|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > May 2006 > Re: It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it
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: It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it
|
|
| Erbert 2006-05-16, 5:48 pm |
| I wish you would go back to cingular , they might go broke without your
help.
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:8B4ag.105351$eR6.14098@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < 4468af5c$0$96936$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Mon, 15 May 2006 09:42:11
> -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> You bashing Cingular again. Why am I not surprised. Careful, Steven,
> your
> vendetta is showing.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-16, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
I am on Cingular.
Better to wish for Steven Scharf to stop cross-posting flames/trolls like this
to the Cingular newsgroup.
In <Ptlag.5579$Sh3.189@trnddc05> on Tue, 16 May 2006 14:38:39 GMT, "Erbert"
<a@aol.com> wrote:
>I wish you would go back to cingular ...
[color=darkred]
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:8B4ag.105351$eR6.14098@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Erbert wrote:
> I wish you would go back to cingular , they might go broke without your
> help.
John has been on Cingular for a long time.
Cingular is not going broke, with or without his business. AT&T is
determined to turn Cingular around financially, whether or not they can
succeed is yet to be seen. Certainly the analysts were not thrilled with
the plan to drop the Cingular name for AT&T, though for those of us with
memories that go back more than two years, we remember when AT&T had the
premier wireless network in the U.S..
Personally, I'm carrier agnostic, I have a GSM phone on Cingular's
network (via a MVNO), two prepaid TDMA phones on an MVNO that uses
Cingular's old AT&T TDMA network, two Verizon phones on postpaid, and
one prepaid phone on a MVNO that uses Verizon. Unlike Navas, I
objectively compare the pros and cons of each carrier's network, without
having to resort to the amazing fabrications that are Navas's signature
trademark.
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-16, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 446a0374$0$96989$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 16 May 2006 09:53:16
-0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Erbert wrote:
>
>John has been on Cingular for a long time.
>
>Cingular is not going broke, with or without his business. AT&T is
>determined to turn Cingular around financially, whether or not they can
>succeed is yet to be seen.
Cingular is actually doing well, as confirmed by financial and analyst
reports; e.g., "Record sales boost Cingular earnings"
<http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/20/1589534.htm>
>Certainly the analysts were not thrilled with
>the plan to drop the Cingular name for AT&T,
In fact analysts are divided on the issue:
<http://www.landor.com/index.cfm?do=...=1300&year=2006>:
Susan Nelson, executive director strategy and insight at Landor, San
Francisco, also espoused the view that the "somewhat damaged" and
increasingly meaningless AT&T brand needs to be attached to the
Cingular business for the entire company's sake. "Rebranding Cingular
is not only the right thing, but probably the only thing to do," she
said.
>Personally, I'm carrier agnostic, I have a GSM phone on Cingular's
>network (via a MVNO), two prepaid TDMA phones on an MVNO that uses
>Cingular's old AT&T TDMA network, two Verizon phones on postpaid, and
>one prepaid phone on a MVNO that uses Verizon. Unlike Navas, I
>objectively compare the pros and cons of each carrier's network, without
>having to resort to the amazing fabrications that are Navas's signature
>trademark.
Patent rubbish. You flame Cingular and GSM at every opportunity, a long
vendetta going back to poor Cingular wireless coverage at your wife's
workplace, and attack me for rebutting your many fabrications.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-05-16, 11:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:o9mag.66282$Fs1.35574@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> I am on Cingular.
>
> Better to wish for Steven Scharf to stop cross-posting flames/trolls like
> this
> to the Cingular newsgroup.
>
All I saw was a response to your own bitter statements. In fact, you have
not provided a single fact in this entire thread. You might try it.
The article in the OP does show an amazinglyy poor management of resources
by Cingular when compared to the other major carriers. They perform no
better than 3rd out of 4 carriers (when Alltel is excluded) and last out of
the big 4 in 4 of the categories. Their margin is ridiculously low and
having one out of every eight subscibers using prepaid (almost 7 million)
paints a picture of a carrier that many can very easily jettison without
penalty. In fact, these figures show that Verizon is dead even with
Cingular in the prime postpaid subscribers (47 million) and Sprint is
lagging just behind with 45.6 million. Even the data ARPU that you were
screaming from the mountains as being incredible pales greatly in comparison
to the rest.
This article paints a picture of a very big, very disorganized and poorly
performing mid-tier corporation. Steve isn't making this up, but you are
certainly trying to avoid the reality of it.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> This article paints a picture of a very big, very disorganized and poorly
> performing mid-tier corporation. Steve isn't making this up, but you are
> certainly trying to avoid the reality of it.
I have no dog in this fight, I'm agnostic as to the vagaries of the
finances of the different carriers. I just find it interesting that the
largest carrier is performing the worst according to several different
metrics.
Clearly the article I posted was neither a flame, nor a troll, but
relevant to all the groups that it was posted to. Navas is upset that he
is continually shown to be incorrect in most things he posts, which is
why he is so bitter about anything that is mildly negative about his
carrier. How he got so attached to a corporation is a mystery to everyone!
| |
| John Navas 2006-05-17, 5:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 446a8e78$0$96979$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 16 May 2006 19:46:22
-0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>I have no dog in this fight, I'm agnostic as to the vagaries of the
>finances of the different carriers. ...
What nonsense. Your vendetta against Cingular and GSM is patently obvious.
>Clearly the article I posted was neither a flame, nor a troll, but
>relevant to all the groups that it was posted to. Navas is upset that he
>is continually shown to be incorrect in most things he posts, which is
>why he is so bitter about anything that is mildly negative about his
>carrier. How he got so attached to a corporation is a mystery to everyone!
More nonsense. You just attack me because I rebut your neverending
fabrications.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-05-17, 11:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:_Nzag.68500$Fs1.55194@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < 446a8e78$0$96979$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Tue, 16 May 2006 19:46:22
> -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What nonsense. Your vendetta against Cingular and GSM is patently
> obvious.
>
>
> More nonsense. You just attack me because I rebut your neverending
> fabrications.
>
And yet you have not rebutted a thing in this thread. Actually, you have
done nothing in this thread but snipe- no facts, not even a rebuttal to the
article. The article shows in black and white that you have misstating
facts when protraying the financial condition of Cingular. It also shows
how correct the rest of us were in our assessment of the company- they
perform as mid-tier at best financially and are in danger of seeing the
operation go horribly bad.
No need to apologize for all of the misrepresentations you've made- I
wouldn't want you to hurt yourself and admit error.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> And yet you have not rebutted a thing in this thread. Actually, you have
> done nothing in this thread but snipe- no facts, not even a rebuttal to the
> article. The article shows in black and white that you have misstating
> facts when protraying the financial condition of Cingular. It also shows
> how correct the rest of us were in our assessment of the company- they
> perform as mid-tier at best financially and are in danger of seeing the
> operation go horribly bad.
>
> No need to apologize for all of the misrepresentations you've made- I
> wouldn't want you to hurt yourself and admit error.
Also see
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300792.html"
Interesting that Verizon sees their operating margin increasing to about
50% from the current 44.5%, while AT&T hopes to get into the 40's by 2007.
With prices that are about the same, and the leverage of the lower
equipment costs of GSM, why is Cingular doing so poorly in comparison to
other carriers?
| |
| Scott 2006-05-24, 11:48 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44747a0b$0$9699
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> Interesting that Verizon sees their operating margin increasing to about
> 50% from the current 44.5%, while AT&T hopes to get into the 40's by 2007.
>
> With prices that are about the same, and the leverage of the lower
> equipment costs of GSM, why is Cingular doing so poorly in comparison to
> other carriers?
Two words- Poor Management.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:44747a0b$0$9699
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>
> Two words- Poor Management.
There has got to be an underlying reason for such a huge difference in
margins. I wonder what the acquisition cost per new subscriber is for
each carrier. It's interesting that Verizon wasn't interested in
capitulating to Radio Shack's demands in terms of kickbacks per new
subscriber, and let Radio Shack drop them in favor of Cingular (which
turned out to be a mistake for Radio Shack as "http://tinyurl.com/lmgg7"
proves (use " doucheness@sbcglobal
.net" and a password of "yesplease").
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:44747a0b$0$9699
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>
> Two words- Poor Management.
Two words: Churn and TDMA.
Analysts say that acquiring a new customer costs $250 to $300 in
advertising, phone subsidies, and kickbacks to the reseller (or the cost
of operating your own stores, e-commerce, and phone sales).
When you see the quarterly financials, they tend to emphasis net
additions, because the carriers don't want to talk about customers that
left. It costs a lot more for a carrier with 1.18% churn to have 1
million net additions than it costs a carrier with 1.9% (and the 1.9%
for 1Q06 is the first time Cingular's fallen below 2%).
Look at "http://www.cellular-news.com/story/17487.php" where Verizon
only beat Cingular by 0.1% in terms of net additions for Q1 2006. But it
took Cingular 4.7 million gross additions to get 1.7 million net
additions (and 600,000 of these were on prepaid which is less
profitable). It took Verizon about 3.3 million gross additions to get
1.7 million net additions. So Cingular spent $350 million more than
Cingular just to get the same number of net additions (assuming $250 per
addition). I suspect that Cingular is spending more per net addition
than Verizon, as they are using more third-party resellers than Verizon.
Also, Cingular is maintaining three networks, GSM, TDMA, and AMPS, while
Verizon only has two, CDMA and AMPS. For Cingular, 97% of minutes were
on GSM network (89% of customers) yet they still will keep TDMA turned
on for another year and a half. Navas's complaint about how TDMA
customers drive down Cingular's survey results is hogwash, first of all,
there are relatively few TDMA customers, and second, a customer with a
TDMA/AMPS phone will have far more coverage than a customer with a GSM
phone.
| |
| Scott 2006-05-25, 11:48 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:447538cf$0$9694
5$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Scott wrote:
>
> There has got to be an underlying reason for such a huge difference in
> margins. I wonder what the acquisition cost per new subscriber is for each
> carrier.
I don't have the enthusiasm to look right now, but I believe most of them
state it during the quarterly investor calls.
> It's interesting that Verizon wasn't interested in capitulating to Radio
> Shack's demands in terms of kickbacks per new subscriber, and let Radio
> Shack drop them in favor of Cingular (which turned out to be a mistake for
> Radio Shack as "http://tinyurl.com/lmgg7" proves (use
> " doucheness@sbcglobal
.net" and a password of "yesplease").
Not surprising if they were able to negotiate better commission rates with
the rest of their indirect structure- very few Radio Shacks enjoy any kind
of geographic isolation from other dealers.
| |
| Scott 2006-05-25, 11:48 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4475c6de$0$9698
5$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Scott wrote:
>
> Two words: Churn and TDMA.
>
> Analysts say that acquiring a new customer costs $250 to $300 in
> advertising, phone subsidies, and kickbacks to the reseller (or the cost
> of operating your own stores, e-commerce, and phone sales).
>
> When you see the quarterly financials, they tend to emphasis net
> additions, because the carriers don't want to talk about customers that
> left. It costs a lot more for a carrier with 1.18% churn to have 1 million
> net additions than it costs a carrier with 1.9% (and the 1.9% for 1Q06 is
> the first time Cingular's fallen below 2%).
Now layer that with the Average Lifecycle Revenue per Subscriber and you
start to paint an interesting picture. I'd be willing to be that this is
another area where poor performance is occurring, causing less potential to
truly cover the cost of the initial add. Both Verizon and Nextel had
traditionally been very strong in this area- it would be interesting to see
how much Cingular generates during the lifecycle of a subscriber.
>
> Look at "http://www.cellular-news.com/story/17487.php" where Verizon only
> beat Cingular by 0.1% in terms of net additions for Q1 2006. But it took
> Cingular 4.7 million gross additions to get 1.7 million net additions (and
> 600,000 of these were on prepaid which is less profitable). It took
> Verizon about 3.3 million gross additions to get 1.7 million net
> additions. So Cingular spent $350 million more than Cingular just to get
> the same number of net additions (assuming $250 per addition). I suspect
> that Cingular is spending more per net addition than Verizon, as they are
> using more third-party resellers than Verizon.
Agreed.
>
> Also, Cingular is maintaining three networks, GSM, TDMA, and AMPS, while
> Verizon only has two, CDMA and AMPS. For Cingular, 97% of minutes were on
> GSM network (89% of customers) yet they still will keep TDMA turned on for
> another year and a half. Navas's complaint about how TDMA customers drive
> down Cingular's survey results is hogwash, first of all, there are
> relatively few TDMA customers, and second, a customer with a TDMA/AMPS
> phone will have far more coverage than a customer with a GSM phone.
Preaching to the choir, Steven.
|
|
|
|
|