|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > July 2006 > Re: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closes gap on market leader Cingular
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: Verizon adds 1.8 million wireless users, Industry's No. 2 closes gap on market leader Cingular
|
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-24, 12:33 pm |
| In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> See "http://tinyurl.com/jtasv"
>
> As soon as Sprint and T-Mobile post results I'll update the web site
> with the graphs on market share.
Interesting. It looks like Verizon is doing well. However, it looks as
Cingular stands to show improvement as well. I am curious how this shakes out
12 months from now.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Jack Zwick 2006-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 44c509f6$0$96173$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
> The analysts were not thrilled with Cingular's results due to their
> falling net additions, their falling ARPU, too many pre-paid additions,
> and their declining market share. OTOH, profits were way up, and margins
> were up, which was a positive, but the analysts complained that margins
> should have been up even more because the lower net additions meant
> lower acquisition costs.
>
> In this environment it seems like _every_ metric needs to exceed
> expectations in order for the analysts to grudgingly admit that a
> company is doing well.
AND NAVAS WOULD NEVER ADMIT THAT AT THIS RATE (AS I PREDICTED LONG AGO)
VERIZON WILL SOON HAVE MORE CUSTOMERS THAN CINGULAR.
| |
| bernard farquart 2006-07-24, 10:33 pm |
|
"Jack Zwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jackzwick-FC27F0. 17075724072006@newsc
lstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> AND NAVAS WOULD NEVER ADMIT THAT AT THIS RATE (AS I PREDICTED LONG AGO)
> VERIZON WILL SOON HAVE MORE CUSTOMERS THAN CINGULAR.
If you predicted "long ago" that this would happen "soon"
then you are already wrong, by definition.
Bernard
| |
| Charles 2006-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| Organization: Negation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: Thoth/1.7.2 (Carbon/OS X)
NNTP-Posting-Host: c-69-251-239-214.hsd1.md.comcast.net
X-Trace: news101.his.com 1153786720 69.251.239.214 (24 Jul 2006 20:18:40 -0400)
Lines: 13
X-Authenticated-User: fort
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news101.his.com!fort514
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:69260 alt.cellular.verizon:209630
In article < u9Odned_Ivf2_VjZnZ2d
nUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast
.com>, bernard
farquart < bernardfarquart@DELE
TEhotmail.com> wrote:
> If you predicted "long ago" that this would happen "soon"
> then you are already wrong, by definition.
I can't see why it is important. That is which has the most customers
or predicting that one will have more than the other. I don't pick a
carrier by which one has the most customers. Do most? I just hope
there are multiple carriers so there is a choice.
--
Charles
| |
| Jack Zwick 2006-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 240720062019014649%f
ort514@mac.com>,
Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
> In article < u9Odned_Ivf2_VjZnZ2d
nUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast
.com>, bernard
> farquart < bernardfarquart@DELE
TEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I can't see why it is important. That is which has the most customers
> or predicting that one will have more than the other. I don't pick a
> carrier by which one has the most customers. Do most? I just hope
> there are multiple carriers so there is a choice.
Judging by the fact that the lowest price plan keeps getting more
expensive, and fewer and fewer minutes are given with a $60 family plan,
the negative effects of all the mergers is already here.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:50:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c578f8$0$96151$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>... Coverage varies by carrier by location, but Verizon
>tends to have the best coverage of any carrier judging by all the
>independent surveys. In my area, the San Francisco Bay Area, Cingular
>coverage is adequate, but not nearly as good as Verizon's coverage with
>a tri-mode phone. It seems that every week I'm someplace where there is
>no Cingular coverage, but where Verizon does have coverage.
In fact Cingular has very good digital coverage in the San Francisco Bay
Area, arguably the best overall digital network of all carriers, Verizon
included. Time to upgrade that old single-band PacBell phone and find
out. ;)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:47:23 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c57830$0$96207$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jack Zwick wrote:
>
>
>Not soon. At the current rate of quarterly additions, 300K more per
>quarter, it would still take about eight quarters for Verizon to pass
>Cingular, and there is no telling whether future quarters will be better
>or worse for each carrier in terms of net additions. Cingular has really
>cut their churn, so they're not doing as poorly as before in terms of
>net additions.
So much for your prior forecasts of Verizon rapidly passing Cingular.
I guess you're now seeing the handwriting on the wall.
>The loss of Radio Shack as a sales outlet helped Verizon's financials,
>but it did have a negative effect on their net additions. It really hurt
>Radio Shack's financial's, as they were doing extremely well with
>Verizon, and now they're doing very poorly with Cingular.
Radio Shack actually dumped Verizon due to poor sales performance in
2005, and switched to Cingular as part of an improvement plan that's
starting to pay off now that the transition is pretty much over.
The result is a boost for Cingular at the expense of Verizon.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:19:01 -0400, Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote in
< 240720062019014649%f
ort514@mac.com>:
>In article < u9Odned_Ivf2_VjZnZ2d
nUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast
.com>, bernard
>farquart < bernardfarquart@DELE
TEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I can't see why it is important. That is which has the most customers
>or predicting that one will have more than the other. I don't pick a
>carrier by which one has the most customers. Do most? I just hope
>there are multiple carriers so there is a choice.
It not important. Subscriber base bashing is silly.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:57:06 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c509f6$0$96173$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>The analysts were not thrilled with Cingular's results due to their
>falling net additions, their falling ARPU, too many pre-paid additions,
>and their declining market share. OTOH, profits were way up, and margins
>were up, which was a positive, but the analysts complained that margins
>should have been up even more because the lower net additions meant
>lower acquisition costs.
Many analysts were actually quite positive.
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/2006072...d/2006720tech01>:
Cingular Wireless tripled its second-quarter profit to $540 million as
customer disconnects fell to an all-time low.
...
Verizon Wireless' main edge over Cingular has been network
reliability. But Cingular has been closing that gap, analysts say.
...
Cingular said its monthly churn rate fell to 1.7% in the second
quarter. That's down from 2.2% a year ago and 2.7% in 2004.
...
Cingular's average monthly revenue per user fell 3.3% to $48.84.
The drop is due to Cingular having more prepaid customers that spend
less monthly. Cingular's revenue from data services rose 38% to an
average per user of $5.77 a month.
[MORE]
<http://www.ajc.com/business/content...izcingular.html>
Cingular's subscriber growth and churn exceeded the estimates of
analyst Jason Armstrong of Goldman Sachs. "Cingular's strong
subscriber result indicates market share gains, in particular from
T-Mobile and Sprint," he said in a research note. "However, we
continue to expect robust overall market growth."
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-07-25, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:h1occ2plpta24l6
hitr0bn30ngtpir9qs6@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:50:43 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 44c578f8$0$96151$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> In fact Cingular has very good digital coverage in the San Francisco Bay
> Area, arguably the best overall digital network of all carriers, Verizon
> included. Time to upgrade that old single-band PacBell phone and find
> out. ;)
>
And yet you are still unable to show verification of this personal opinion.
Why is that?
| |
| Scott 2006-07-25, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:67occ21kvk4p938
ppinvl9d6ca71mbb61h@
4ax.com...
>
> Radio Shack actually dumped Verizon due to poor sales performance in
> 2005,
Incorrect again, Skippy.
> and switched to Cingular as part of an improvement plan that's
> starting to pay off now that the transition is pretty much over.
And you base this opinion on what?
> The result is a boost for Cingular at the expense of Verizon.
Boost for Cingular? Based on what?
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-26, 10:33 am |
| In alt.cellular.cingular SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> My GSM phone is a quad band Motorola phone. The Cingular coverage in the
> San Francisco Bay Area improved greatly after the merger, because
> Cingular got all that sweet 800 Mhz spectrum and dumped the crappy 1900
> Mhz spectrum. But the Cingular coverage still lags Verizon by a lot, as
> evidenced by the results of all the independent surveys.
>
> Navas has no verification because there has never been a survey that
> showed Cingular to be nearly as good as Verizon.
I don't think there is anything crappy about the PCS band, as you indicate
above. It has benefits and detractors. Higher potential bandwidth, smaller
cells [a detractor in the country but a potentially postive thing in densely
populated areas], reflects differently, etc. It certainly can be more
expensive to deploy a PCS network when less populated areas are to be covered,
because tower distances must be closer together.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-26, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:47:23 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<vvJxg.39558$Qg7.25108@fe83.usenetserver.com>:
>I don't think there is anything crappy about the PCS band, as you indicate
>above. It has benefits and detractors. Higher potential bandwidth, smaller
>cells [a detractor in the country but a potentially postive thing in densely
>populated areas], reflects differently, etc. It certainly can be more
>expensive to deploy a PCS network when less populated areas are to be covered,
>because tower distances must be closer together.
In metro areas there is no significant technology difference between 850
and 1900 bands (due to less than maximum range spacing), and even in
non-metro areas the difference, due to shorter range from lower
permitted maximum power for 1900 MHz, tends to be relatively small:
* Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts.
* Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts.
It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range for
1900, and then only when range is limited only by power (not by
terrain).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-26, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:58:10 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c78308$0$96161$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>You can put in more, smaller cells with 800/900 if you want to. The
>problem with 1900 in the U.S. is that we have a lot of sparsely
>populated areas. 1800 works well in Asia, but 1900 doesn't work well
>here, except in densely populated urban areas. This is why Sprint
>doesn't even try to expand into less populated areas, it's much cheaper
>to pay for roaming.
Again, in metro areas there is no significant technology difference
between 850 and 1900 bands (due to less than maximum range spacing), and
even in non-metro areas the difference, due to shorter range from lower
permitted maximum power for 1900 MHz, tends to be relatively small:
* Maximum power in the 800 band is 3 watts.
* Maximum power in the 1900 band is 2 watts.
It's not intuitively obvious, but that's only about 18% less range for
1900, and then only when range is limited only by power (not by terrain,
which is more often the case).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-26, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:47:56 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c6c9cf$0$96149$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>What happened with Radio Shack is that Verizon was unwilling to give
>Radio Shack the spiffs that Radio Shack demanded. Verizon prefers to
>sell as much as possible through their own stores and website, as the
>margins are much higher. Verizon knew that the number of customers that
>choose wireless service based on the retailer is low enough that they
>wouldn't lose all that many new additions if Radio Shack ceased to be a
>reseller. Who dumped who? You can say that Radio Shack got a better deal
>from Cingular so they kicked Verizon out, or you can say that Verizon
>wasn't interested in the Radio Shack business at the terms that Radio
>Shack demanded. It's all moot now, but Radio Shack is suffering mightily
>from their actions, while Verizon continues to gain market share and
>enjoy large margins, while Cingular continues to lose market share and
>has much lower margins.
>
>Radio Shack was doing very well with Verizon and apparently believed
>that they could continue at the same sales level with Cingular, but make
>more money due to the higher spiffs. They were very, very wrong. There
>are performance criteria that if not met would allow either party to
>terminate the relationship, but Radio Shack is caught between a rock and
>a hard place, as Verizon is not going to be interested in going back
>into Radio Shack unless Radio Shack settles for much lower spiffs.
>Verizon has the upper hand in the negotiations.
>
>Radio Shack managers were complaining about Cingular even back in
>January, because sales were so low compared with Verizon. The last two
>quarterly reports for Radio Shack show just how correct the managers were.
Here are the facts, which make it clear that Radio Shack dumped Verizon
based on poor performance and financials, not the other way around,
that Cingular is part of the turnaround plan, and that continued poor
performance is due to problems at Radio Shack, not anything to do with
Cingular:
February 17, 2005
Radio Shack projects 2005 sales growth of 9% to 11% and earnings per
share growth from $2.34 to $2.40.
March 18, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced that its first
quarter 2005 earnings per share estimate will not meet its previously
stated forecast of $0.39 to $0.41. The company believes first quarter
earnings per share are more likely to be $0.30 to $0.34.
In addition, the company said it is unlikely to achieve its
previously stated 2005 full year earnings per share guidance of $2.34
to $2.40. RadioShack expects to update its full year earnings
guidance at its regularly scheduled first quarter earnings release
date, April 19.
"Business trends have underperformed our expectations," said David
Edmondson, president and chief executive officer - elect. "This has
been driven by a recent deceleration in wireless sales in our core
stores and, to a smaller extent, underperformance in our battery
business."
April 19, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced net income of $55
million or $0.34 per diluted share for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 versus net income of $68 million or $0.41 per diluted share for
the quarter ended March 31, 2004.
Total sales in the first quarter of 2005 were up 3% to $1,123
million, compared to total sales of $1,093 million for the previous
year. First quarter 2005 comparable store sales were down 1% versus
the prior year.
"We are disappointed that our business did not perform as we
originally expected during the first quarter. Our profits were lower
due primarily to underperformance in the wireless business within our
core RadioShack stores," said David Edmondson, president and chief
executive officer-elect. "Our non- wireless businesses improved in
first quarter 2005, compared with first quarter 2004. RadioShack
remains a very profitable business overall, but our focus clearly
must be on turning our wireless business around, while continuing to
improve our non-wireless businesses."
RadioShack established fiscal year 2005 diluted earnings per share
guidance of $1.80 to $1.90.
July 19, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced net income of
$52.3 million or $0.33 per diluted share for the quarter ended June
30, 2005 versus net income of $68.3 million or $0.42 per diluted
share for the quarter ended June 30, 2004.
Total sales in the second quarter of 2005 were up 4% to $1,092.2
million, compared to total sales of $1,053.8 million for the previous
year. Second quarter 2005 comparable store sales were down 1% versus
the prior year.
"Our profit decline in the second quarter was driven by lower comp
store sales and more specifically by weakness in our core store
wireless business," said David Edmondson, president and chief
executive officer. ...
Total wireless sales were up 2% due to growth in RadioShack’s kiosk
channel offset by a decline in sales of wireless in its company
stores.
July 31, 2005
RadioShack Corporation (NYSE: RSH) today announced that it has
entered into 10-year and 11-year agreements, respectively, with
Cingular Wireless and Sprint PCS to be the company’s long-term
wireless providers in RadioShack stores nationwide. Cingular and
Sprint have also committed to support RadioShack Corporation’s
strategy of expanding retail distribution outside of the core
RadioShack stores.
RadioShack’s new agreement terms with Cingular and Sprint are
projected to be more financially favorable over the life of the
agreements relative to the financial model under which RadioShack
operates today. The new agreements are expected to provide RadioShack
with more profits in the short- and long-term and significant future
growth opportunities due to entrance into the GSM market, addition of
Nextel products and services (pending their merger with Sprint), and
opportunities for expanded distribution.
October 21, 2005
"We made important progress during the third quarter to better
position ourselves for the holiday selling season and the long term,"
said David Edmondson, president and chief executive officer. "We made
aggressive moves on inventory and finished deploying operating
procedures which will improve the customer experience in our stores.
We also finalized long-term wireless agreements and returned value to
shareholders through an overnight share repurchase transaction which
better positions us as a corporation."
July 7, 2006
RadioShack Corp. Friday named Julian Day as its new chief executive,
hoping his experience with struggling retailers such as Safeway,
Sears and Kmart would help with RadioShack's own revamp.
Day, 54, was CEO of Kmart and a director of Sears Holdings Corp., the
retailer formed when Kmart bought Sears, Roebuck & Co. last year.
He was elected as RadioShack's chairman and chief executive following
a four-month search after David Edmondson, who had misstated his
academic record, resigned on Feb. 20.
Fort Worth, Texas-based RadioShack (Charts) passed over acting CEO
Claire Babrowski. A former long-time McDonald's Corp. executive, she
was president and chief operating officer before taking over as CEO
in February, and had been viewed as a strong internal candidate for
the top post.
"A dramatic change in strategy and culture was needed most at
RadioShack, and we think Mr. Day's appointment could spur just that,"
David Schick, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus, wrote in a note to
clients. "We expect the shares to react favorably."
He raised his rating on the stock to "hold" from "sell."
Day, who was CEO of Kmart when it emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in 2003, arrives at RadioShack as the retailer is closing
hundreds of stores and adding more popular merchandise such as MP3
digital music players in the hope of reversing steep profit declines.
First-quarter earnings dropped 85 percent as the company struggled
with weak sales of mobile phones. Last year, in an effort to revive
sales, RadioShack cut ties with long-time partner Verizon Wireless
and signed a deal to start selling Cingular products on Jan. 1.
But RadioShack had trouble keeping hot Cingular products in stock and
training its staff to sell the new items.
In May, the company said it was making progress with its turnaround,
which includes closing at least 480 stores, but said it would
experience significant costs related to the plan in its second and
third quarters.
...
Wall Street still has some doubts that RadioShack can successfully
turn around its business when it faces intense competition from much
larger rivals Best Buy Co. Inc. and Circuit City Stores Inc..
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-26, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:10:42 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c6c114$0$96226$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>... The Cingular coverage in the
>San Francisco Bay Area improved greatly after the merger, because
>Cingular got all that sweet 800 Mhz spectrum and dumped the crappy 1900
>Mhz spectrum.
Cingular still actually uses that 1900 spectrum under a roaming buyback
deal with T-Mobile.
The 1900 spectrum is actually quite good, as evidenced by T-Mobile
coverage.
The combination of 850 and 1900 spectrum gives Cingular the best digital
network coverage in the San Francisco Bay Area.
>But the Cingular coverage still lags Verizon by a lot, as
>evidenced by the results of all the independent surveys.
Surveys actually show very small differences between carriers, even when
inappropriately mixing different technologies together (e.g., D-AMPS and
GSM).
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-26, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:38:30 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c6c799$0$96147$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>SMS wrote:
>
>Oops, actually it's a tri-band (850/900/1900 MHz).
In other words, not one of the better ones. I'd be willing to bet that
it's not ENS-capable with an ENS (64K SIM). You'd probably get better
results with a better phone. Assuming you really want to.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-07-26, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:q0pcc25ti7ngq5j
vhao7b2cqjgh1bdl35l@
4ax.com...
>
> Many analysts were actually quite positive.
>
But many more were negative than positive.
|
|
|
|
|