Cingular cell phone service - Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of

Author

Re: Is Verizon's Pricing Out of Touch With Reality in the age of

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-19, 10:33 pm

CozmicDebris wrote:

> 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.

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.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-20, 12:33 pm

Carl wrote:

> 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?

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.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-20, 10:33 pm

Carl wrote:

> 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).

Yes, I was referring to businesses that sell a product that is
essentially unlimited in supply. These businesses find many creative
ways to sell the same product to different market segments at vastly
different prices. They may sell the product under a different brand
name, they may have all sorts of complicated discount schemes including
rebates, coupons, corporate discounts, friends and family discounts,
discounts for certain clubs and organizations etc., or they may just
engage in plain haggling.

A prime example is how Verizon allows MVNO's to resell their service at
substantially lower cost than Verizon itself charges. Clearly Verizon
views most of the MVNO business as pure upside, or they wouldn't resell
to MVNOs.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-21, 12:33 pm

Larry wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B? U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KA
oiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> in news:476a9a01$0$8422
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> If this thread continues, I think we all deserve some credit hours in
> Economics on our student records......

There are some good case studies of pricing in the Harvard Business
Review. The Tagamet versus Zantac is a classic.

It's called entrepreneurial pricing. Apple tried that with the iPhone
and failed, being forced to lower their price. Verizon is able to engage
in entrepreneurial pricing to some extent because their network is so
much better than the AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile networks, and because the
consumers understand this and enough are willing to pay extra for far
superior coverage.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-21, 12:33 pm

Larry wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B? U01TIOaWr+iSguaWh+KA
oiDlpI8=?= <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> in news:476bf2a7$0$8418
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> You haven't been to Myrtle Beach, have you?.....(c;

I'm sure that there are numerous small cities and towns where Verizon
isn't great, but for the metro areas where most of the customers are,
they are much better in almost every case. I guess I'm a little skewed
because in the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon is so much better than
the other carriers in terms of coverage. The other carriers are simply
unusable in many of the less urban parts of the Bay Area.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-21, 10:33 pm

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.

It's the opposite of what you're thinking. The head of Glaxo was being
pressured to price Zantac at a lower price than Tagamet, and instead he
decided to charge a premium, because Zantac was a better drug for the
same condition.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-25, 12:33 pm

Tinman wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>
> Your analogy was asinine.
>
> Moreover you missed the point of "high-end" with regards to cellphones.
> Verizon isn't selling glitz and glamour or better phones; it's selling its
> network and it's not priced that much higher than the competition. If they
> tried to truly go high-end they would likely fail in an industry as
> commoditized as mobile phones.

This past weekend I had another chance to see the advantage of the
Verizon network. I was on Nevada 431, the road that connects North Lake
Tahoe to Reno over Mount Rose. There was CDMA coverage on Verizon, and
roaming onto Verizon by Sprint, but there was no AT&T or T-Mobile
coverage. I was stopped at a snowplay area and was on the phone, and
talking to someone who had no signal on his AT&T phone, and he was using
his friend's Sprint phone. 431 is a fairly major state highway for
Nevada, it's not some back-country Forest Service Road. Similarly, up at
the Mount Rose Ski Area, you can only get coverage on AMPS, there is no
CDMA or GSM at the lodge (though at the top of the mountain you can get
CDMA coverage.

> And this "network" advantage isn't nearly as
> advantageous as some assert (some of whom predicted Verizon would be
> well-ahead of AT&T by the end of this year).

In fact, Verizon passed AT&T in the first quarter of 2007, in terms of
retail subscribers. AT&T's network is leased out to more MVNOs, so the
AT&T network has more users, even though AT&T has less subscribers.

See "http://www.itnews.com.au/News/NewsStory.aspx?story=49296"

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-26, 7:33 am

Carl 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.
> 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.

The premium, if any, is small. Verizon offers a large number of
corporate discounts, available to most customers.

While the SERO discount on Sprint is even better, and available to
everyone, 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).

Also, PagePlus prepaid, a Verizon MVNO, offers rates as low as 5.3¢ per
minute. For users that want AT&T wireless because of the selection of
GSM phones, but also want better coverage when traveling outside urban
areas, it makes sense to keep a prepaid PagePlus phone active for when
they travel outside GSM coverage areas.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-26, 7:33 am

Carl 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. I have seen talk in other newsgroups of Sprint
> possibly going out of business and possibly being absorbed by Verizon.

Verizon would only acquire Sprint if it were at a fire sale price. No
doubt they'd like the increase in subscribers, but they have no need for
most of Sprint's network infrastructure and don't want to assume all
those expensive store leases.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-26, 12:33 pm

Tinman wrote:
> 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.

LOL, I didn't do it to tease Navas, I've had him filtered for so long
that I'd largely forgotten about him other than the annoyance of reading
other people's retorts to his periodic postings of the Cingular charter
into the AT&T newsgroup.

There are three metrics that analysts use when comparing carriers:

1. Retail postpaid subscribers
Verizon: 59.4 million
AT&T: 52.7 million
2. ARPU
Verizon: $52.17
AT&T: $50.82
3. Retail PostPaid Churn
Verizon: 0.96%
AT&T: 1.3%

It's true that AT&T has a lot more MVNO's using it's network, which
boosts the total number of users on their network, but the fact remains
that they now have far fewer retail postpaid subscribers than Verizon.
The lower quality, lower revenue MVNO customers (TracFone, SpeakOut,
Net10, etc) give AT&T the edge in total users. Verizon doesn't pursue
the wholesale business like AT&T and Sprint.

> Oh yea, I switched to AT&T solely due to the iPhone. Verizon blew it on that
> one big-time.

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, that could not use the iPhone on any network, and
need PDA type phones with more functionality than the iPhone.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-26, 12:33 pm

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> I'm sure that there are numerous small cities and towns where Verizon
> isn't great, but for the metro areas where most of the customers are,
> they are much better in almost every case. I guess I'm a little skewed
> because in the San Francisco Bay Area, Verizon is so much better than
> the other carriers in terms of coverage. The other carriers are simply
> unusable in many of the less urban parts of the Bay Area.

I should also point out that for many Verizon subscribers, one of the
biggest advantages is not their native network, but the ability to roam
on many of the smaller rural networks that moved from TDMA/AMPS to
CDMA/AMPS. I use one of them all the time, the Golden State Cellular
network in Northern California.

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.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-26, 10:33 pm

Larry wrote:

> "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".

Yeah, and what are the penalties for lying about this going to be, and
who is going to enforce this rule in the Bush FCC?

> 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.

In reality they could not put up enough towers even if they wanted to,
since many of the areas where AMPS service is now available are in areas
where more towers for digital would not be permitted.

I could tell the FCC a dozen areas just in the San Francisco Bay Area
where AMPS is the only coverage, and many of those are not off in the
woods somewhere. Of course once AMPS is shut down, how am I going to
prove to the FCC that there used to be coverage where there is now none?

> 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.

That's not a good example because much of the loss of OnStar coverage is
in urban areas where there is digital coverage that older OnStar cars
cannot use.

It's also possible that the urban carriers that also have AMPS networks
in rural settings will just quietly leave the rural portions turned on
in order to remain in compliance, but they understandably don't want to
get into the position of saying which areas will remain on and which
will be turned off.

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.

George

2007-12-26, 10:33 pm

Larry wrote:
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9A129F670AC9
Anoonehomecom@
> 208.49.80.253:
>
>
> 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.

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?

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

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-26, 10:33 pm

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> 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).

LOL, don't look just at revenue, look at income.

AT&T had income of $1.93 billion on revenue of $10.937 billion in their
wireless business.
"http://www.att.com/Investor/Growth_Profile/download/master.pdf"

Verizon had income of $3.06 billion on revenue of 11.262 billion in
their domestic wireless business.
"http://investor.verizon.com/sec/sec_frame.aspx?FilingID=5502020"

I think that it's pretty clear that concentrating on retail postpaid
subscribers, rather than dropping your pants on wholesale pricing, is
beneficial in terms of both revenue and income. AT&T views Tracfone,
Net10, etc., as pure upside from customers that would otherwise not be
on AT&T at all, while Verizon appears to believe that it's better to
write off those customers because they will cut into retail sales.

Of course my favorite prepaid MVNO, PagePlus, is probably not making
Verizon too happy, but they are so small that they don't have much of an
effect on the financials.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 10:33 am

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 26 Dec 2007 15:22:00 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>
>
> That assumes that all else is equal, and as you know, it isn't. Arguably,
> AT&T's revenue AND income would be worse without their wholesale business.

Yes, but arguably Verizon's income would be worse if they decided to
aggressively enter the wholesale business.

You can't assume that. Verizon certainly would have chosen to
aggressively compete in the wholesale business if it believed that it
would increase its income. Clearly Verizon's position is based on their
belief that wholesaling would hurt their brand and that even if
wholesaling increased revenue it would come at the expense of income.

Sprint and AT&T have the attitude of having nothing to lose by
wholesaling to anyone that wants to start up an MVNO. They are the two
worst-rated carriers. Everything is upside, and their is no branding
left to hurt.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 3:33 pm

Tinman wrote:

> Enough with the drama queen crap. SMS brought up a really remote area that
> he claimed had only Verizon coverage.

Hardly remote. These are major state highways we're talking about, not
some back-country trails or Forest Service roads. 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.

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.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 3:33 pm

none wrote:
> "SMS ???. ?" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> Not true -- just set phone to 'roaming only' mode.

It all depends on the PRL. If the PRL doesn't allow roaming, setting the
phone to "Roaming Only" won't have any effect.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-27, 3:33 pm

Tinman wrote:

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> Still I refuted the last anecdotal
> report with an exact opposite scenario--but in a more populated area.

Hardly. See "http://i15.tinypic.com/86q9kj9.jpg"

>
> Yea, plug 86403 into Verizon's map and see what you get. Nothing but
> roaming--on Sprint. <g>

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.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-28, 10:33 am

Scott wrote:

<snip>
[color=darkred]
> 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.

Come now Scott. As you can see even from this post, I didn't go making
up stories of non-existent coverage like Navas does (the extended GSM
claims belong in the Usenet hall of shame), nor did I propose that
individuals plan their travel routes and choose their destinations based
on the available coverage from Cingular (as he also has done).

In fact, I did what I always do (and what Navas never does), I provided
references and links to prove my point. Does anyone really care if
coverage is native or roaming? Actually, I guess Verizon's InPulse
customers do care, though on Verizon's MVNO PagePlus you'd still have
coverage in that area, albeit at extra cost.

> Be better than Navas and at least admit it.

Okay, I admit that I'm better than Navas.

> If not, you end up being no
> better a source of information than he is, which is a poor place to be in.

When have I ever provided any information that wasn't backed up by
references? Maybe I get too annoyed with people that make up these
fantastic stories. I've certainly done my share of criticizing Verizon
for their various faults, including crippling of handsets, reducing
off-peak hours, eliminating a lot of roaming capability with AC2, etc.
What I can't criticize them for is coverage. They've consistently
excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers, and they based their
whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed the
coverage superiority.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-28, 10:33 am

Tinman wrote:

>
> From Sprint, not Verizon. You know, like I've been stating all along.

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. It doesn't matter to subscribers (Sprint or Verizon) which
network they are calling on. It does matter as far as EVDO is concerned.

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. 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.

DTC

2007-12-28, 10:33 pm

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> What I can't criticize them for is coverage. They've consistently
> excelled in coverage versus all the other carriers, and they based their
> whole business model on this. Every independent survey has confirmed the
> coverage superiority.

Navas doesn't agree with you, therefore you have got to be wrong.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-28, 10:33 pm

DTC wrote:
> SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>
> Navas doesn't agree with you, therefore you have got to be wrong.

LOL, he actually serves a useful purpose, you can be assured that
whatever her says, the opposite is actually true.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-28, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock wrote:

> When I visited the Bay Area last summer, I had very "gappy" coverage with T-
> Mo (using the old Cingular/Pac-Bell 1900MHz network.)

Indeed, that's the worst of the worst networks. Earlier this month our
local city council finally approved a tower for the 1900 MHz network not
far from me, so I'll get coverage sometime next year. The effort to
install a tower (and the neighbors efforts to block it) had been going
on for longer than I've lived in this neighborhood, which is eight years
now.

Just for laughs,
> however, virtually everytime I had no service, I did a system scan and
> good old "AT&T Blue" network popped up (but the T-Mo SIM wouldn't let me
> actually
> use it!)

Yes, in most of the bay area the 800 MHz AT&T GSM network is good. There
are still many gaps in some areas, such at the tri-valley area in the
east bay.

> Without any other data, market forces alone make your supposition hard to
> support- if AT&T service was as bad as you think,

I can say that I don't think AT&T service is as bad as the CR data
indicates. But the difference between best and worst as far as CR's
surveys go are not orders of magnitude difference.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-29, 4:33 am

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 28 Dec 2007 07:57:54 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>
>
>
> Or confirmed their perceived superiority based on a brilliant ad campaign.

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.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-29, 10:33 am

Scott wrote:

> 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.

Comparing the wireless industry to other industries and making
proclamations about how other industries are ranked higher is
meaningless. The only relevant comparison is within a particular
industry. It's especially true in the case of something like wireless
where people's frame of reference is the reliability of their landline,
rather than other wireless communication systems.

> 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.

Check some of my earlier posts. Some of things I've criticized them for
include:

-Defeaturing of handsets, including removing the multimedia and file
transfer capability in Motorola Phone Tools

-Removing off-extended network roaming in AC2

-Eliminating holidays as off-peak calling

-Moving from 8pm to 9pm for off-peak calling in the western region

-Increasing prices surreptitiously, by making previously included
features an extra-cost option, then later adding the extra cost back and
incuding the feature again.

I'm not sure what your agenda is in making up these stories. Unlike
Navas, I always provide references for the statements I make. I don't
make stuff up out of thin air like he does.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-29, 10:33 am

Tinman wrote:

> 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.

Not sure what your agenda is here, but as I proved, Verizon has complete
coverage in 84603.

It's coverage that matters to most cell phone users, as every survey has
shown. Customer service is far down the list, though of course Sprint is
always last in customer service as well.

All of the statements about Sprint were true. You can't roam at will,
unless the PRL allows it, and even then it isn't automatic, for obvious
reasons.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-29, 10:33 am

> 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! :-)

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.

> 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?

Perhaps the Verizon executives weren't briefed as to the proper protocol
when dealing with Steve Jobs.

> 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? :-)

Verizon had the largest retail subscriber base, and hence the largest
market for iPhones. While AT&T's network has more users, AT&T has a much
larger percentage of prepaid users on MVNOs, who would not be able to
buy the iPhone. I don't think it was anything more sinister than
starting at the carrier with the most sales potential, then working
their way down.

As to why Verizon turned them down, one of the reasons was that they
would have had to put the iPhone on their 3G network, but at a price
point much lower than they currently charge. AT&T solved the problem by
only allowing Apple to do the 2G iPhone on EDGE, at least initially.
It'll be interesting to see if the upcoming 3G iPhone has the same plan
pricing as the 2G, or if they'll have two plans, one for EDGE and one
for HSDPA at different prices.

George

2007-12-29, 10:33 am

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> Indeed, that's the worst of the worst networks. Earlier this month our
> local city council finally approved a tower for the 1900 MHz network not
> far from me, so I'll get coverage sometime next year. The effort to
> install a tower (and the neighbors efforts to block it) had been going
> on for longer than I've lived in this neighborhood, which is eight years
> now.
>

tmobile doesn't bother with towers in my area. They just make a deal
with the quickie mart or office building owner and plop a couple panels
on the roof and connect them to their little mailbox sized batteryless
cabinet.

> Just for laughs,
>
> Yes, in most of the bay area the 800 MHz AT&T GSM network is good. There
> are still many gaps in some areas, such at the tri-valley area in the
> east bay.
>
>
> I can say that I don't think AT&T service is as bad as the CR data
> indicates. But the difference between best and worst as far as CR's
> surveys go are not orders of magnitude difference.

George

2007-12-29, 10:33 am

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> 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.

I am not a fan of megacorps but I must say VZWs marketing is very unique
because it actually corresponds to an actual strength.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-29, 12:33 pm

George wrote:

> I am not a fan of megacorps but I must say VZWs marketing is very unique
> because it actually corresponds to an actual strength.

_Successful_ marketing campaigns almost always correspond to actual
strengths. Wal-Mart doesn't tout itself as anything but the "Low Price
Leader." T-Mobile doesn't run around boasting about their network, and
Apple doesn't promote the iPhone as a device with the capabilities of a
Blackberry. Unsuccessful marketing campaigns fail because no one
believes them. Sears has tried to promote themselves as a store for
fashion clothing, but failed. Wal-Mart tried to go upscale with their
clothing and failed.

You can't have a successful marketing campaign when every potential
customer knows that you're lying, and when the press confirms that
you're lying, as what happened with the Cingular "fewest dropped calls"
campaign. You might get away with lying if the claims are difficult to
prove or disprove, but this wasn't the case with either Cingular's or
Verizon's marketing campaigns.

What also helped Verizon in their marketing is that they were very open
as to how they conducted their tests. There were some TV news segments
that showed how they did their network testing across the country, where
the reporters accompanied them to see how they performed their testing.
There were some complaints that all the testing was done from the
specially equipped vans rather than from inside buildings, but no one
ever challenged the results.

Contrast that to Cingular that would never release their test
methodology for "Fewest Dropped Calls," and then the lawsuit by Sprint
to try to get them to prove their claim, and the counter-suit by
Cingular against Sprint's claim of having "the most powerful network."
All the controversy resulted in them wasting a tremendous amount of
money on a failed ad campaign. The current "More Bars in More Places" is
vague enough that it'd be more difficult to challenge, even though it'd
be equally true to say that they have no bars in more places and less
bars in many places.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-29, 12:33 pm

George wrote:

> tmobile doesn't bother with towers in my area. They just make a deal
> with the quickie mart or office building owner and plop a couple panels
> on the roof and connect them to their little mailbox sized batteryless
> cabinet.

That's exactly what Cingular, and later T-Mobile tried to do where in my
area, for a 1900 MHz GSM site. The grocery store backed up to a
neighborhood that successfully fought the tower there as it would have
required a zoning exception to allow the tower. Cingular/T-Mobile tried
to get Walgreen's to allow them to put up a tower, then they tried to
get two different churches to allow a tower in their crosses, and were
turned down. Now T-Mobile's putting up a monopole that isn't attached to
a building.

The area can be seen at "http://i13.tinypic.com/6jez328.jpg".

"http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7762192"

It was interesting to read the comments by residents (one of whom I
know). Duh, the reason so few people use T-Mobile is the poor coverage,
so saying the tower isn't needed because so few people use T-Mobile is
circular logic. The local T-Mobile store is very good about not selling
to residents that have no coverage at their house. The other comment
about not needing the tower because the woman has no problem with
coverage is because she probably has Verizon or AT&T, which a recent
city survey showed that most residents have because they're the only two
carriers that work well around here.

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-29, 3:33 pm

none wrote:
> "Carl" < crothman@NOSPAMopton
line.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

CR had four categories they reported on, No Service, Circuits Full,
Dropped Calls, and Static. All of these reflect on the quality of the
product, and coverage.

They did not rate the intangibles of customer service, consumer
experience, or customer satisfaction like JD Power did.

DTC

2007-12-29, 10:33 pm

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> Check some of my earlier posts. Some of things I've criticized them for
> include:
>
> -Defeaturing of handsets, including removing the multimedia and file
> transfer capability in Motorola Phone Tools

Fortunately you can toggle one bit in the firmmware and turn on
file transfer, at least I did it with the Verizon Razr.

Jer

2007-12-29, 10:33 pm

DTC wrote:
> SMS =E6=96=AF=E8=92=82=E
6=96=87=E2=80=A2 =E5=A4=8F wrote:
>=20
> Fortunately you can toggle one bit in the firmmware and turn on
> file transfer, at least I did it with the Verizon Razr.

The solid fact that you had to do that in the first place is the point.

--=20
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏

2007-12-30, 4:33 am

DTC wrote:
> SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
>
> Fortunately you can toggle one bit in the firmmware and turn on
> file transfer, at least I did it with the Verizon Razr.

I've done the same with the V325i, as well as enabling vibrate then
ring, which for some reason Verizon disabled (were they planning to sell
a ringtone that first vibrated then rang?).

But how many subscribers are going to do a SEEM edit? Maybe 0.1%?

DTC

2007-12-30, 4:33 am

SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 wrote:
> But how many subscribers are going to do a SEEM edit? Maybe 0.1%?

I'd say closer to .000001%.

DTC

2007-12-30, 3:33 pm

clifto wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>
> One in every hundred million is a bit low, no?

Not according to the billions of users that any particular
cellular provider has. [snicker]

LinkBot