Verizon retakes US wireless subscriber lead from AT&T

See "http://tinyurl.com/28gjdz"

On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:51:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4637c46a$0$27208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>See "http://tinyurl.com/28gjdz"

<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.

So much for claims here to the contrary.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:30:33 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:51:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote in <4637c46a$0$27208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>See "http://tinyurl.com/28gjdz"
>
><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.
>
>So much for claims here to the contrary.


If Verizon hasn't overtaken Cingular yet, it soon will, given its
greater number of adds each quarter and its lower Churn rate.

In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:51:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4637c46a$0$27208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>See "http://tinyurl.com/28gjdz"
>
> <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.
>
> So much for claims here to the contrary.
>

Next quarter, two quarters max.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

On Thu, 03 May 2007 12:58:54 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
<63nj33hfi6b8a2ohlioqfhf7rmfcq8t760@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:30:33 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:51:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>wrote in <4637c46a$0$27208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>>See "http://tinyurl.com/28gjdz"
>>
>><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.
>>
>>So much for claims here to the contrary.
>
>If Verizon hasn't overtaken Cingular yet, it soon will, given its
>greater number of adds each quarter and its lower Churn rate.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Only time will tell.
Not that it really matters except to those few with an agenda. ;)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:51:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <4637c46a$0$27208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>> See "http://tinyurl.com/28gjdz"
>> <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.
>>
>> So much for claims here to the contrary.
>>
>
> Next quarter, two quarters max.

What Navas doesn't understand is the difference between actual customers
of the carrier, and customers of MVNOs.

It's not accurate for Cingular to claim customers of their wholesale
MVNOs as Cingular customers. Cingular leases their network to these
MVNOs, but they aren't Cingular's customers per-se.

Now if Cingular wants to say something like "More people use our network
than any other network" that would be accurate. But the fact remains
that in terms of actual customers, Verizon has passed Cingular.

On Thu, 03 May 2007 14:57:50 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <463a5ae0$0$27240$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:51:19 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <4637c46a$0$27208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>> See "http://tinyurl.com/28gjdz"
>>> <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.
>>>
>>> So much for claims here to the contrary.

>What Navas doesn't understand is the difference between actual customers
>of the carrier, and customers of MVNOs.

I understand perfectly. I just don't have an anti-GSM
anti-AT&T/Cingular agenda.

>Now if Cingular wants to say something like "More people use our network
>than any other network" that would be accurate. But the fact remains
>that in terms of actual customers, Verizon has passed Cingular.

The quote above speaks for itself, no matter what you may claim.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

At 03 May 2007 14:57:50 -0700 SMS wrote:


> It's not accurate for Cingular to claim customers of their wholesale
> MVNOs as Cingular customers.

"Number of customers" doesn't have a hard and fast definition- if you
want to exclude wholesale, fine, how about prepaid? Is a four-line
family plan four customers or one? My two-TV satellite system is only
"one customer" to DISH Network, is my two-line T-Mobile family plan two
customers to T-Mo? Well, that's up to T-Mobile- do they want two
customers with a lower ARPU, or one with a high ARPU?

> Cingular leases their network to these MVNOs, but they aren't Cingular's
> customers per-se.

Not retail customers, but those end users are purchasing the MVNO's
"service," based, at least in part, by the strength of the underlying
network. Look at yourself- you didn't buy PagePlus for your daughter
because of their snazzy website or top-notch customer service- you bought
them because they sell prepaid "Verizon service" for $2.50/month instead
of $15.

> Now if Cingular wants to say something like "More people use our network
> than any other network" that would be accurate.

Companies that sell both wholesale and retail often combine the sales
figures of both business arms. It's up to the company and how they want
to "massage" the numbers.

It's a double edged sword- if you take out the relatively low ARPU
wholesale customers, the number of customers goes down, but ARPU and data
ARPU go up.


> But the fact remains that in terms of actual customers, Verizon has
> passed Cingular.

To pull a Clinton, it really depends what your definition of "is" is! Is
a Beyond customer a Cingular customer? Probably not, but Beyond itself
IS a Cingular customer- as is Consumer Cellular, Ztar (7-11's Speakout)
etc. Why shouldn't THOSE "multi-line" customers count, even if they
purchase at a "discount" (wholesale) when multi-line municipal,
government and corporate customers count (and also purchase service at a
discount!)
Perhaps the real lesson in this diatribe is that in the real world things
like commerce are too complicated to wrap up in a single nebulous (and
self-serving) statistic.

IIRC, Verizon already leads in revenue due to higher ARPU, but you have
to admit that "more customers than any other wireless carrier" sounds
better in ads than "rakes in more money than any other wireless carrier!"



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

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.

See "http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=49296&src=site-marq"

AT&T leases out space on their wireless network to other companies, and
they try to count the customers of the other companies as their own
subscribers, but analysts reject this sleight of hand.

All of this doesn't even matter all that much--unless your main job in
life is to shill for Cingular/AT&T.


[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name is going
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]

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>