|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > December 2006 > Re: TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S.
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: TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S.
|
|
|
| Ness net wrote:
> Which is that CDMA is actually growing, not declining, as you always falsely
> contend.
It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the
leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users.
Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million
users in the U.S. alone.
| |
| decaturtxcowboy 2006-12-25, 3:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> ...and a fraction of the geography to cover!
Considering that Texas can overlay most of eastern Europe.
| |
|
| Larry wrote:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in news:4vd17rF1be1u2U1
@mid.individual.net:
>
>
> Do you dispute that Jews own and control American commercial TV, or is this
> the usual anti-semetic bullshit everytime someone dares say "jew" outside a
> synagogue?
>
> Perhaps you should choose any American TV network and look at who owns them
> and controls the content.....perhaps.
It's true, I get my check every month, along with a survey for my input
on what the content should be.
Fox-Rupert Murdoch-Catholic
CBS-Leslie Moonves-Jewish
NBC-Bob Wright-Catholic
ABC-Anne Sweeney-??
I can't believe that the anti-Semites are still using the "Jews control
Hollywood" schtick. I guess that they should really change their tune to
"the Pope controls American TV."
The networks are all part of publicly traded corporations, they are
owned by the stockholders.
Actually, what is true, is that Jews had a tremendous presence in the
founding of early Hollywood movie companies, and were disproportionately
a larger percentage of producers and writers.
| |
|
| Rick Blaine wrote:
> And the collolary to that absolutely true statement is that there is no reason
> to price lower unless you want to trade margin for share, which Wall Street is
> very unlikely to approve of.
Yet the Japanese car companies do exactly that.
The problem with trading margin for share is that all the company's
existing customers that are perfectly happy to pay higher prices, are
also beneficiaries of lower prices, not just new customers that they
might snag. And of course they don't want to create a price war that
ends up benefiting no-one.
I.e., I would gladly have paid $20,000 for our Toyota Camry LE, rather
than the $17,000 we paid. The fact that Toyota was trying to buy market
share, and keep their factories at full capacity, benefited me greatly.
Even if GM or Ford had dropped the price of whatever competing vehicle
they were offering to $13,000, it would not have caused me to buy their
product.
|
|
|
|
|