TV, or is this
the usual anti-semetic bull**** everytime someone dares say "jew" outside a
synagogue?

Perhaps you should choose any American TV network and look at who owns them
and controls the content.....perhaps.

While you're researching that, get a list of the top 50 bureaucrats in any
Federal bureaucracy and compare names....They're quite easy to spot.

Then, do the Federal Reserve Corporation, who controls the money and power
in the country.

This isn't a state secret.....

And the hole just gets deeper and deeper.

You sometimes strike me as intelligent.
Then..... maybe not.

Actually post what you ask below.
Then - start backpedaling.


"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Jewish TV?" You just lost all credibility, and revealed your true
>> colors.
>>
>>
>
> Do you dispute that Jews own and control American commercial TV, or is this
> the usual anti-semetic bull**** everytime someone dares say "jew" outside a
> synagogue?
>
> Perhaps you should choose any American TV network and look at who owns them
> and controls the content.....perhaps.
>
> While you're researching that, get a list of the top 50 bureaucrats in any
> Federal bureaucracy and compare names....They're quite easy to spot.
>
> Then, do the Federal Reserve Corporation, who controls the money and power
> in the country.
>
> This isn't a state secret.....
>

"Ness net" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Actually post what you ask below.
> Then - start backpedaling.
>
>

Did you do your homework, yet?


Larry
--
Stop answering and clicking email spammers, stupids!

As I said before.... post it.
I have seen these EXACT loony 'jew conspiracy' rants before.
And, took a real hard look. "Homework' already done...

And, when actually looked at - they are COMPLETE garbage.

History also reflects just where this type of demented thinking goes.

So, again really - PLEASE post what you are blathering about below.

I hear crow tastes alot like chicken....

While we are at it - Let's hear about that NASA/Apollo soundstage as well?
I need a good laugh.



(Repeat post - FYI...)

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Do you dispute that Jews own and control American commercial TV, or is this
> the usual anti-semetic bull**** everytime someone dares say "jew" outside a
> synagogue?
>
> Perhaps you should choose any American TV network and look at who owns them
> and controls the content.....perhaps.
>
> While you're researching that, get a list of the top 50 bureaucrats in any
> Federal bureaucracy and compare names....They're quite easy to spot.
>
> Then, do the Federal Reserve Corporation, who controls the money and power
> in the country.
>
> This isn't a state secret.....
>

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Ness net" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Actually post what you ask below.
>> Then - start backpedaling.
>>
>>
>
> Did you do your homework, yet?
>
>
> Larry
> --
> Stop answering and clicking email spammers, stupids!

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Unfortunately, you can't price your products higher just because your
>cost basis is higher, unless you offer some other compelling advantage.

And the collolary to that absolutely true statement is that there is no reason
to price lower unless you want to trade margin for share, which Wall Street is
very unlikely to approve of.

Larry wrote:
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Jewish TV?" You just lost all credibility, and revealed your true
>> colors.
>>
>>
>
> Do you dispute that Jews own and control American commercial TV, or is this
> the usual anti-semetic bull**** everytime someone dares say "jew" outside a
> synagogue?
>
> Perhaps you should choose any American TV network and look at who owns them
> and controls the content.....perhaps.

It's true, I get my check every month, along with a survey for my input
on what the content should be.

Fox-Rupert Murdoch-Catholic
CBS-Leslie Moonves-Jewish
NBC-Bob Wright-Catholic
ABC-Anne Sweeney-??

I can't believe that the anti-Semites are still using the "Jews control
Hollywood" schtick. I guess that they should really change their tune to
"the Pope controls American TV."

The networks are all part of publicly traded corporations, they are
owned by the stockholders.

Actually, what is true, is that Jews had a tremendous presence in the
founding of early Hollywood movie companies, and were disproportionately
a larger percentage of producers and writers.

Rick Blaine wrote:

> And the collolary to that absolutely true statement is that there is no reason
> to price lower unless you want to trade margin for share, which Wall Street is
> very unlikely to approve of.

Yet the Japanese car companies do exactly that.

The problem with trading margin for share is that all the company's
existing customers that are perfectly happy to pay higher prices, are
also beneficiaries of lower prices, not just new customers that they
might snag. And of course they don't want to create a price war that
ends up benefiting no-one.

I.e., I would gladly have paid $20,000 for our Toyota Camry LE, rather
than the $17,000 we paid. The fact that Toyota was trying to buy market
share, and keep their factories at full capacity, benefited me greatly.
Even if GM or Ford had dropped the price of whatever competing vehicle
they were offering to $13,000, it would not have caused me to buy their
product.