SPRINT = a "meltdown," a "miserable performance" and a "di..

On 2008-01-22, SMS <scharf.steven.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>> And your "must be true because no one else said anything" convoluted
>> logic is ridiculous.
>
> No it isn't. When a major newspaper has a story that is negative to a
> major corporation you will always see a response if the story is untrue.
> In this case you would have seen denials from both Apple and AT&T if the
> story was false.

Boy, I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a losing
competitor attempting to diminish an announcement which had attracted
some interest by blabbing about talks that were certainly intended to
be kept private in an attempt to make the case that they'd been clever
not to take that deal (which really suggests to me that they were
motivated by worry that they'd been stupid not to pursue the deal).
This is a low class act that it speaks for itself and needs no
public response. In fact it demands no response; a response would
only suggest that you actually care what Verizon thinks, and wrestling
with pigs will only get you dirty too.

Of course, I could be wrong since I have no particular information
beyond the article itself, but then again, neither do you. To be
clear what the job of the Verizon VP quoted in that article (and
apparently its source) is, however, here's a quote from the same
guy on another, more recent, topic, in particular an article in
the Wall Street Journal that US carriers should be made to open
their networks to compatible phones:

The Journal makes an increasingly popular but mistaken assumption
that the European government-mandated model of unlocked handsets
means better consumer choices.

Let's start with the European experience. Viruses and Trojans are
part of the unlocked handset experience. Just imagine children's
mobile phones receiving some of the indecent messages that come
into e-mail boxes everyday. "Open" devices simply lower standards.

In contrast to Europe, handsets provided by U.S. carriers have
software that protects consumers from fraud and theft. [...]
Carriers customize handsets to optimize voice quality and data
services.

Contrary to the Journal's assertion, Europe's one-size fits all
portability comes at the expense of consumer choice and price.

This requires no response either (especially when I look at how high
Verizon's revenue and profit from handset sales is compared to its
GSM competitors). This was, of course, before Verizon decided an
open phone network was a good thing.

> With Sarbanes-Oxley, you no longer have executives of
> major corporations running around making up stories that are so easy to
> verify.

Oh my god, so it's true unlocked phones attract viruses and child
porn... Oh, never mind, I can't bring myself to respond to that.

> Why do you find it surprising that Apple would have first approached the
^^^^^

So you are assuming not only that Apple spoke to Verizon, but also that
Apple kept Verizon up to date on who else they were talking to and how
that was going, so Verizon could know they were first? Doubt it, though
you never know.

> carrier that had been adding new subscribers at a far higher rate than
> its closest competitor, and that consistently is ranked as the highest
> quality carrier?

Well, let's look at what the carriers we know Apple did deals with since
then (you can even throw in China Mobile if you want) have in common:
(1) they're the biggest carrier in their market by number of users; and
(2) GSM. So which carrier would Apple have preferred in 2005?

There is at least some hint that Apple must have been fairly close to
doing something with one of Verizon Wireless's parent companies since
they included Vodafone's logo with the original firmware. See, e.g.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2mpm39

So (noting that Vodafone and O2 have pretty near identical shares of the
UK market) do you think the sins of the child might have been visited
upon the parent? I have no idea but, since we're engaging in pure, idle
speculation about things we have absolutely no knowledge of, I'll just
point out that from my point of view this would have been a way more
appropriate response to the quite tacky Verizon-sourced article than
getting all tacky yourself by arguing about it in public would have
been. Who wants to talk business with people who will turn around and
do that?

In any case, I don't think we'll ever know anything more about this
until someone at Apple writes a book.

Dennis Ferguson

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:04:19 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM DeleteThis @NOSPAM.NOSPAM>
wrote in <ZDulj.38691$pq.11263@newsfe24.lga>:

>In news:fvgcp39cg6n7gaonb2vojnfc40ama1olvo@4ax.com,
>John Navas <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> typed:

>> Because AT&T was clearly the stronger choice for Apple, with the largest
>> subscriber base and technology common to most of the rest of the world.
>
>Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>first choice rather than just you saying it?

Why not just tell us where anything that independently corroborates the
Verizon spin can be found rather than just taking Verizon at its word.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:51:39 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven RemoveThis @geemail.com>
wrote in <47969d0e$0$84165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>> first choice rather than just you saying it?
>
>Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or citations.

Too funny! Let's see if you have any...

>One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
>story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
>grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
>Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
>Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
>them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
>for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
>legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.

No citations. What a shock. Not.

>I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
>choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success
>(following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of
>new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon.

The shill here is you, constant Verizon apologist and AT&T basher.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:26:07 -0600, "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM.RemoveThis@NOSPAM.NOSPAM>
wrote in <aBxlj.13599$OC1.6600@newsfe20.lga>:

>In news:47969d0e$0$84165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
>SMS <scharf.steven.RemoveThis@geemail.com> typed:
>> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>>
>>> Why not just tell us where Apple and/or ATT stated that VZW was not the
>>> first choice rather than just you saying it?
>>
>> Yeah, well don't hold your breath. Navas never has references or
>> citations.
>> One person said that for Apple or AT&T to have denied the USA Today
>> story would have amounted to dignifying what he believed to be sour
>> grapes. That's highly unlikely. An executive of a large company like
>> Verizon has to be extremely careful with public statements because of
>> Sarbanes-Oxley; you can't be running around making up lies and having
>> them published in the media, or a lawsuit will quickly result. I worked
>> for a company with a loose-lipped VP who got the company into a lot of
>> legal trouble with his outrageous public statements.
>>
>> I wonder why the AT&T shills are so unhappy that AT&T was Apple's second
>> choice. Geez, AT&T made a good decision, the iPhone is a success
>> (following the $200 price cut anyway), and it helped AT&T add a lot of
>> new retail subscribers, an area where they were badly lagging Verizon.
>
>Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and therefore
>there is no need for him to provide any support.
>
>The only thing that might get Navas to change his claim is to have a video
>of Steve Jobs saying that Apple was forced to go with ATT since they were
>unable to get VZW to meet their demands - but then again Navas might not.

Again, not a shred of corroborating evidence. Instead you stoop to
persona attack. Makes it pretty clear that you don't really have
anything to do on other than parroting whatever Verizon might say.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:52:37 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven.DeleteThis@geemail.com>
wrote in <4796ab59$0$84197$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> Navas always speaks from the position of ultimate authority and therefore
>> there is no need for him to provide any support.
>
>He follows the adage, "If You Don't Like the Facts...Go Out and Make
>Some of Your Own."
>
>> The only thing that might get Navas to change his claim is to have a video
>> of Steve Jobs saying that Apple was forced to go with ATT since they were
>> unable to get VZW to meet their demands - but then again Navas might not.
>
>He might claim that it was an actor impersonating Steve Jobs.
>
>Still, "demands" is probably too strong. They just couldn't reach an
>agreement. It wasn't just the revenue sharing either, it was the demand
>that the iPhone only be sold in Verizon's company-owned stores and Apple
>stores, which would have upset Verizon's resellers including the big-box
>stores. AT&T had less to worry about, since they probably didn't mind
>upsetting resellers like Radio Shack.

No citations. No surprise. Total fantasy.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

SMS wrote:
> Navas never has references or citations.

Totally incorrect. He provides links to his personal experiences
to validate his point. Perhaps if he wore a hat, it might hide it.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:57:39 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven DeleteThis @geemail.com>
wrote in <4796c8a8$0$84176$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Jan 2008 22:41:05 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>> Boy, I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a losing
>>> competitor attempting to diminish an announcement which had attracted
>>> some interest by blabbing about talks that were certainly intended to
>>> be kept private in an attempt to make the case that they'd been clever
>>> not to take that deal (which really suggests to me that they were
>>> motivated by worry that they'd been stupid not to pursue the deal).
>>
>>
>> To be fair, the undue amount of press surrounding the AT&T iPhone deal
>> probably prompted a response.
>
>Apple has never hesitated in responding to news stories about the iPhone
>that have no basis in fact.

Not true.

>If the Verizon executive's statements had
>been false then they would have responded.

Nonsense.

>Verizon isn't the only carrier in the world that decided that Apple's
>requirements in terms of revenue sharing and distribution were not
>something they were interested in. See
>"http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9850498-7.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=NewsBlog".

Your first cite in ages is a blog! LOL
And that's China, which is pretty much meaningless.

>It's pretty clear why Apple approached Verizon first. ...

It didn't.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

Kevin Weaver wrote:

>>
>>> It's pretty clear why Apple approached Verizon first. ...
>>
>> It didn't.
>
> Nonsense.

Apple has used the same approach in each region; approach the carrier
with the biggest potential for sales, and try to work out a deal. If it
doesn't work out, move on to the next best carrier. What some people
don't realize is that the carrier whose network has the most users is
not necessarily the carrier with the most retail subscribers. Verizon
passed AT&T in retail subscribers last year, even though the AT&T GSM
network has more users by virtue of wholesale and prepaid users, two
segments where Verizon is very weak. No doubt Apple understood the
difference, and they were looking for the greatest sales potential which
is why they approached Verizon first.

You can see a replay of what happened in the U.S. now happening in
China, with China Mobile turning down the opportunity to sell the
iPhone, and Apple approaching other carriers.

"http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb20080118_025613.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_global+business"
"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/15/china_mobile_iphone/"
"http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9149361c-c30e-11dc-b617-0000779fd2ac.html"

I honestly don't understand what he is so upset about. AT&T ended up
with the iPhone, which they wanted, Verizon didn't end up with it
because they didn't think that it was financially advantageous to meet
the terms that Apple wanted. Is he that upset that AT&T was Apple's
second choice? I'm sure that he searched endlessly for something to
contradict the USA Today story, but was unsuccessful. He rarely posts
any references or citations because most of what he posts is untrue.
Looks like this is just one more case of him lying.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:52:01 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven DeleteThis @geemail.com>
wrote in <4796e376$0$84212$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Apple has used the same approach in each region; approach the carrier
>with the biggest potential for sales, and try to work out a deal. If it
>doesn't work out, move on to the next best carrier. What some people
>don't realize is that the carrier whose network has the most users is
>not necessarily the carrier with the most retail subscribers. Verizon
>passed AT&T in retail subscribers last year, even though the AT&T GSM
>network has more users by virtue of wholesale and prepaid users, two
>segments where Verizon is very weak. No doubt Apple understood the
>difference, and they were looking for the greatest sales potential which
>is why they approached Verizon first.

Pure fantasy.

>You can see a replay of what happened in the U.S. now happening in
>China, with China Mobile turning down the opportunity to sell the
>iPhone, and Apple approaching other carriers.

China is unlike the rest of the world.

>I honestly don't understand what he is so upset about. AT&T ended up
>with the iPhone, which they wanted, Verizon didn't end up with it
>because they didn't think that it was financially advantageous to meet
>the terms that Apple wanted.

Translation: Verizon lost out to AT&T.

>Is he that upset that AT&T was Apple's
>second choice? I'm sure that he searched endlessly for something to
>contradict the USA Today story, but was unsuccessful.

Nope. I don't waste time on unsubstantiated spin.

>He rarely posts
>any references or citations because most of what he posts is untrue.
>Looks like this is just one more case of him lying.

That would actually be you.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

> The irony is that YOU demand proof, yet YOU never offer ANY to back up
> yours.

This is true, but it goes further than that. Even when posters
consistently provide references with their posts, as I almost always do,
he then makes up stories about why the references are not valid.

> Bottom line - hypocrite is the best description (that and complete ass)

I don't know why so many people insist on stating the obvious over and
over again. Kill-file him, ignore him, and he'll go away. People like
this _thrive_ on attention, and he's realized that posting outrageous
lies gets attention.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> So which numbers should we look at to be able to measure that massive
> advantage and its payoff? The wireless operations of AT&T and Verizon
> make about the same revenue from about the same number of customers, but
> Verizon's operating income from that revenue is about 50% higher than AT&T.
> And, despite the lower spending per customer, most big surveys which try
> to measure it still give Verizon's network a coverage and performance
> advantage. If there really is a massive advantage at something which
> matters it should be measureable somehow.

I think what some people don't take into account is the vast differences
between the U.S. and Europe & Asia when it comes to cellular. The
biggest reason why AT&T has such poor margins is because it has much
higher infrastructure costs, and these costs are directly related to the
technological disadvantages of GSM in terms of having to cover larger,
more sparsely populated, geographic areas. AT&T has even stated the
reasons for their low margins, and has said that margins will improve
once they are able to make fewer capital investments. Other than one
person out in the Pacific Ocean on a boat, no one in the U.S. has
experienced "extended range GSM" because no U.S. GSM carriers have
deployed it.

> I agree the writing is on the wall for CDMA2000, assuming Verizon doesn't
> change its mind about LTE, but Verizon has done impeccably well with it
> to this point when measured by any numbers I can find. And without
> any evidence of a technology disadvantage in Verizon's numbers, I can't
> help but agree with Todd that Sprint's problems are unlikely to have
> anything to do with this.

The reasons for Sprint's problems are well known, and are unrelated to
CDMA or GSM. Poor customer service, poor coverage (though better than
AT&T's thanks to off-network roaming on Verizon), and a poor handset
selection. The last one _would_ have been made simpler if they were a
GSM operator, but Verizon has done well in handset selection, and is
able to leverage all the Korean CDMA handsets as well as getting CDMA
versions of other popular handsets. It wasn't that many years ago when
everyone was complaining about Verizon's handset selection, and claiming
that Sprint had better choices.

Eventually CDMA 2000 _and_ GSM will be EOL, and voice calls will be
carried over some version of CDMA or LTE technology.

Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> That's what I said. I don't know how much I can trust the things Verizon
> (or anyone else) says in the promotion of their own interests, but the
> fact that they felt the need to say anything at all speaks volumes about
> the importance they must have attached to the iPhone. If it wasn't
> important they wouldn't have bothered.

They may have been compelled to say what transpired for their own
protection against shareholder lawsuits. They may have been concerned
that the facts would leak out and they wanted to put them out there
first. It may have been entirely self-serving sour grapes.

Whatever the case, one thing you can be certain of is that if the USA
Today story was a fabrication on the part of Verizon that AT&T and/or
Apple would have denied the story. Neither company has been shy about
responding to news stories about their products and services.

Look how Apple has responded to the stories about another Chinese
partner after China Mobile turned them down.

Business Week stated:

"China's largest mobile operator, China Mobile, stopped negotiation with
Apple due to a disagreement over revenue sharing."

No one has denied that this is true, not Apple, and not the China Mobile
competitors that are now reportedly being offered the iPhone.

Given what transpired in China, Is it really so hard for people to
believe that Apple didn't first approach Verizon, which has more retail
customers and a larger network than AT&T? Has anyone come up with
anything that contradicts the USA Today story?

'The U.S.'s largest mobile operator, Verizon, stopped negotiation with
Apple due to a disagreement over revenue sharing.'

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Jan 2008 22:41:05 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> In fact it demands no response; a response would
>> only suggest that you actually care what Verizon thinks, and
>> wrestling with pigs will only get you dirty too.
>
>
> That's an interesting take on it that I'd agree with if this wasn't
> AT&T we were talking about!

We're not. It was Cingular at the time, particularly during the original
negotiations. Heck, it was still Cingular when the iPhone was announced.

So all of these "this is how at&t works" type posts are pointless IMO.



--
Mike