Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall

Qwest will switch from Sprint to Verizon for selling Cellular to its
customers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2008...pcworld/145503

---

› See More: Qwest sees the handwriting on the wall

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Qwest will switch from Sprint to Verizon for selling Cellular to its
> customers
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2008...pcworld/145503

Sort of. Currently Qwest sells "Qwest Wireless" to it's customers, not
Sprint. Qwest just happens to be a Sprint MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network
Operator) like, for example, Virgin Mobile is. Qwest buys airtime at
wholesale from Sprint but in all other respects, is just like a cellular
company themselves- they sell handsets, offer their own rate plans, and bill
customers directly.

The article makes it sound like this switch to Verizon basically is a
retreat from the wireless business for Qwest- they'll be selling Verizon
service AS Verizon service- not rebranding it as "Qwest" and competing
against Sprint, Verizon, etc. for customers. They'll sell it like they sell
DirecTV for TV service- as an already popular "parner" product you can
bundle with your Qwest home phone/DSL bill to save a few bucks a month.

After four years, Qwest still has less than 1,000,000 wireless customers, so
this story is really more a reflection of Qwest's inability to market
wireless (they used to be the incumbent wireline 800MHz cellular carrier in
their market and sold their entire system to Verizon, which is why they had
to go the MVNO route in the first place!) rather than any reflection on
Sprint. Qwest had a 5-year MVNO deal and seems to simply be bailing out of
the biz at it's expiration.

On Tue, 6 May 2008 08:05:51 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Qwest will switch from Sprint to Verizon for selling Cellular to its
>> customers
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2008...pcworld/145503
>
>Sort of. Currently Qwest sells "Qwest Wireless" to it's customers, not
>Sprint. Qwest just happens to be a Sprint MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network
>Operator) like, for example, Virgin Mobile is. Qwest buys airtime at
>wholesale from Sprint but in all other respects, is just like a cellular
>company themselves- they sell handsets, offer their own rate plans, and bill
>customers directly.
>
>The article makes it sound like this switch to Verizon basically is a
>retreat from the wireless business for Qwest- they'll be selling Verizon
>service AS Verizon service- not rebranding it as "Qwest" and competing
>against Sprint, Verizon, etc. for customers. They'll sell it like they sell
>DirecTV for TV service- as an already popular "parner" product you can
>bundle with your Qwest home phone/DSL bill to save a few bucks a month.
>
>After four years, Qwest still has less than 1,000,000 wireless customers, so
>this story is really more a reflection of Qwest's inability to market
>wireless

Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints
1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.



\=
>(they used to be the incumbent wireline 800MHz cellular carrier in
>their market and sold their entire system to Verizon, which is why they had
>to go the MVNO route in the first place!) rather than any reflection on
>Sprint. Qwest had a 5-year MVNO deal and seems to simply be bailing out of
>the biz at it's expiration.
>
>
>
>

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>>The article makes it sound like this switch to Verizon basically is a
>>retreat from the wireless business for Qwest- they'll be selling Verizon
>>service AS Verizon service- not rebranding it as "Qwest" and competing
>>against Sprint, Verizon, etc. for customers. They'll sell it like they
>>sell
>>DirecTV for TV service- as an already popular "parner" product you can
>>bundle with your Qwest home phone/DSL bill to save a few bucks a month.
>>
>>After four years, Qwest still has less than 1,000,000 wireless customers,
>>so
>>this story is really more a reflection of Qwest's inability to market
>>wireless
>
> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints
> 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.

Look Phillipe, we all know about your axe to grind with Sprint, so stick a
sock in it. Only an absolute idiot would believe a single word you post
about Sprint, knowing your history.

As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million customers
despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS or
they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around
for the stellar CS! Even the bulk of their current customer hemmoraging is
coming from the Nextel side, not the PCS service. Look over the complaints
in the SprintPCS newsgroup (other than the 400 or so you've inserted via
various sockpuppets)- the majority are about billing issues, surrepitious
extensions of contracts, etc. VERY few complaints here are about coverage.

As to Qwest, I live in a Qwest market (Denver.) I know a load of people
with Sprint service (most of whom are relatively happy.) I don't know a
single Qwest Wireless user! Again, they're not dumping Sprint due to any
issues with Sprint- they simply haven't been able to market a successful
wireless service in the 25+ years of cellular's existence. Heck, when I
moved to Denver 4 years ago, Qwest was still hawking LOCAL plans at the
prices other carriers sold nationwide service for, and charged outlandish
roaming fees when you roamed off of "their" (Sprint's) network, despite the
fact that Sprint itself offered better plans with no roaming fees!

Whatever problems Sprint may have, Qwest created far more of their own!
Qwest Wireless' problems are on Qwest- not Sprint. Qwest has just never
taken wireless seriously- it's as if they only offer it at all because
"bundling" internet, phone, TV and wireless is expected of a telco or
cableco these days. Bundling services people actually know and use (like
DirecTV or Verizon) makes more sense than trying to launch or increase
awareness of their own brand.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-06, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints
>> 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.
>
> Look Phillipe, we all know about your axe to grind with Sprint, so stick a
> sock in it. Only an absolute idiot would believe a single word you post
> about Sprint, knowing your history.
>
> As to the "poor coverage,"

Poor coverage is not the problem. ****ty customer service is the problem.

> extensions of contracts, etc. VERY few complaints here are about coverage.

Didn't have any when I was a Sprint customer either.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Ron wrote:

> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints
> 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.

It's worse than that actually. Not only do the Sprint MVNO's have to
deal with Sprint's coverage (which according to every independent survey
is much worse than Verizon's), they don't get to roam onto other CDMA
carriers to compensate (a trick that many Sprint subscribers have
mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS,
etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a
guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said to him that I thought he had
an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too expensive to use all the
time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in the Bay Area.

The latecomers to wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile U.S., got stuck with
1900 MHz, and it works okay in densely populated areas where they can
install enough towers. However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon
Valley, has terrible Sprint and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in
the large residential areas doesn't allow for cell sites. It's a
tremendous battle every time a carrier proposes a site someplace where
they aren't permitted. The 800 MHz carriers essentially surround the
residential neighborhoods with sites in the commercial areas, and it's
good enough to provide good coverage.

On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:38 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>

>As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million customers
>despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS or
>they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around
>for the stellar CS!

Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs?

On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:54:14 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>Poor coverage is not the problem. ****ty customer service is the problem.
>



No argument from me about the Customer Service.

On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:20:54 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ron wrote:
>
>> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints
>> 1900 Mhz poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.
>
>It's worse than that actually. Not only do the Sprint MVNO's have to
>deal with Sprint's coverage (which according to every independent survey
>is much worse than Verizon's), they don't get to roam onto other CDMA
>carriers to compensate (a trick that many Sprint subscribers have
>mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS,
>etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a
>guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said to him that I thought he had
>an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too expensive to use all the
>time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in the Bay Area.
>
>The latecomers to wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile U.S., got stuck with
>1900 MHz, and it works okay in densely populated areas where they can
>install enough towers. However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon
>Valley, has terrible Sprint and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in
>the large residential areas doesn't allow for cell sites. It's a
>tremendous battle every time a carrier proposes a site someplace where
>they aren't permitted. The 800 MHz carriers essentially surround the
>residential neighborhoods with sites in the commercial areas, and it's
>good enough to provide good coverage.


You mean Todd was wrong? and its not just <poor> Customer Service ?

On Tue, 06 May 2008 17:14:38 -0500, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:38 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>

>>As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million customers
>>despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS or
>>they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around
>>for the stellar CS!

>Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

"Ron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:38 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>As to the "poor coverage," Sprint's been able to amass 40 million
>>customers
>>despite long-time customer service issues. Obviously their network WORKS
>>or
>>they'd have no customer base left- those 40 million aren't hanging around
>>for the stellar CS!
>
> Thats why they have the high churn of Customers and CSRs?

Poor coverage causes CSRs to quit? Ok, I'll bite- it should be entertaining
to hear you try and connect those dots!

On 2008-05-06, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon). If you have Virgin, MetroPCS,
> etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_. Yesterday I got a call from a
> guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said to him that I thought he had
> an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too expensive to use all the
> time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in the Bay Area.

I believe that, but MetroPCS isn't a Sprint MVNO and doesn't use
Sprint's network so that particular anecdote says nothing about Sprint.
MetroPCS owns and operates its own network and their coverage in the bay
area is not too wonderful.

Sprint's coverage isn't too bad, it improved dramatically over the
years I had service with them. I'm sure you can find Sprint coverage
holes, but I can also find coverage holes for the two carriers whose
phones I carry now (AT&T and Verizon).

Dennis Ferguson

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ron wrote:

>> Nice try at spinning. Even a Sprint MVNO has to suffer Sprints 1900 Mhz
>> poor coverage and lack of indoor penetration.
>
> It's worse than that actually. Not only do the Sprint MVNO's have to deal
> with Sprint's coverage (which according to every independent survey is
> much worse than Verizon's), they don't get to roam onto other CDMA
> carriers to compensate (a trick that many Sprint subscribers have
> mentioned is forcing roaming to Verizon).

That's up to the MVNO. Qwest customers have the same roaming abilities as
Sprint customers.

> If you have Virgin, MetroPCS, etc., you're using Sprint sites _only_.
> Yesterday I got a call from a guy I knew and he kept dropping, and I said
> to him that I thought he had an iPhone on AT&T. He told me that it was too
> expensive to use all the time, and that he had a MetroPCS phone to use in
> the Bay Area.

MetroPCS has their own licenses, spectrum and infrastructure- they aren't an
MVNO. They typically build tiny systems covering the smallest possible area
to launch a viable service.

> The latecomers to wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile U.S., got stuck with 1900
> MHz, and it works okay in densely populated areas where they can install
> enough towers.

Fair enough. That generally covers 80+% of the population.

> However an area like mine, a suburb in Silicon Valley, has terrible Sprint
> and T-Mobile coverage because the zoning in the large residential areas
> doesn't allow for cell sites.

That's an atypical situation, though.

> It's a tremendous battle every time a carrier proposes a site someplace
> where they aren't permitted. The 800 MHz carriers essentially surround the
> residential neighborhoods with sites in the commercial areas, and it's
> good enough to provide good coverage.

That's why it's atypical- in most cases the 1900MHz carriers can do exactly
the same thing, unless extreme distance or topography interfere.

On 2008-05-06, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:54:14 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Poor coverage is not the problem. ****ty customer service is the problem.
>
>
> No argument from me about the Customer Service.

And we all know why it tanked. You and I disagree about the level of customer
service pre-merger. I didn't have any problems at all pre-merger. But after
the merger went through...

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.sprintpcs.]
On 2008-05-06, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:

> You mean Todd was wrong? and its not just <poor> Customer Service ?

Steven is wrong, unless MetroPCS is a Sprint MVNO. And as far as I
know, none of the flat-rate wireless providers are Sprint MVNO's --
not Metro, not Cricket, not Revol (and I know for sure Revol isn't; I
got a phone a month after they launched, back when they were still
Northcoast PCS, and they were building out their own network then).

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol