Results 16 to 30 of 222
- 01-19-2008, 01:01 PM #16Anon E. MussGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:26:49 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Nope. CMDA-2000 and W-CDMA are totally different.
Nope.
While they differ in many aspects and WCDMA is not merely a wideband
version of CDMA2000, they are not "totally different" as they both use
the same mobile air interface. And the channels in both CDMA2000 and
WCDMA are defined with codes rather than time, as TDMA/GSM.
And even if you didn't know that, you could intuitively figure it out
from what their acronyms ***** out -- "Code Division Multiple Access
2000" and "Wideband Code Division Multiple Access".
I mean -- just think for a minute -- why would there be CDMA in both
of their names if they were completely different and had nothing in
common ?
› See More: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
- 01-19-2008, 01:51 PM #17Dennis FergusonGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-19, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2008-01-19, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Even with the Sprint subscriber losses, CDMA remains the dominant system
>>> in North America, with well over 50% of subscribers.
>>
>> Unless my math is really screwed up that statistic is just wrong. Where
>> did it come from?
>>
>> Dennis Ferguson
>
> It was in an article last year. They added up the subscribers from the
> major carriers for each technology, Verizon, Sprint, Alltel, AT&T,
> T-Mobile, then divided by the total number of customers.
Got it. Google came up with this:
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/24950.php
I think it is wrong only because it seems to exclude from the North
American market the part of North America in Mexico. If you add in
the 50 to 60 million Mexican GSM subscribers (depending on how many TDMA
users Telcel still has) and the fewer than 5 million CDMA subscribers
there I think you get a different result.
Dennis Ferguson
- 01-19-2008, 01:52 PM #18Steve SobolGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-19, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have indeed been a Sprint customer. Other issues aside, the network
> is a big problem in many areas, and network integration and migration is
> nothing short of a nightmare.
Sounds like you're talking about the Nextel merger, right? So was
I. The FIRST and biggest screwup was taking on the debt from the
merger and cutting a whole bunch of jobs and outsourcing to people
whose sole job seems to be pissing off customers.
If you're not talking about that, what exactly are you refering to?
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
- 01-19-2008, 05:14 PM #19Dennis FergusonGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-19, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:18:22 -0700, Todd Allcock wrote:
>>At 19 Jan 2008 01:00:33 +0000 John Navas 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.
>>
>>Which has nothing to do with GSM (or CDMA), either. Other than a few savvy
>>customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular
>>customers know or care what technology their carrier uses.
>
> It's not whether they care, it's the massive advantage from worldwide
> use and economies of scale.
So which numbers should we look at to be able to measure that massive
advantage and its payoff? The wireless operations of AT&T and Verizon
make about the same revenue from about the same number of customers, but
Verizon's operating income from that revenue is about 50% higher than AT&T.
And, despite the lower spending per customer, most big surveys which try
to measure it still give Verizon's network a coverage and performance
advantage. If there really is a massive advantage at something which
matters it should be measureable somehow.
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.
Dennis Ferguson
- 01-19-2008, 10:15 PM #20Robert CoeGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:53:54 -0800, "Ness-Net"
<[email protected]> wrote:
: John, up to your old tricks again I see......
:
: Let me give you a hint...... then do your homework.
:
: N E X T E L
:
: is where most of the problems are - (which isn't "CDMA")......
Which brings up the obvious question: WHAT in God's name were they thinking
when they bought that turkey?
Bob
- 01-19-2008, 10:34 PM #21Robert CoeGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:18:22 -0700, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:
: At 19 Jan 2008 01:00:33 +0000 John Navas wrote:
:
: > Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
: > the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
: > island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
:
: But Sprint's problems have nothing to do with being CDMA. If CDMA is
: "declining," it's because Sprint is hemmoraging customers- not the other
: way around. If Sprint was GSM, GSM would've lost 650,000 customers instead.
That argument makes no sense. Sprint's ex-customers must have gone somewhere.
Those who went to Verizon (and there must surely be more than a few who did)
have no net effect on the CDMA headcount.
: > 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.
:
: Which has nothing to do with GSM (or CDMA), either. Other than a few savvy
: customers that travel internationally, I doubt 9 out of 10 cellular
: customers know or care what technology their carrier uses.
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.
Bob
- 01-19-2008, 11:15 PM #22DTCGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster"- shares plunged 25.2 percent
Robert Coe wrote:
> Which brings up the obvious question: WHAT in God's name were they thinking
> when they bought that turkey?
To sell it off to the Department of Homeland Insecurity perhaps?
- 01-19-2008, 11:33 PM #23Jar-Jar BinksGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
The Sprint Customer Sevice Problem that seems insurmountable to Sprint
should have been easily fixed. T-Mobile, Cingular and Verizon have done a
good job in this area. First of all, the outsourcing needs to stop and
Sprint needs to become "pro customer" and drop the attitude that the
customer is always wrong and stop treating the customer as if they are the
enemy.
"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2008-01-19, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I have indeed been a Sprint customer. Other issues aside, the network
>> is a big problem in many areas, and network integration and migration is
>> nothing short of a nightmare.
>
> Sounds like you're talking about the Nextel merger, right? So was
> I. The FIRST and biggest screwup was taking on the debt from the
> merger and cutting a whole bunch of jobs and outsourcing to people
> whose sole job seems to be pissing off customers.
>
> If you're not talking about that, what exactly are you refering to?
>
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
> Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
>
- 01-20-2008, 12:08 AM #24Anon E. MussGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:34:06 -0500, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
>Phones that handle all four(?) GSM bands are still pretty rare and
>expensive.
Nonsense.
- 01-20-2008, 12:15 AM #25Dennis FergusonGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-20, Robert Coe <[email protected]> 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.
By my count 12 of the 15 phones AT&T offers for free with a new contract
on their web site support all four bands.
Dennis Ferguson
- 01-20-2008, 09:13 AM #26UnoGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
Did Nextel take over Sprint?
"Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John, up to your old tricks again I see......
>
> Let me give you a hint...... then do your homework.
>
> N E X T E L
>
> is where most of the problems are - (which isn't "CDMA")......
>
>
>
>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>> Yep. CDMA has been in serious decline, and this will tend to accelerate
>> the process, leaving Verizon increasingly isolated on a shrinking CDMA
>> island, probably why Verizon shares dropped much more than AT&T shares.
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
>
- 01-20-2008, 09:34 PM #27Robert CoeGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:15:21 GMT, Dennis Ferguson <[email protected]>
wrote:
: On 2008-01-20, Robert Coe <[email protected]> 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.
:
: By my count 12 of the 15 phones AT&T offers for free with a new contract
: on their web site support all four bands.
Is that a recent development? The last Usenet discussion I recall seeing on
the subject implied that there were only a few quad models available and that
many users were distressed to learn that their US GSM phones wouldn't work
internationally. But I have to admit that as a Verizon customer I haven't paid
a lot of attention to the subject lately.
Bob
- 01-20-2008, 10:43 PM #28Steve SobolGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-01-21, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is that a recent development?
I don't know, but I've been with T-Mobile since 2005. Back then, at least
3 or 4 of their GSM handsets were quad-band, and I believe they have more
than that in their lineup now.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
- 01-20-2008, 11:02 PM #29Dennis FergusonGuest
Re: SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "disaster" - shares plunged 25.2 percent
On 2008-01-21, Robert Coe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:15:21 GMT, Dennis Ferguson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>: On 2008-01-20, Robert Coe <[email protected]> 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.
>:
>: By my count 12 of the 15 phones AT&T offers for free with a new contract
>: on their web site support all four bands.
>
> Is that a recent development? The last Usenet discussion I recall seeing on
> the subject implied that there were only a few quad models available and that
> many users were distressed to learn that their US GSM phones wouldn't work
> internationally. But I have to admit that as a Verizon customer I haven't paid
> a lot of attention to the subject lately.
Recent as in a few years, I guess. A few years ago you had to buy a
fairly high end phone, like a Motorola V3, to get all four GSM bands.
Now a Motorola V3 (in several colors) is among the phones they'll give
you for free with a new account. I think it has got to the point now
where there's little to be saved by leaving any of the GSM bands out.
Of course roaming in a couple of Asian countries, and taking advantage
of some of the better European phone service deals, requires a phone
with a UMTS band which is supported by only one or two (very expensive)
phones available from any US carrier, so there are still topics for
travellers to moan about.
Dennis Ferguson
- 01-21-2008, 12:35 AM #30Tim SmithGuest
Re: 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
Similar Threads
- Samsung
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.verizon
Convenient virtual card for linkedin ads
in Games