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 in
<[email protected]>:

>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.

Not necessarily. Rationalizing networks would have been quite a bit
easier with GSM.

>> 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.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: 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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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>
>

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

["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

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

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

Tim Smith wrote:
> 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.

More likely it was like two dance partners wanting to lead and the
date was over early in the evening.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:35:04 -0800, Tim Smith
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>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?

Yes.

>Most
>reports are that Apple when to Verizon first, and Verizon turned them
>down.

That's all from one story based on spin from Verizon.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>