|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > December 2007 > Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of the iPhone?
|
|
| CozmicDebris 2007-12-18, 10:33 pm |
| 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in
news:c04c2628-9634-4100-b1e1- 441ac09e6bc4@e67g200
0hsc.googlegroups.com:
> Good article from Information Week
>
> Verizon's $399 Price Tag Of The Palm 755p Is Out Of Touch With Reality
> Posted by Eric Zeman, Dec 17, 2007 01:10 PM
>
>
> Can they really get such money for crippled crap 'smartphone' phones
> when a buyer could get a real iPhone instead for the same price?
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/blog...2/verizons_399_
> pr. html;jsessionid=VYDV
RU52AEIR4QSNDLOSKHSC
JUNN2JVN
>
>
But doesn't the Palm have a tone of features (even in the Verizon world)
that the iPhone does not?
GPS
Voice Dialing
3g
PUSH mail sync
Just to name a few.
| |
|
| SMS ???. ? wrote:
> CozmicDebris wrote:
>
>
> Yes, but the biggest reason Verizon can charge more, both for handsets
> and for service, is because their network is so much better. Look at
> the latest Consumer Reports, and look at _every_ other independent
> survey of carriers, and look at the bogus "fewer dropped calls"
> advertising campaign that Cingular got in trouble for.
>
> Remember, Apple approached Verizon with the iPhone before they
> approached Cingular, for a very good reason. Verizon wasn't willing to
> do the revenue sharing arrangement that Apple wanted, but Cingular was
> desperate enough to agree to it.
>
>
Very well put. Said another way, you get what you pay for.
Asking the OP a rhetorical question, how can any vendor's pricing policy be
"out of touch with reality" if they're selling their product? Unfortunately,
what questions like these usually imply, imho, is that "I'd like to have
that more than the other but I'd rather pay less for it." In other words, I
want my cake and eat it too.
| |
|
| SMS ???. ? wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>
>
> Yes. Pricing needs to be set to maximize profit. You can be selling
> your product too cheaply and be leaving money on the table, or you
> can be charging too much and be losing customers that would raise
> profits by virtue of higher volume. You can damage the image of your
> product by getting into a price war with competitors that have a
> poorer product, but you have to be careful to not charge so much for
> your superior product that customers decide to put up with your
> competitors cheaper product.
>
> What most businesses do is figure out ways to appeal both to the
> price-sensitive customer and to the customer that doesn't care about
> paying more. I could pay much more for the Verizon service I have by
> foregoing a corporate discount or adding worthless services such as
> "Get It Now," or the g-d awful "Please Enjoy the Music While Your
> Party is Reached" service where the music is always the same
> static-filled classical piece. I could also probably pay less by
> switching to a Verizon MVNO that charges as little as 5.3¢/minute,
> rather than paying my current $32/month (which would buy me over 600
> minutes per month at 5.3¢ each).
>
> As to the iPhone, just think of how much better it would have sold
> were it on Verizon's network, with its more widely deployed, and
> faster, 3G service, not to mention its vastly superior voice network.
> Just look at the latest Consumer Reports, as well as _every_ other
> independent survey, then look at the bogus "fewest dropped calls"
> advertising campaign that was based on data that even the company
> that did the survey said did not support Cingular's conclusion.
>
You're right on every point, but I feel you're reading too much into the
OP's original question and into my response. Verizon appears to be, from my
point of view, doing well based on your criteria, so their pricing cannot be
out of touch with reality. They may be out of touch with HIS reality, which
is the way I chose to read it.
And I'll take issue with one thing: probably "most businesses" do "figure
out ways to appeal both to the
price-sensitive customer and to the customer that doesn't care about paying
more", but that is not always the best business model. There are businesses
which cater to the high end only (and there are, of course, the reverse
model businesses). The high-end guys, because they have a smaller customer
base, make a larger profit margin with fewer employees, smaller facilities,
less overhead . They also usually excel at customer service. because they
have to. The opposites have to work their asses off to do volume. Customer
service almost always suffers. The ones in the middle have a taste of both,
but generally appreciate their higher end clients more. Given the choices,
I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-12-20, 3:33 pm |
| At 20 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
> I'd rather be a business that caters to the high end. You?
How do you think Sam Walton would've answered that? ;-)
There's an old business axiom that says "if you sell to the classes, you'll
eat with the masses. If you sell to the masses, you'll eat with the
classes."
| |
| Larry 2007-12-20, 10:33 pm |
| =?UTF-8?B? U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KA
oiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
in news:476a9a01$0$8422
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Yes. Pricing needs to be set to maximize profit. You can be selling your
> product too cheaply and be leaving money on the table, or you can be
> charging too much and be losing customers that would raise profits by
> virtue of higher volume. You can damage the image of your product by
> getting into a price war with competitors that have a poorer product,
> but you have to be careful to not charge so much for your superior
> product that customers decide to put up with your competitors cheaper
> product.
>
>
If this thread continues, I think we all deserve some credit hours in
Economics on our student records......
Larry
--
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand shops
crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas, Undersecretary
of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights.
How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I use!
| |
| Larry 2007-12-21, 12:33 pm |
| =?UTF-8?B? U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KA
oiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
in news:476bf2a7$0$8418
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> superior coverage.
>
You haven't been to Myrtle Beach, have you?.....(c;
Larry
--
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand shops
crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas, Undersecretary
of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights.
How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I use!
| |
| clifto 2007-12-21, 12:33 pm |
| SMS ???? ? wrote:
> There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business
> Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic.
Is that on line somewhere? I've always had a suspicion that Tagamet was
the start of the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. I remember it
was $30 a month as opposed to a typically expensive prescription of $12
or thereabouts. I remember also that they promised the price would drop
like a rock when R&D was paid off, but the price did nothing but go up,
quintupling just before a generic became available.
--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.
| |
|
| clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in news:a9bt35-jjp.ln1
@remote.clifto.com:
> the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today.
http://www.drugstore.com/pharmacy/p...gprice.asp?ndc=
55513019001&trx=1Z5006
This is the price of Neulasta, a 0.6ml plastic syringe to "help
REDUCE infections in chemo patients." It doesn't prevent them.
ONE syringe, .6ml costs $3,201.75 at drugstore.com DISCOUNTED!
I brought up some heavy computer hardware and did some arithmetic and
this crap is $US22,198,800 per gallon, making it FAR more valuable
than ANY OTHER LIQUID ON THE PLANET.
We should hang ALL the usurers, not just the lawyers and bankers.
Check out the webpage to get better discounts on Neulasta if you're a
multimillionaire and want more than one injection. It gives new
meaning to "one every four hours".
Larry
--
QUOTE OF THE MONTH:
"I have been to several major Chinese cities and have seen first hand
shops crammed with obviously fake American products." - Jon Dudas,
Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Rights.
How can they be fake? The Chinese make all "American Products" I
use!
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 20 Dec 2007 14:05:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>
> How do you think Sam Walton would've answered that? ;-)
>
>
> There's an old business axiom that says "if you sell to the classes,
> you'll eat with the masses. If you sell to the masses, you'll eat
> with the classes."
>
There are the Sam Waltons with their Walmarts but there are also the Warren
Buffets with their Berkshire Hathaways. I suppose I prefer the latter for
myself. Different strokes and all.
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 shit."
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.
:-)
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.
| |
|
| clifto wrote:
> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>
> Is that on line somewhere? I've always had a suspicion that Tagamet
> was the start of the outrageous pricing of drugs we see today. I
> remember it was $30 a month as opposed to a typically expensive
> prescription of $12 or thereabouts. I remember also that they
> promised the price would drop like a rock when R&D was paid off, but
> the price did nothing but go up, quintupling just before a generic
> became available.
>
Pharmaceuticals is not a good example to use in this debate. The market
forces of the drug industry are different than other consumer goods. Not to
say that he doesn't have an ax to grind or that a lot of what he has to say
is biased, but you should make a point of seeing Michael Moore's "Sicko".
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-12-22, 4:33 am |
| 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 shit."
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.
| |
|
|
"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:fkilqb$v6o$1@ai
oe.org...
> At 21 Dec 2007 21:23:03 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>
> 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!
>
>
> So, essentially you want to be one level removed from Walton and not get
> your hands dirty? ;-)
>
>
> then
>
> Not necessarily- Walmart is the extreme example. Plenty of mass-market
> companies are also good corporate citizens.
>
>
>
> Now you're talking about an entire industry- who is the high-end "luxury"
> carrier you'd rather be than, say, United?
>
>
> markup,
>
>
> 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.
| |
| Scott 2007-12-22, 10:33 am |
| "Carl" < crothman@NOSPAMopton
line.net> wrote in
news:476d1de7$0$3114
6$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>
> "Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
> news:fkilqb$v6o$1@ai
oe.org...
> 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.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-12-22, 3:33 pm |
| 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 $134,000 a
SHARE.
I'd never have thought of analogizing between a retailer and a stock price!
Market forces control the price of a stock, not a company's markup. B-H
is high because they've never split it, not because ir sells at a high
"profit margin."
> Do you think that company is concerned about volume trading?
No, it's concerned about ownership dilution! Look at the Baby Berk shares-
fractional shares of Berk with 1/5 the voting rights vs. dollar value.
Again, you don't buy stock at retail from the company itself, but at least
I kind of follow where you were going with it.
> The secondary
> point is that Berk doesn't do business at the grass-roots level, but at
the
> "holding company" level where he deals with few clients who are willing
to
> pay high prices.
It's not like Sam Walton was still working the register either after
WalMart opened their 1000th store, either.
>It's naive to assume that, at the end, every business
> doesn't eventually filter its way down to the "masses" as you put them.
If
> you do a "family tree" lineage study of any business, it has to end up
down
> there somewhere.
Butler? Yacht designer? ;-)
> My analogy was a good one. That you "fail to see" it is on you.
If you say so. I've just never pictured Walton and Buffet in the same
industry to draw an analogy between them... I guess I should've went with
Kroc and Puck...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-12-22, 3:33 pm |
| At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
>
>
> For me, it would have been about a week ago and I wasn't impressed.
> Many identical items found elswhere for a fraction of the cost. What I
> saw was a Target store trying to be classy.
Yeah, his analogy would've held up if this was 1972 and we compared Macy's,
when it was still owned by the family, to, say, Sears.
| |
|
| In article <fkjp7r$qf1$3@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 22 Dec 2007 10:16:36 -0600 Scott wrote:
>
>
> 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"
| |
| Tinman 2007-12-23, 12:33 pm |
| 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:
>
>
> 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? :-)
| |
| Scott 2007-12-23, 10:33 pm |
| "Carl" < crothman@NOSPAMopton
line.net> wrote in
news:476f0ddd$0$1385
9$607ed4bc@cv.net:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> 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.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2007-12-23, 10:33 pm |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-12-24, Scott <how.do@you.do> 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
| |
|
|
"SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47714362$0$8420
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Tinman wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-12-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 47714914$0$9171$607e
d4bc@cv.net>,
"Carl" < crothman@NOSPAMopton
line.net> wrote:
> 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.
I'm on AT&T and have been for several years, but generally I thought
that Verizon was a superior network, by far. My experience with Sprint
in this area, a few years back, has been that they had virtually no
worthwhile signal in most places.
Recently, I'm beginning to wonder if that's true. My company changed us
to Sprint, which used to be absolutely horrible in this area--but is now
one helluva presence. I get signal everywhere, and most places it's
EVDO. Personally, I never would have guessed that. Certainly I
wouldn't have put two years of my money on that bet.
Then a colleague from a different area came into town; turns out he used
to have Sprint and loved it, but his boss got him Verizon and he's very
unhappy with it over the last 6 months. And in fact, we were in a
warehouse area where I had full signal EVDO on my Sprint Blackberry, and
on his Verizon phone he had zero signal. He had to go OUTSIDE just to
make and receive calls.
Hmmmm.......I know that Sprint has been advertising about the investment
they've made in my area. And Verizon had no signal at all where Sprint
was full boat?? WTF?
| |
| Tinman 2007-12-26, 7:33 am |
| Carl wrote:
> "SMS ???. ?" wrote:
<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.
[color=darkred]
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.
[color=darkred]
> 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" <ask@for.it> wrote in message
news:5te57eF1arpb6U1
@mid.individual.net...
> Carl wrote:
> <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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> It was asinine.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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/rati...ervice-ratings-(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/e...ll-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.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-12-26, 7:33 am |
| 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.
| |
|
|
|
| =?UTF-8?B? U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KA
oiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:47728ed8$0$8418
0$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> While it's true that the major carriers will be turning off AMPS in
> urban areas, the rural carriers will keep AMPS up and running "for the
> foreseeable future" because their customers are highly dependent on
> AMPS. Verizon even just introduced a new tri-mode phone, the LG VX-
5400.
>
>
"Cellular Coverage Certifications
Cellular licensees that intend to discontinue analog service after
February 18, 2008 are permitted, in lieu of making a revised Cellular
Geographic Service Area (CGSA) showing, to file a certification stating
that the discontinuance of analog service will not result in any loss of
wireless coverage throughout an affected CGSA."
These words are from the FCC website on Cellular. If any of them turn
off AMPS in 2008, I'd bet they could be busted on grounds that turning
off AMPS WILL "result in any loss of wireless coverage throughout an
affected CGSA".
I don't know of a single carrier that could say that, in truth, in the
rural areas of America. They'd have to go on a major erection binge to
fill in the holes between the AMPS towers 10 miles apart putting up
little towers 4 miles apart to use with the toyphones.
Sure would be fun to see that tested in court with very rich rural AMPS
users like big Texas ranchers, oil companies, etc. to keep AMPS turned
on. Just the loss of all but the very latest OnStar-equipped digital
cars would be enough to make filing a statement that there was no effect
a TOTAL LIE.
Nice try, though....(c;
Larry
--
| |
|
| Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9A129F670AC9
Anoonehomecom@
208.49.80.253:
> Nice try, though....(c;
>
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/in.../>
&id=cellular
Here is where all 11 reports are for your reading. Verizon, ATT/Cing,
Alltel, Dobson want out. 3 of the reports are from AMPS users, including
Onstar and the Alarm Company lobby. The AMPS traffic is low, less than 1%
Alltel says, but the majority users like Onstar and Alarm systems are using
AMPS for signalling that digital cannot do. These systems don't "use"
airtime, only pay for it and give it back, unless something bad happens.
Is it any wonder only 1% are AMPS calls?
Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?
| |
| Larry 2007-12-26, 10:33 pm |
| =?UTF-8?B? U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KA
oiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
in news:4772c8e9$0$8424
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Of course if they simply switch off all the AMPS, who's going to be able
> to prove that their used to be coverage in areas where there is now no
> coverage? AFAIK, no one is out there documenting all the AMPS only areas
> in the country.
>
>
I got interested in this thread and read through as many of the 11 parts
on:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/in.../>
&id=cellular
as I could.
It's interesting to note you can read ALL of the comments from the various
company lawyers EXCEPT VERIZON, of course. One Verizon document has major
areas blacked out and looks like some kind of secret CIA document released
under pressure. The latest Verizon document is mysteriously MISSING and
refuses to load at all.
Why does this not surprise me that we cannot read what Verizon says......??
Why doesn't the FCC want us to see what Verizon says? Why the secrecy and
blackouts? Assholes.
Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?
| |
| Larry 2007-12-26, 10:33 pm |
| George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:O5idnZGxk_VNUe_
anZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
> I guess all of the remote metering that uses CDMA on VZWs network that
> the local power utility uses in my area doesn't really work?
>
Does it use CDMA or EVDO? I suspect 1X or EVDO....
Larry
--
I worked hard under Social Security since I was 12.
My SS retirement check is one oz of gold per month.
Can we afford to start any more wars for corporations?
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-12-26, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-12-26, SMS ???? ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 1. Retail postpaid subscribers
> Verizon: 59.4 million
> AT&T: 52.7 million
> 2. ARPU
> Verizon: $52.17
> AT&T: $50.82
Of course the postpaid subscriber numbers and ARPU numbers are apples
and oranges. The ARPU number for AT&T isn't the average for those 52.7
million postpaid subscribers, it is the average revenue from all 65.7
million subscribers of any description, including the 13 million you
excluded as "lower quality".
>
> It doesn't seem that way. They still have higher ARPU, more subscribers,
> and lower churn than AT&T. Clearly Verizon considered the terms Apple
> wanted as being financially undesirable, despite the hype that they
> would have gained with the iPhone. Also, Verizon is very big with
> corporate customers,
Yet, despite all that, AT&T's total revenue from providing phone service
is higher than Verizon's ($9.9 billion in the last quarter, compared to
$9.7 billion for Verizon). The total number of AT&T subscribers (not
just the numbers you cherry-picked) is enough higher than Verizon to
more than cancel the small advantage in ARPU which Verizon has.
Verizon did, however, substantially exceed AT&T's revenue from non-service
business, i.e. mostly selling phones and accessories. Verizon's near-monopoly
on phones used with their service has certainly been profitable.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| "Carl" < crothman@NOSPAMopton
line.net> wrote:
> 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.
The problem is that all the articles you linked are surveys of customer
service, not network coverage. I think most of us would agree that customer
service is the least important factor to consider when making a purchase.
I've had the best experience with buisnesses that provide no customer
service at all -- for example, newegg.
~None
| |
|
| "SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
> areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).
Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode.
~None
| |
| Tinman 2007-12-27, 12:33 pm |
| Carl wrote:
> "Tinman" wrote:
> 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)?
I wrote about network coverage gaps and you came back about customer
service? How would Verizon's customer service have helped me in an area that
has no--again, no--Verizon coverage? <shakes head>
>
> 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.
Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that
he claimed had only Verizon coverage. You said nothing. Others brought up
true-life experiences with Sprint, covering a much larger area, and you
whine? Grow up already, no one insulted one of your family--it's cellphone
carrier, that's all.
Again: I have had no problems with Sprint, for more than seven years now, as
far as coverage, phone selection, call quality, and pricing are concerned.
Yes customer service sucks but that doesn't make the other carriers "great."
They just happen to suck less in an industry that sucks a lot. But you know
what? I don't call customer service very often, so it doesn't effect me
much--certainly not enough to pay more money for it.
I've now had AT&T for nearly six months with no problems either. Since I
have had no problems with either Sprint or AT&T I fail to see why I should
be impressed with Verizon when they have zero coverage in at least one area
that I am in all of the time, and they passed up the only phone that could
have possibly gotten me to switch.
--
Mike
| |
| Tinman 2007-12-27, 3:33 pm |
| SMS ???. ? wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>
> Hardly remote
More remote than the areas Elmo and I brought up.
>. These are major state highways we're talking about, not
> some back-country trails or Forest Service roads.
I've been all around the Reno/Tahoe area and I am familiar with NV 431. It's
not a major road, it's a winding mountainous state highway that runs through
many remote areas--I don't think it even makes it into Reno proper.
My point was that your anecdotal reports are pretty much pointless for most
everyone else, as no one else will live in travel in the exact same areas,
in the exact same timeframes, as you. Still I refuted the last anecdotal
report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.
> It's not just in one
> place. I've been to areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, and Florida
> with these coverage issues. Nor is it any secret, as you can look at
> the carrier's maps and see the coverage differences.
Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
roaming--on Sprint. <g>
>
> The best option for AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers that are traveling
> outside metro areas is to bring along a prepaid CDMA/AMPS phone so
> they have a much better chance of obtaining coverage.
>
> For 21¢ per month, and as low as 25¢ per minute you can have a phone
> that can use the American Roaming Network (outgoing only). For $2.31
> per month, and as low as 5.3¢ per minute, you can have a PagePlus
> account.
You too are being a little overly dramatic with the "need two phones"
nonsense. I travel frequently, live in the desert southwest, and have never
had coverage issues with either CDMA-only, or GSM-only during the last 2+
years of using nothing but digital. In fact I've carried my Sprint phone
with me for the last six months "just in case" and never needed it, not even
once.
Wake up, it's not 2000 anymore.
--
Mike
| |
| Scott 2007-12-27, 10:33 pm |
| =?UTF-8?B? U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KA
oiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:47741390$0$8423
5$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>
> It's one of the major routes between Lake Tahoe and Reno. The other
> route is down through Carson City then 50 over Spooner Summit, also a
> windy mountain road.
>
>
> It's naive to believe that the areas where I noted lack of coverage
> are somehow the only such areas in existence. Amusingly, looking at
> the AT&T coverage map, they do claim to cover most of 431. The area
> where they have a gap is where the road goes through Mount Rose
> Meadows, but ironically that's where both the snow play area,
> snowmobile area, and skiing/snowshoeing areas are located.
>
>
> Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg"
>
>
> It shows up with complete digital coverage. It doesn't say whether
> it's roaming or native, not that I would care. Actually when you
> switch the coverage type to InPulse from Voice & Messaging, the
> coverage goes away, so that's a good clue that it's not native
> coverage.
>
Steve, you've turned into the Verizon version of Navas. Maybe not quite as
obnoxious, but every bit as rabid and blinded by brand. You've been like
that for years and just like Navas refuse to admit it. I've seen you take
vindictive actions against other carriers on the internet because of
opinions that didn't advance your own Verizon agenda.
Be better than Navas and at least admit it. If not, you end up being no
better a source of information than he is, which is a poor place to be in.
TO be a troll or not be a troll- the decision is yours.
| |
|
| "SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
> phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.
Roaming only works on every digital sprint phone...
~None
| |
| Tinman 2007-12-28, 10:33 am |
| SMS ???. ? wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>
> It's one of the major routes between Lake Tahoe and Reno.>
So what? The area I listed is AZ 95, a main route between I-40 and I-10, Las
Vegas to Phoenix, etc.
That you want to give more weight to your random anecdotal report is the
only oddity.
>
> It's naive to believe that the areas where I noted lack of coverage
> are somehow the only such areas in existence. Amusingly, looking at
> the AT&T coverage map, they do claim to cover most of 431. The area
> where they have a gap is where the road goes through Mount Rose
> Meadows, but ironically that's where both the snow play area,
> snowmobile area, and skiing/snowshoeing areas are located.
>
You said the carrier maps were accurate. And maybe they are: there could be
a myriad of reasons why your anecdotal report is incorrect, or temporary in
nature.
>
> Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg"
That's not Verizon coverage, that's Sprint coverage. So much for your
argument that the carrier maps show it all. And for that matter there is no
EV-DO in that location and Verizon can't use Sprint's CDMA there either.
By your logic Sprint's network includes everything from Verizon. And in fact
that would be more accurate than the other way around as the Sprint phones I
still have can easily be forced to roam onto Verizon at will (and, no, the
PRL doesn't change this fact).
>
>
> It shows up with complete digital coverage.
From Sprint, not Verizon. You know, like I've been stating all along.
> It doesn't say whether
> it's roaming or native, not that I would care. Actually when you
> switch the coverage type to InPulse from Voice & Messaging, the
> coverage goes away, so that's a good clue that it's not native
> coverage.
No shit, and that's the only way to truly see native coverage. Verizon
doesn't have or lease any tower space in the area, at least not east of the
Colorado.
--
Mike
| |
| Tinman 2007-12-28, 12:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
>
> In areas where both carriers have coverage, roaming is often blocked
> by the PRL. Where it isn't blocked by the PRL by Sprint, you have to
> set the phone to "roaming only" in order to get coverage in areas
> where Sprint lacks coverage.
How many times are you gonna contradict yourself in one thread? Remember
writing this:
SMS wrote:
> It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
> phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.
The above was in response to someone informing you that most Sprint phones
can be forced to digital roam, where you wrote this:
SMS wrote:
> the problem with Sprint is that they don't let you roam on Verizon in
> areas where Sprint has a network presence (but with poor coverage).
So in one thread you went from:
1.) Sprint doesn't let you roam at will on Verizon.
2.) Sprint will let you roam at will, but only if the PRL allows it.
3.) Sprint will let you roam at will regardless of the PRL but you have to
set the phone to roaming only as their automatic roaming sucks.
Did you think no one was paying attention?
> If Sprint could offer 100% automatic
> roaming, then they'd have done better than Verizon in all the
> surveys, rather than consistently being rate last.
You do sound like a lot Navas. Now you're trying to make it appear as if
customer service equals coverage, when backed into a corner.
And for what? My report about lack of Verizon coverage in 86403 wasn't a
slam against Verizon per se. It was meant to sarcastically show how absurd
these little anecdotal reports actually are. In fact I don't care if your
phone worked while skiing, driving down a mountainous rural state highway,
or even in your own home. Call me selfish but what matters to me is that my
phones work where I am at.
--
Mike
| |
| Tinman 2007-12-28, 12:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>
> What you don't understand is that Sprint and Verizon have
> cross-roaming agreements for areas where one or the other does not
> have a network presence.
I understand roaming agreements, but I also know that in the real world
things don't always turn out as planned. Kinda like coverage maps.
> It doesn't matter to subscribers (Sprint or
> Verizon) which network they are calling on. It does matter as far as
> EVDO is concerned.
Nope, it mattered with CDMA 1x too. And not being able to receive or send
email did matter to the Verizon subscribers I was with in that area--it
mattered a lot. There can be other issues when roaming as well.
If given the choice I don't know why anyone wouldn't want native coverage.
It does matter.
--
Mike
| |
|
| none wrote:
> "Carl" < crothman@NOSPAMopton
line.net> wrote:
>
> The problem is that all the articles you linked are surveys of
> customer service, not network coverage. I think most of us would
> agree that customer service is the least important factor to consider
> when making a purchase. I've had the best experience with buisnesses
> that provide no customer service at all -- for example, newegg.
>
That's not exactly accurate. While arguably not clear, one of JD Power's
categories in which Verizon excels is "Overall Satisfaction". You can
interpret that how you wish, but I believe that would include satisfaction
with their phone service.
As well, here's a quote from the consumer research citation: "Considering
all factors, reviews say Verizon has the best call quality. Verizon
customers experience fewer dropped calls and circuit overloads than with
other carriers. While plan prices may not be the cheapest, rates are
competitive.". That's not merely "customer service" imho. Nor do I think it
is in yours.
I'm not going to review all of those citations for you but I suggest you
re-read them. Or at least find some citations for me that contradict them.
Without any we're just expressing unsubstantiated opinion, much of which is
dependent upon where we've invested our money. Consumers often have to
justify their choices. Much as I may be doing I suppose... ;-)
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>
> I wrote about network coverage gaps and you came back about customer
> service? How would Verizon's customer service have helped me in an
> area that has no--again, no--Verizon coverage? <shakes head>
>
>
>
> Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area
> that he claimed had only Verizon coverage. You said nothing. Others
> brought up true-life experiences with Sprint, covering a much larger
> area, and you whine? Grow up already, no one insulted one of your
> family--it's cellphone carrier, that's all.
>
> Again: I have had no problems with Sprint, for more than seven years
> now, as far as coverage, phone selection, call quality, and pricing
> are concerned. Yes customer service sucks but that doesn't make the
> other carriers "great." They just happen to suck less in an industry
> that sucks a lot. But you know what? I don't call customer service
> very often, so it doesn't effect me much--certainly not enough to pay
> more money for it.
> I've now had AT&T for nearly six months with no problems either.
> Since I have had no problems with either Sprint or AT&T I fail to see
> why I should be impressed with Verizon when they have zero coverage
> in at least one area that I am in all of the time, and they passed up
> the only phone that could have possibly gotten me to switch.
>
You too failed to read the other three citations I gave you. You're picking
and choosing the semantics which suit your argument. Read all of them and
more detail will emerge. It's not me that has to grow up. You're the one
adamantly defending a carrier on the verge of going out of business and
which does have the worst rep for call reliability, whether you want to
accept that or not, and you're on this thread justifying your decision
because why, if I'm the "drama queen"? Perhaps the reason Verizon users are
not jumping in talking about where their coverage was better than the other
carriers is BECAUSE THE LIST WOULD BE TOO LONG! :-)
By the way, while I'm just as disappointed as you that Verizon passed up the
iPhone opportunity, I have to say that if Verizon were an individual person
we would be complimenting their moral character, not criticizing them. Apple
trying to make a deal which cuts into the service provider's revenues is a
bit self-serving and arrogant, I think. Verizon telling them to f___ off is
sort of ballsy, dontcha think?
And last, I might ask you why you think Apple approached Verizon first? It
couldn't be because Sprint was the better choice for them but they wanted to
start at the bottom, could it? :-)
| |
|
| =?UTF-8?B? U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KA
oiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in news:4775d4a8$0$8420
3$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> Well Cingular had a big ad campaign trying to claim "fewer dropped
> calls" but no one believed them, and even the company that did the
> survey for them came out and said that the premise of their ad
> campaign was incorrect. The AT&T had the "more bars in more places"
> campaign, which no one took seriously.
>
> Verizon's ad campaign was successful not because of its brilliance,
> but because it jived with the experience of its users. Cingular and
> AT&T's ad campaigns failed because every independent survey
> contradicted the claims that were made.
>
No- Verizon's ad campaign was successful because they put a face to the
campaign and drove it into the ground. Just like the iPhone advertising,
people will believe anything. That is, until they experience the downsides
first-hand.
You can quote all the surveys you want, but you need to paint the whole
picture. No carrier has numbers that even rate them in the middle of any
other industry, including Verizon. And that goes for all aspects of the
service. Being the tallest pygmy still makes you a pygmy.
I have now decided that you should be referred to as Navas, Jr. for your
fanboi approach to Verizon. Just like Navas with Cingular/ATT, Verizon can
do no wrong in your eyes.
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> Call me
> selfish but what matters to me is that my phones work where I am at.
>
And, finally, this is the best said, and most important, statement of all.
After all, that is all that matters in the end, isn't it? Kudos for hitting
the point on the head..
| |
| Tinman 2007-12-29, 10:33 am |
| SMS ???. ? wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>
> Not sure what your agenda is here, but as I proved, Verizon has
> complete coverage in 84603.
>
Nice attempt but no, Navas Jr., the discussion was about 86403 where Verizon
has zero coverage. I witnessed this first-hand and in fact own a house
there. Somehow I trust my first-hand experience, and the word of the SBA rep
for the towers in the area (the land on one of them which I sold to SBA
several years ago), more than your coverage-map-is-always-right, except when
I don't want it to be, mindset.
--
Mike
| |
| Tinman 2007-12-29, 10:33 am |
| SMS ???. ? wrote:
>
> LOL, and of course his whole premise is wrong to begin with since in
> fact Verizon does have coverage in the area in question, just not
> native coverage.
That's priceless, Navas Jr., priceless.
Now we are calling roaming "Verizon" coverage now. I don't think even the
original Navas would get *that* foolish.
>
>
> Perhaps the Verizon executives weren't briefed as to the proper
> protocol when dealing with Steve Jobs.
>
<snipped the rambling justifications>
I think it actually pains you that Verizon blew it on the iPhone.
Whether you wanted it to appear that way or not, your post looked like a
bunch of sour grapes.
--
Mike
| |
|
| "Carl" < crothman@NOSPAMopton
line.net> wrote:
> That's not exactly accurate. While arguably not clear, one of JD Power's
> categories in which Verizon excels is "Overall Satisfaction". You can
> interpret that how you wish, but I believe that would include satisfaction
> with their phone service.
Call it whatever you want -- whether 'customer service', 'consumer
experience', 'customer satisfaction', etc, it still has nothing to do with
the quality of the product. If consumer reports used the popularity contest
method to rate all their products, Bose would be rated the #1 speaker
company, bar none.
>Or at least find some citations for me that contradict them.
If you want to claim that a network has the best overall coverage, you need
to provide some measurement of coverage to support it. Overall satisfaction
has nothing to do with coverage -- it's a '2/3 ads I see reinforce the idea
that my choice of provider was the best one' rating.
~None
| |
| clifto 2007-12-30, 7:33 am |
| DTC wrote:
> SMS ???? ? wrote:
>
> I'd say closer to .000001%.
One in every hundred million is a bit low, no?
--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.
|
|
|
|
|