Verizon retakes US wireless subscriber lead from AT&T

Wrong again. I'm a Cingular user.
You being wrong is nothing new.


"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:sa7e6392j2eb70gffda3fb8jq3eobddkao@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4666653c$0$27212$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Kevin Weaver wrote:
>>> Now I've seen and heard it all. Was it not you that posted the Cingular
>>> has more customers then Verizon when the news broke out the 1st time ?
>>
>>As has been explained, Verizon Wireless now has more customers than
>>"wireless from AT&T" or whatever they're calling themselves.
>
> Nope: <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/technology/01verizon.html>
>
> Verizon's wireless business, which Verizon owns jointly with the
> Vodafone Group, reported revenue of $10.3 billion in the first
> quarter. The unit added 1.7 million wireless subscribers, ending the
> quarter with 60.7 million subscribers, second only to AT&T Wireless,
> which serves 62.2 million customers.
>
> Not that it matters except to those with an anti-Cingular/AT&T Wireless
> agenda. ;)
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:48:15 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:42:03 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote in <4666653c$0$27212$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Kevin Weaver wrote:
>>> Now I've seen and heard it all. Was it not you that posted the Cingular
>>> has more customers then Verizon when the news broke out the 1st time ?
>>
>>As has been explained, Verizon Wireless now has more customers than
>>"wireless from AT&T" or whatever they're calling themselves.
>
>Nope: <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/technology/01verizon.html>
>
> Verizon's wireless business, which Verizon owns jointly with the
> Vodafone Group, reported revenue of $10.3 billion in the first
> quarter. The unit added 1.7 million wireless subscribers, ending the
> quarter with 60.7 million subscribers, second only to AT&T Wireless,
> which serves 62.2 million customers.
>

Apples and Oranges.

Verizon = Subscribers

AT&T = Customers

When subscribers are counted for each Verizon comes out on top.



>Not that it matters except to those with an anti-Cingular/AT&T Wireless
>agenda. ;)

That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
to proove that CDMA is better.

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> AT&T = Customers
>
> When subscribers are counted for each Verizon comes out on top.

Verizon has more subscribers than "Wireless from AT&T" while AT&T has
more users of its network by virtue of them leasing capacity to more
MVNOs than Verizon.

A good metric is how many subscribers can call each other using mobile
to mobile minutes. The MVNO customers of AT&T don't get to call actual
AT&T subscribers.

Not sure why Navas is so upset about Verizon passing AT&T in
subscribers, it really doesn't mean anything other than bragging rights
in advertising.

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
> to proove that CDMA is better.

The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
to provide better service.

At 06 Jun 2007 16:58:46 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Not sure why Navas is so upset about Verizon passing AT&T in
> subscribers, it really doesn't mean anything other than bragging
> rights in advertising.


And yet Verizon hasn't bragged about it in their ads to date. Apparently
they don't think they've surpassed AT&T yet either...

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:01:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
>> to proove that CDMA is better.
>
>The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
>their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
>Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
>country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
>to provide better service.


It has far more to do with Customer Service. EVERY year scientifuic
surveys from

The Yankee Group, J.D. Power and Consumer Reports rate Verizon as FAR
BETTER than Cingular or SprintPCS in Customer Service.

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:01:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>>> That means that Stinkular is now "number two" behind verizon. It just goes
>>> to proove that CDMA is better.
>> The number of subscribers that have any idea of the technology behind
>> their network is very small. However a large part of the reason that
>> Verizon consistently is ranked better than Cingular in every part of the
>> country is partially due to the technology because CDMA makes it easier
>> to provide better service.
>
>
> It has far more to do with Customer Service. EVERY year scientifuic
> surveys from
>
> The Yankee Group, J.D. Power and Consumer Reports rate Verizon as FAR
> BETTER than Cingular or SprintPCS in Customer Service.

Nope, the good surveys break down their evaluation into several
categories, including coverage and dropped calls. The CDMA cellular
carriers, Verizon and Alltel, consistently rank the best in every area
they serve. These are surveys with very high sample sizes, so the
results have an extremely low margin of error. Sprint is another story;
they're stuck with CDMA on PCS, and 1900 MHz presents quality of service
issues that are very difficult and very expensive to overcome.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Jun 2007 16:58:46 -0700 SMS wrote:
>
>> Not sure why Navas is so upset about Verizon passing AT&T in
>> subscribers, it really doesn't mean anything other than bragging
>> rights in advertising.
>
>
> And yet Verizon hasn't bragged about it in their ads to date. Apparently
> they don't think they've surpassed AT&T yet either...

More likely that they don't think it's something worth using in their
advertising. Look at the comparative number of net additions between
Cingular and Verizon. Clearly the current Verizon marketing campaigns
are doing fine. Advertising like that can backfire. If you claim you're
the best just because you have the most subscribers and the most people
you can call free on mobile to mobile, what happens when you have a
couple of comparatively mediocre quarters of net additions, as Cingular
has been experiencing, and lose the lead slightly? Cingular is only
slightly behind right now, and when the iPhone hits they will probably
be slightly ahead for a while.

Doing well in national and regional surveys is the best marketing tool,
and that's something money can't buy. Of course you can run always run
out and do your own survey, misrepresent the results and base a whole
national ad campaign on those results, to the point that even the
company that you paid to do the survey has to issue a statement that the
advertising claims are are invalid. Did Cingular really ever believe
that no one would see through the "fewest dropped calls" claim? It
backfired, as there was not evidence to support their claims.

At 07 Jun 2007 06:36:02 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Cingular is only slightly behind right now, and when the iPhone hits
> they will probably be slightly ahead for a while.

You're giving the iPhone waaaay too much credit. I suspect the actual
number of people who jump ship will be small. Frankly, Verizon's phone
selection has been lackluster for quite sometime- people buy Verizon for
"The Network"- not for snazzy phones.

> Doing well in national and regional surveys is the best marketing tool,
> and that's something money can't buy. Of course you can run always
> run out and do your own survey, misrepresent the results and base a
> whole national ad campaign on those results, to the point that even
> the company that you paid to do the survey has to issue a statement
> that the advertising claims are are invalid. Did Cingular really ever
> believe that no one would see through the "fewest dropped calls" claim?
> It backfired, as there was not evidence to support their claims.

How did it "backfire?" Other than a few weirdos like us that follow this
industry way too closely, the general public knows nothing about the
lawsuits and countersuits about Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" or
Sprint's "most powerful network" etc.

The ad campaign is still running strong, and whether it affects public
perception remains to be seen. Obviously the "can you here me now" geek
trudging through swamps and forests convinced America Verizon works
everywhere.

I was at the "YMCA of the Rockies" campground in Estes Park last weekend,
and the "can you here me now" guy was nowhere to be seen. Verizon users
were struggling for signal in the woods just like the rest of us. In fact,
I was quite impressed that my T-Mo service did as well as it did- my wife
and I lost signal no more (or less) freqently than my Verizon-packing
sister-in-law and niece.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com