Verizon retakes US wireless subscriber lead from AT&T

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
> to proove that CDMA is better.

The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
to provide better service.

---

› See More: Verizon retakes US wireless subscriber lead from AT&T

At 06 Jun 2007 16:58:46 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Not sure why Navas is so upset about Verizon passing AT&T in
> subscribers, it really doesn't mean anything other than bragging
> rights in advertising.


And yet Verizon hasn't bragged about it in their ads to date. Apparently
they don't think they've surpassed AT&T yet either...

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:01:41 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
>> to proove that CDMA is better.
>
>The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
>their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
>Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
>country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
>to provide better service.


It has far more to do with Customer Service. EVERY year scientifuic
surveys from

The Yankee Group, J.D. Power and Consumer Reports rate Verizon as FAR
BETTER than Cingular or SprintPCS in Customer Service.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:01:41 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>>> That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
>>> to proove that CDMA is better.
>> The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
>> their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
>> Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
>> country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
>> to provide better service.
>
>
> It has far more to do with Customer Service. EVERY year scientifuic
> surveys from
>
> The Yankee Group, J.D. Power and Consumer Reports rate Verizon as FAR
> BETTER than Cingular or SprintPCS in Customer Service.

Nope, the good surveys break down their evaluation into several
categories, including coverage and dropped calls. The CDMA cellular
carriers, Verizon and Alltel, consistently rank the best in every area
they serve. These are surveys with very high sample sizes, so the
results have an extremely low margin of error. Sprint is another story;
they're stuck with CDMA on PCS, and 1900 MHz presents quality of service
issues that are very difficult and very expensive to overcome.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Jun 2007 16:58:46 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> Not sure why Navas is so upset about Verizon passing AT&T in
>> subscribers, it really doesn't mean anything other than bragging
>> rights in advertising.
>
>
> And yet Verizon hasn't bragged about it in their ads to date. Apparently
> they don't think they've surpassed AT&T yet either...

More likely that they don't think it's something worth using in their
advertising. Look at the comparative number of net additions between
Cingular and Verizon. Clearly the current Verizon marketing campaigns
are doing fine. Advertising like that can backfire. If you claim you're
the best just because you have the most subscribers and the most people
you can call free on mobile to mobile, what happens when you have a
couple of comparatively mediocre quarters of net additions, as Cingular
has been experiencing, and lose the lead slightly? Cingular is only
slightly behind right now, and when the iPhone hits they will probably
be slightly ahead for a while.

Doing well in national and regional surveys is the best marketing tool,
and that's something money can't buy. Of course you can run always run
out and do your own survey, misrepresent the results and base a whole
national ad campaign on those results, to the point that even the
company that you paid to do the survey has to issue a statement that the
advertising claims are are invalid. Did Cingular really ever believe
that no one would see through the "fewest dropped calls" claim? It
backfired, as there was not evidence to support their claims.

At 07 Jun 2007 06:36:02 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Cingular is only slightly behind right now, and when the iPhone hits
> they will probably be slightly ahead for a while.

You're giving the iPhone waaaay too much credit. I suspect the actual
number of people who jump ship will be small. Frankly, Verizon's phone
selection has been lackluster for quite sometime- people buy Verizon for
"The Network"- not for snazzy phones.

> Doing well in national and regional surveys is the best marketing tool,
> and that's something money can't buy. Of course you can run always
> run out and do your own survey, misrepresent the results and base a
> whole national ad campaign on those results, to the point that even
> the company that you paid to do the survey has to issue a statement
> that the advertising claims are are invalid. Did Cingular really ever
> believe that no one would see through the "fewest dropped calls" claim?
> It backfired, as there was not evidence to support their claims.

How did it "backfire?" Other than a few weirdos like us that follow this
industry way too closely, the general public knows nothing about the
lawsuits and countersuits about Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" or
Sprint's "most powerful network" etc.

The ad campaign is still running strong, and whether it affects public
perception remains to be seen. Obviously the "can you here me now" geek
trudging through swamps and forests convinced America Verizon works
everywhere.

I was at the "YMCA of the Rockies" campground in Estes Park last weekend,
and the "can you here me now" guy was nowhere to be seen. Verizon users
were struggling for signal in the woods just like the rest of us. In fact,
I was quite impressed that my T-Mo service did as well as it did- my wife
and I lost signal no more (or less) freqently than my Verizon-packing
sister-in-law and niece.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 07 Jun 2007 06:36:02 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> Cingular is only slightly behind right now, and when the iPhone hits
>> they will probably be slightly ahead for a while.
>
> You're giving the iPhone waaaay too much credit. I suspect the actual
> number of people who jump ship will be small. Frankly, Verizon's phone
> selection has been lackluster for quite sometime- people buy Verizon for
> "The Network"- not for snazzy phones.

You're probably right. Maybe I got caught up in all the hype for the
iPhone. It's actually a very nice web pad with its wi-fi access, and
while high-priced for a phone, it's not so bad for a web access device
plus music player. Too bad there is no external memory slot.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:36:02 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 06 Jun 2007 16:58:46 -0700 SMS wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure why Navas is so upset about Verizon passing AT&T in
>>> subscribers, it really doesn't mean anything other than bragging
>>> rights in advertising.

The one that's so intent on this issue, as the record clearly shows, is
actually you, presumably because of your axe to grind against GSM in
general and AT&T/Cingular in particular.

>> And yet Verizon hasn't bragged about it in their ads to date. Apparently
>> they don't think they've surpassed AT&T yet either...

Well, duh.

<SCRAMBLE>
>More likely that they don't think it's something worth using in their
>advertising. Look at the comparative number of net additions between
>Cingular and Verizon. Clearly the current Verizon marketing campaigns
>are doing fine. Advertising like that can backfire. If you claim you're
>the best just because you have the most subscribers and the most people
>you can call free on mobile to mobile, what happens when you have a
>couple of comparatively mediocre quarters of net additions, as Cingular
>has been experiencing, and lose the lead slightly? Cingular is only
>slightly behind right now, and when the iPhone hits they will probably
>be slightly ahead for a while.
</SCRAMBLE>

>Doing well in national and regional surveys is the best marketing tool,
>and that's something money can't buy. Of course you can run always run
>out and do your own survey, misrepresent the results and base a whole
>national ad campaign on those results, to the point that even the
>company that you paid to do the survey has to issue a statement that the
>advertising claims are are invalid.

You mean like Verizon ads based solely on undisclosed and unverifiable
internal testing? LOL

>Did Cingular really ever believe
>that no one would see through the "fewest dropped calls" claim? It
>backfired, as there was not evidence to support their claims.

The campaign is still running, so that wouldn't seem to be true either.

Give it a rest.

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

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:58:46 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> AT&T = Customers
>>
>> When subscribers are counted for each Verizon comes out on top.
>
>Verizon has more subscribers than "Wireless from AT&T" while AT&T has
>more users of its network by virtue of them leasing capacity to more
>MVNOs than Verizon.

The simple fact, no matter how you try to deny it, is that AT&T/Cingular
is the market leader.

>A good metric is how many subscribers can call each other using mobile
>to mobile minutes. The MVNO customers of AT&T don't get to call actual
>AT&T subscribers.

Your personal metric makes no sense, and is at odds with the industry.

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

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:25:40 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700 SMS wrote:
>>
>>> As has been explained, Verizon Wireless now has more customers than
>>> "wireless from AT&T" or whatever they're calling themselves.
>>
>> More retail customers, yes.
>
>Right, more customers that signed up with Verizon Wireless than signed
>up with Cingular/AT&T Wireless.
>
>> If Ford sells 10,000 to Hertz, Ford counts those cars as sales, even
>> though Hertz will rent, then eventually resell them.
>
>That's not a good analogy. Hertz is a corporate fleet customer, but they
>are buying essentially the same product as the retail customer.
>
>A good analogy would be if GM lets Hertz lease the GM factory to produce
>a different vehicle, for sale only to Hertz.
>
>What AT&T could say is "we have the most wireless users using our
>wireless network."

Give it a rest. No matter how you try to explain it away, AT&T/Cingular
is in fact the current leading carrier.

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

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:58:09 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700 SMS wrote:

>> All of this doesn't even matter all that much...
>
>True- Verizon will likely overtake Cingular in total number of customers
>(by ANY definition) by year end.

Maybe. But then again maybe not -- the iPhone is the wild card.
It's quite possible the iPhone could result in an _increase_ in share
for AT&T/Cingular. Time will tell.

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

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:01:41 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
>> to proove that CDMA is better.
>
>The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
>their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
>Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
>country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
>to provide better service.

That's simply nonsense. GSM/UMTS and CDMA both have pros and cons.

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

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:01:34 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
>to proove that CDMA is better.

Incorrect on both counts.

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

At 13 Jun 2007 16:58:57 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> Maybe. But then again maybe not -- the iPhone is the wild card.
> It's quite possible the iPhone could result in an _increase_ in share
> for AT&T/Cingular. Time will tell.


While I think the iPhone will be a success, it won't be THAT much of one
given the price tag/product category. No matter how successful a BMW is,
for example, it doesn't outsell the Toyota Camry- they're in different
classes. Even if the iPhone outsells every $200+ cellphone, sales will
still be dwarfed by the "free" phone(s) of the moment.

There's also the "Peter" factor- most folks won't eat an ETF just to be
first on their block, so many iPhone sales will happen over time as
existing contracts "peter out." (Many initial sales will likely be AT&T
contract extensions, which, while nice, don't mean as much to the net adds,
except, perhaps, in lower churn.)

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:25:03 -0400, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 13 Jun 2007 16:58:57 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Maybe. But then again maybe not -- the iPhone is the wild card.
>> It's quite possible the iPhone could result in an _increase_ in share
>> for AT&T/Cingular. Time will tell.
>
>While I think the iPhone will be a success, it won't be THAT much of one
>given the price tag/product category. No matter how successful a BMW is,
>for example, it doesn't outsell the Toyota Camry- they're in different
>classes. Even if the iPhone outsells every $200+ cellphone, sales will
>still be dwarfed by the "free" phone(s) of the moment.

Maybe. But then again, maybe not -- there are some pretty successful
phones in that category, and we don't know what kind of pricing curve is
planned. From what I've seen, Apple has a lot of margin in that phone,
and thus a lot of room for discounting. I'm pretty impressed by what
I've seen of the phone, which is way more cool than the stodgy stuff now
on the market, and I think it might well sell on cool alone. Then
there's the fact that the iPod far outsells the competition even though
much of the competition is much less expensive. What this suggests is
that people are willing to pay a big price premium for cool.

>There's also the "Peter" factor- most folks won't eat an ETF just to be
>first on their block, so many iPhone sales will happen over time as
>existing contracts "peter out." (Many initial sales will likely be AT&T
>contract extensions, which, while nice, don't mean as much to the net adds,
>except, perhaps, in lower churn.)

Maybe. But then again, maybe not -- AT&T may well be willing to upgrade
people early, and even expiring contracts plus new customers is still a
huge potential market, on the order of 6+ million per month. Even just
1% of that potential would still be 500K units this year, which I think
is pretty conservative.

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