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

At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:

> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also
> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways.

I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding company that
controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance
companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the antithesis
of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package!

> I suppose I prefer the latter for
> myself. Different strokes and all.

So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not get
your hands dirty? ;-)


> And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the
> masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those masses and
then
> treat them like ****."

Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of mass-market
companies are also good corporate citizens.
> Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So
> lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like that.

> :-)


Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end "luxury"
carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?


> Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal
markup,
> cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for
> people.


Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any
successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more
successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does.

Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater to the
"high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's all
that I'm saying.

---

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

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also
>> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways.
>
> I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding company
> that
> controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance
> companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the
> antithesis
> of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package!
>
>> I suppose I prefer the latter for
>> myself. Different strokes and all.
>
> So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not get
> your hands dirty? ;-)
>
>
>> And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to the
>> masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those masses and
> then
>> treat them like ****."
>
> Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of mass-market
> companies are also good corporate citizens.
>> Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky. So
>> lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something like
>> that.
>
>> :-)
>
>
> Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end "luxury"
> carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?
>
>
>> Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal
> markup,
>> cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing for
>> people.
>
>
> Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any
> successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more
> successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does.
>
> Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater to
> the
> "high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's all
> that I'm saying.
>
>
When was the last time you shopped in Macy's? Macy's, to me, is closer to a
high end boutique than a mass-market discounter. They carry mainly
designer-name lines and sell those things at huge prices. They do NOT cater
to the "masses" though they admittedly attract them: poor people spending
huge bucks to have clothing with someone else's name on them. This is NOT a
Walmart or Target, not a GAP or Old Navy, true "masses" stores by your
standard. Btw, I'm a Macy's shopper. I was going to use Macy's as my analogy
but thought it didn't quite make the point because their success at crossing
over a wide range of economic levels is so good. But a "masses" store? No
way.

My Berkshire Hathaway reference was meant to refer primarily to the stock,
which currently sells for something in the neighborhood of $134,000 a SHARE.
Do you think that company is concerned about volume trading? The secondary
point is that Berk doesn't do business at the grass-roots level, but at the
"holding company" level where he deals with few clients who are willing to
pay high prices. It's naive to assume that, at the end, every business
doesn't eventually filter its way down to the "masses" as you put them. If
you do a "family tree" lineage study of any business, it has to end up down
there somewhere. My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on
you.

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

>
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>>
>>> There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also
>>> the Warren Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways.
>>
>> I fail to see the point of that comparison. Berk is a holding
>> company that
>> controls a variety of companies that catervto the masses- insurance
>> companies, fast food, mall jewelry stores, etc. Rather than the
>> antithesis
>> of Sam Walton, Buffet is many Sam Waltons in one convenient package!
>>
>>> I suppose I prefer the latter for
>>> myself. Different strokes and all.
>>
>> So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not
>> get your hands dirty? ;-)
>>
>>
>>> And along with your axioms you might also add, "and if you sell to
>>> the masses, to survive you must also employ the asses of those
>>> masses and
>> then
>>> treat them like ****."
>>
>> Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of
>> mass-market companies are also good corporate citizens.
>>> Or how about, "So the common man can fly, you must crowd up the sky.
>>> So lower those fares and gain more near-miss scares." Or something
>>> like that.
>>
>>> :-)
>>
>>
>> Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end
>> "luxury" carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?
>>
>>
>>> Just a little food-for-thought for those of you who think marginal
>> markup,
>>> cut-throat pricing, high volume selling is such a wonderful thing
>>> for people.
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily cut-throat- again, it's not all Wal-Mart- pick any
>> successful mass-mrket retailer, say Macy's, and they've got a more
>> successful operation than any high-end "boutique" does.
>>
>> Most, if not all, independent business people that I know that cater
>> to the
>> "high-end" customer is not as successful as his clients are- that's
>> all that I'm saying.
>>
>>
> 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.

At 22 Dec 2007 09:23:34 -0500 Carl wrote:

> When was the last time you shopped in Macy's?

The last time I was in the closest shopping mall.

> Macy's, to me, is
> closer to a high end boutique than a mass-market discounter. They
> carry mainly designer-name lines and sell those things at huge prices.


Frankly, despite your opinion of them, any retailer that anchors a mall in
Independence, Missouri, is a mass market retailer! ;-)

Again, I used Walton as an extreme example. I could've as easily used Ray
Croc vs. Wolfgang Puck.


> They do NOT cater
> to the "masses" though they admittedly attract them: poor people spending
> huge bucks to have clothing with someone else's name on them. This is NOT
a
> Walmart or Target, not a GAP or Old Navy, true "masses" stores by your
> standard.


"Standard?" I think you're confusing "mass market" with Dickens-era England.
Macy's is mass-market, but they're higher-end "snob appeal" mass market
like Apple Computers- sell a product for higher margin than your
competitors and use marketing and reputation to justify the markup- there's
nothing wrong with that.

If Macy's is what you mean by "high-end," then we're not having an
argument! ;-)

> Btw, I'm a Macy's shopper. I was going to use Macy's as my analogy
> but thought it didn't quite make the point because their success at
crossing
> over a wide range of economic levels is so good. But a "masses" store?
No
> way.

Historically, no, but in the last 10 or so years (since the Federated/May
mergers) they've become a suburban gilt-edged Sears.


> My Berkshire Hathaway reference was meant to refer primarily to the
stock,
> which currently sells for something in the neighborhood of $134,000 a
SHARE.

I'd never have thought of analogizing between a retailer and a stock price!
Market forces control the price of a stock, not a company's markup. B-H
is high because they've never split it, not because ir sells at a high
"profit margin."

> Do you think that company is concerned about volume trading?


No, it's concerned about ownership dilution! Look at the Baby Berk shares-
fractional shares of Berk with 1/5 the voting rights vs. dollar value.
Again, you don't buy stock at retail from the company itself, but at least
I kind of follow where you were going with it.


> The secondary
> point is that Berk doesn't do business at the grass-roots level, but at
the
> "holding company" level where he deals with few clients who are willing
to
> pay high prices.

It's not like Sam Walton was still working the register either after
WalMart opened their 1000th store, either.

>It's naive to assume that, at the end, every business
> doesn't eventually filter its way down to the "masses" as you put them.
If
> you do a "family tree" lineage study of any business, it has to end up
down
> there somewhere.

Butler? Yacht designer? ;-)

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

If you say so. I've just never pictured Walton and Buffet in the same
industry to draw an analogy between them... I guess I should've went with
Kroc and Puck...

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.

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"

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

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? :-)

"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.

["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

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"

"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.

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

"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.

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.