Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Omitted from the USENET discussion of Cingular's quarterly results was
this statement:

"Average monthly subscriber churn was 2.8 percent"

<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=088644&TICK=CING
UL1&STORY=/www/story/10-20-2004/0002289150&EDATE=Oct+20,+2004>

That means that 32.6 % of customers per year are LEAVING Cingular
for another carrier; and that number can only be increasing with the
current state of "My Account" on the web pages which continues to be a
total fubar since the recent change, which CSR's are taught to
misidentify as an upgrade.


AT&T Wireless is still scaring customers with a churn rate of 3.7% in Q3.

That's an annual rate of 44.4%. And Verizon is about to launch
promotions trying to snare many of those folks as the merger takes
effect.

<http://www.attwireless.com/wirelessir/downloads/3Q04EarningsPressRelease
..pdf>

<http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040927/ZNYT01/4092
70394/1001/BUSINESS>



By contrast the Nextel Churn rate during Q3 2004 was 1.5 %

<http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=63347&p=irol-newsArticle&t=R
egular&id=634513&>



Sprint's churn "was a little less than 2.7%", which they try to SPIN as
a "seasonal variation".

<http://www3.sprint.com/PR/CDA/PR_CDA_Press_Releases_Detail/1,3681,111224
4,00.html>



I'm not sure Verizon has released its Q3 numbers yet, but they have been
running UNDER 2.0%

<http://www.forbes.com/home/wireless/2004/10/11/cx_de_1011mondaymatchup.h
tml>



In August TMobile reported a Q2 monthly churn rate of 2.4%.

<http://www.t-mobile.com/company/investors/financial_releases/2004_Q2.asp
>

TMobile reported it costs it $318 for each new customer it adds, which
in the low range for the industry; but shows how COSTLY churn is.
Cingular omitted that number from its press release for Q3.

Each month when between 2 and 3 % of your customers leave, it costs a
cellular carrier over $300 each to replace that customer (advertising,
phone costs subsidy, etc). If you have to replace a million customers
(DO THE MATH) it adds up, and subtracts from potential profits.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-EB30C3.03322724102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24 Oct
2004 08:32:13 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>AT&T Wireless is still scaring customers with a churn rate of 3.7% in Q3.

Scaring investors -- customers don't care about churn. Regardless, that's
actually not bad in the context of the merger.

>And Verizon is about to launch
>promotions trying to snare many of those folks as the merger takes
>effect.

But will still fall to #2 in cellular.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <toKed.720$_3.15163@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-EB30C3.03322724102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24 Oct
> 2004 08:32:13 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >AT&T Wireless is still scaring customers with a churn rate of 3.7% in Q3.
>
> Scaring investors -- customers don't care about churn. Regardless, that's
> actually not bad in the context of the merger.

AT&T Wireless is scaring customers away I meant to say.

>
> >And Verizon is about to launch
> >promotions trying to snare many of those folks as the merger takes
> >effect.
>
> But will still fall to #2 in cellular.

Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
Verizon could be back on top within 2 years

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-9FC16A.06392624102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <toKed.720$_3.15163@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <jzwick3-EB30C3.03322724102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24
Oct
> > 2004 08:32:13 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >AT&T Wireless is still scaring customers with a churn rate of 3.7% in
Q3.
> >
> > Scaring investors -- customers don't care about churn. Regardless,
that's
> > actually not bad in the context of the merger.
>
> AT&T Wireless is scaring customers away I meant to say.

Well, Phil- interesting slant, but the merger will still create the nation's
largest carrier.


>
> >
> > >And Verizon is about to launch
> > >promotions trying to snare many of those folks as the merger takes
> > >effect.
> >
> > But will still fall to #2 in cellular.
>
> Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
> Verizon could be back on top within 2 years

Only if they improve some serious oversaturation of the network in areas and
dramatically improve their cutomer service. Complaints of dropped calls and
poor service are rapidly climbing, and their safety net as 'the nation's
largest network' is about to go down the toilet.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-9FC16A.06392624102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24 Oct
2004 11:39:12 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <toKed.720$_3.15163@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In <jzwick3-EB30C3.03322724102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24 Oct
>> 2004 08:32:13 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >AT&T Wireless is still scaring customers with a churn rate of 3.7% in Q3.
>>
>> Scaring investors -- customers don't care about churn. Regardless, that's
>> actually not bad in the context of the merger.
>
>AT&T Wireless is scaring customers away I meant to say.

GSM migration is probably scaring some customers away. Likewise the merger,
although it's probably a less significant factor.

>> >And Verizon is about to launch
>> >promotions trying to snare many of those folks as the merger takes
>> >effect.
>>
>> But will still fall to #2 in cellular.
>
>Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
>Verizon could be back on top within 2 years

While churn is important, net additions are what matter in this context.

Together, Cingular and AT&T Wireless will have about 46 million wireless
subscribers combined, as compared to 37.5 million customers at No. 2 Verizon
Wireless, a difference of 8.5 million subscribers. Thus it would be difficult
for Verizon to retake the #1 spot anytime soon. To do so in 2 years would
mean a net gain for Verizon on Cingular of more than a million subscribers per
quarter, which I think is unlikely.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <wDTed.755$_3.16355@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
> >Verizon could be back on top within 2 years
>
> While churn is important, net additions are what matter in this context.
>
> Together, Cingular and AT&T Wireless will have about 46 million wireless
> subscribers combined, as compared to 37.5 million customers at No. 2 Verizon
> Wireless, a difference of 8.5 million subscribers. Thus it would be difficult
> for Verizon to retake the #1 spot anytime soon. To do so in 2 years would
> mean a net gain for Verizon on Cingular of more than a million subscribers per
> quarter, which I think is unlikely.

Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years. Then with
its greater profitablility Verizon can afford some marketing curveballs
to throw at Cingular. Depends on your definition of "soon", and whether
with rose colored glasses you think Cingular can cure problems with AT&T
Wireless.

I see nothing but more issues for Cingular. Three years in Cingular
hasn't YET fully digested all the pieces that came together to create
Cingular as witnessed by grief customers still have with roaming or
calling 611 when they travel 1000 miles out of their home area. And now
we witness a complete foobar on the "My ACCOUNT" webpage, a small
precusor of the likely problems in absorbing the behemoth of AT&T
Wireless.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-81F220.15392124102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24 Oct
2004 20:39:11 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <wDTed.755$_3.16355@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
>> >Verizon could be back on top within 2 years
>>
>> While churn is important, net additions are what matter in this context.
>>
>> Together, Cingular and AT&T Wireless will have about 46 million wireless
>> subscribers combined, as compared to 37.5 million customers at No. 2 Verizon
>> Wireless, a difference of 8.5 million subscribers. Thus it would be difficult
>> for Verizon to retake the #1 spot anytime soon. To do so in 2 years would
>> mean a net gain for Verizon on Cingular of more than a million subscribers per
>> quarter, which I think is unlikely.
>
>Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
>growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
>growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years. ...

As I wrote, while churn is important, net additions are what matter in this
context. In the most recent quarters for which numbers are available, Verizon
had a net gain of about 700 thousand subscribers on Cingular and ATTWS.
That's well below the pace needed to catch Cingular within your 2 years, and
since these quarters were unusually favorable to Verizon, future net gains are
likely to be lower, not higher. Thus your projection is unlikely.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-81F220.15392124102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <wDTed.755$_3.16355@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > >Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
> > >Verizon could be back on top within 2 years
> >
> > While churn is important, net additions are what matter in this context.
> >
> > Together, Cingular and AT&T Wireless will have about 46 million wireless
> > subscribers combined, as compared to 37.5 million customers at No. 2
Verizon
> > Wireless, a difference of 8.5 million subscribers. Thus it would be
difficult
> > for Verizon to retake the #1 spot anytime soon. To do so in 2 years
would
> > mean a net gain for Verizon on Cingular of more than a million
subscribers per
> > quarter, which I think is unlikely.
>
> Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
> growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
> growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years. Then with
> its greater profitablility Verizon can afford some marketing curveballs
> to throw at Cingular. Depends on your definition of "soon", and whether
> with rose colored glasses you think Cingular can cure problems with AT&T
> Wireless.

Churn has no effect on the equation- if Cingular continues to add
subscribers (notice the continue- they are adding as we speak), Verizon has
to add 1 million more than Cingular does in every quarter for the next two
years. Due to WLNP, churn is not the indicator of good service that it used
to be. Phil- you are a classic example of why that is true. You whored
yourself out to the carrier that gave you the most, moaned and whined about
the entire situation, and now apparently find your self tied to yet another
carrier you dislike.

>
> I see nothing but more issues for Cingular. Three years in Cingular
> hasn't YET fully digested all the pieces that came together to create
> Cingular as witnessed by grief customers still have with roaming or
> calling 611 when they travel 1000 miles out of their home area. And now
> we witness a complete foobar on the "My ACCOUNT" webpage, a small
> precusor of the likely problems in absorbing the behemoth of AT&T
> Wireless.


Hm- sounds just like VZW- struggling to put together the pieces of the
conglomerate and having many issues as a result. Except with VZW, you can
overselling the network to the list of complaints. It will be hard to add a
million more than Cingular when the network can't handle what they already
have.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <txUed.774$_3.16698@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-81F220.15392124102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24 Oct
> 2004 20:39:11 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <wDTed.755$_3.16355@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
> >> >Verizon could be back on top within 2 years
> >>
> >> While churn is important, net additions are what matter in this context.
> >>
> >> Together, Cingular and AT&T Wireless will have about 46 million wireless
> >> subscribers combined, as compared to 37.5 million customers at No. 2
> >> Verizon
> >> Wireless, a difference of 8.5 million subscribers. Thus it would be
> >> difficult
> >> for Verizon to retake the #1 spot anytime soon. To do so in 2 years would
> >> mean a net gain for Verizon on Cingular of more than a million subscribers
> >> per
> >> quarter, which I think is unlikely.
> >
> >Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
> >growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
> >growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years. ... <SNIP>
>
> As I wrote, while churn is important, net additions are what matter in this
> context. In the most recent quarters for which numbers are available,
> Verizon had a net gain of about 700 thousand subscribers on Cingular and ATTWS.
> That's well below the pace needed to catch Cingular within your 2 years, and
> since these quarters were unusually favorable to Verizon, future net gains
> are likely to be lower, not higher. Thus your projection is unlikely.

Why should it be lower?, you're reaching.


Why do you snip out half my argument when you respond? Quite childish:

Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years. Then with
its greater profitablility Verizon can afford some marketing curveballs
to throw at Cingular. Depends on your definition of "soon", and whether
with rose colored glasses you think Cingular can cure problems with AT&T
Wireless.

I see nothing but more issues for Cingular. Three years in Cingular
hasn't YET fully digested all the pieces that came together to create
Cingular as witnessed by grief customers still have with roaming or
calling 611 when they travel 1000 miles out of their home area. And now
we witness a complete foobar on the "My ACCOUNT" webpage, a small
precusor of the likely problems in absorbing the behemoth of AT&T
Wireless.

And others predict one year not two for Cingular to lose its lead:

"Analysts are predicting that the new Cingular could lose 6% to 10% of
its 46.7 million subscribers over the next twelve months. If that
occurs, Verizon Wireless - jointly owned by Verizon (VZ) and Vodafone
(VOD), and with a current subscriber base of 40.4 million - could regain
the number one carrier spot it will lose once the Cingular-AWE merger is
closed. AWE's churn is already growing, from 2.6% per month at the end
of 2003, to 3.4% in the most recent quarter. Cingular and AWE were the
only two companies to lose subscribers in Q2, as Verizon Wireless,
Nextel (NXTL), T-Mobile and Sprint PCS each showed gains. "

http://www.findprofit.com/saying.php3

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <hdudnZv-Odw2vuHcRVn-2Q@adelphia.com> on Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:50:49 -0600,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:jzwick3-81F220.15392124102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...

>> I see nothing but more issues for Cingular. Three years in Cingular
>> hasn't YET fully digested all the pieces that came together to create
>> Cingular as witnessed by grief customers still have with roaming or
>> calling 611 when they travel 1000 miles out of their home area. And now
>> we witness a complete foobar on the "My ACCOUNT" webpage, a small
>> precusor of the likely problems in absorbing the behemoth of AT&T
>> Wireless.
>
>Hm- sounds just like VZW- struggling to put together the pieces of the
>conglomerate and having many issues as a result. Except with VZW, you can
>overselling the network to the list of complaints. It will be hard to add a
>million more than Cingular when the network can't handle what they already
>have.

Indeed -- in a stroke, Cingular will go from being the spectrum-poor major
carrier to being the spectrum-rich major carrier, putting it in a good
position to extend its new lead over Verizon.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-11CA6D.17175624102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <txUed.774$_3.16698@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <jzwick3-81F220.15392124102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24
Oct
> > 2004 20:39:11 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <wDTed.755$_3.16355@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
> > >> >Verizon could be back on top within 2 years
> > >>
> > >> While churn is important, net additions are what matter in this
context.
> > >>
> > >> Together, Cingular and AT&T Wireless will have about 46 million
wireless
> > >> subscribers combined, as compared to 37.5 million customers at No. 2
> > >> Verizon
> > >> Wireless, a difference of 8.5 million subscribers. Thus it would be
> > >> difficult
> > >> for Verizon to retake the #1 spot anytime soon. To do so in 2 years
would
> > >> mean a net gain for Verizon on Cingular of more than a million
subscribers
> > >> per
> > >> quarter, which I think is unlikely.
> > >
> > >Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
> > >growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
> > >growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years. ... <SNIP>
> >
> > As I wrote, while churn is important, net additions are what matter in
this
> > context. In the most recent quarters for which numbers are available,
> > Verizon had a net gain of about 700 thousand subscribers on Cingular and
ATTWS.
> > That's well below the pace needed to catch Cingular within your 2 years,
and
> > since these quarters were unusually favorable to Verizon, future net
gains
> > are likely to be lower, not higher. Thus your projection is unlikely.
>
> Why should it be lower?, you're reaching.
>
>
> Why do you snip out half my argument when you respond? Quite childish:
>
> Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
> growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
> growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years. Then with
> its greater profitablility Verizon can afford some marketing curveballs
> to throw at Cingular. Depends on your definition of "soon", and whether
> with rose colored glasses you think Cingular can cure problems with AT&T
> Wireless.
>
> I see nothing but more issues for Cingular. Three years in Cingular
> hasn't YET fully digested all the pieces that came together to create
> Cingular as witnessed by grief customers still have with roaming or
> calling 611 when they travel 1000 miles out of their home area. And now
> we witness a complete foobar on the "My ACCOUNT" webpage, a small
> precusor of the likely problems in absorbing the behemoth of AT&T
> Wireless.
>
> And others predict one year not two for Cingular to lose its lead:
>
> "Analysts are predicting that the new Cingular could lose 6% to 10% of
> its 46.7 million subscribers over the next twelve months. If that
> occurs, Verizon Wireless - jointly owned by Verizon (VZ) and Vodafone
> (VOD), and with a current subscriber base of 40.4 million - could regain
> the number one carrier spot it will lose once the Cingular-AWE merger is
> closed. AWE's churn is already growing, from 2.6% per month at the end
> of 2003, to 3.4% in the most recent quarter. Cingular and AWE were the
> only two companies to lose subscribers in Q2, as Verizon Wireless,
> Nextel (NXTL), T-Mobile and Sprint PCS each showed gains. "
>
> http://www.findprofit.com/saying.php3

Old news- what about Q3?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-11CA6D.17175624102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24 Oct
2004 22:18:26 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <txUed.774$_3.16698@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> As I wrote, while churn is important, net additions are what matter in this
>> context. In the most recent quarters for which numbers are available,
>> Verizon had a net gain of about 700 thousand subscribers on Cingular and ATTWS.
>> That's well below the pace needed to catch Cingular within your 2 years, and
>> since these quarters were unusually favorable to Verizon, future net gains
>> are likely to be lower, not higher. Thus your projection is unlikely.
>
>Why should it be lower?,

In a stroke, Cingular will go from being the spectrum-poor major carrier to
being the spectrum-rich major carrier, putting it in a good position to extend
its new lead over Verizon.

>you're reaching.

You have that backwards.

>Why do you snip out half my argument when you respond? Quite childish:

Again, you have that backwards. I actually snip down to (more than) the
relevant parts, as per Usenet guidelines.

>Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
>growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
>growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years.

As I've shown, the math doesn't work out that way.

>And others predict one year not two for Cingular to lose its lead:
>
>"Analysts are predicting that the new Cingular could lose 6% to 10% of
>its 46.7 million subscribers over the next twelve months. ...

The key word there is "could" (rather than will). And note the lack of actual
analyst names. Anonymous analysts tend to be no more accurate than random
guessing.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <-rCdnTS01OJ6sOHcRVn-3A@adelphia.com> on Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:34:29 -0600,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:jzwick3-11CA6D.17175624102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...

>> "Analysts are predicting that the new Cingular could lose 6% to 10% of
>> its 46.7 million subscribers over the next twelve months. If that
>> occurs, Verizon Wireless - jointly owned by Verizon (VZ) and Vodafone
>> (VOD), and with a current subscriber base of 40.4 million - could regain
>> the number one carrier spot it will lose once the Cingular-AWE merger is
>> closed. AWE's churn is already growing, from 2.6% per month at the end
>> of 2003, to 3.4% in the most recent quarter. Cingular and AWE were the
>> only two companies to lose subscribers in Q2, as Verizon Wireless,
>> Nextel (NXTL), T-Mobile and Sprint PCS each showed gains. "
>>
>> http://www.findprofit.com/saying.php3
>
>Old news- what about Q3?

ATTWS and Cingular both added net subscribers in Q3. Verizon Wireless
probably did as well, although its numbers don't yet seem to be available.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <jzwick3-81F220.15392124102004@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
jzwick3@mindspring.com says...
> I see nothing but more issues for Cingular. Three years in Cingular
> hasn't YET fully digested all the pieces that came together to create
> Cingular as witnessed by grief customers still have with roaming or
> calling 611 when they travel 1000 miles out of their home area. And now
> we witness a complete foobar on the "My ACCOUNT" webpage, a small
> precusor of the likely problems in absorbing the behemoth of AT&T
> Wireless.

I'll toss in my two bits here. Although Verizon would be my 2nd choice
over Cingular (or 1st choice for another year or so if I didn't have a
GAIT plan) I think the Cingular/ATTWS merger will permanently knock them
out of the #1 spot.

First of all the "My Account" problem is a non-issue. While it may
significantly affect YOU and a few other power users on this board, the
VAST majority of Cingular customers DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT FUNCTION EXISTS
much less have the ability to access it. Most cellular users still get
the paper bill and still pay that bill via the mail. Even the ones that
pay online wouldn't be overly bothered if the page didn't work--they'd
just grumble and pay it offline. And remember, a lot of Cingular
customers really come FROM AFFILIATES such as Hawk Electronics here--
those customers have never had access to the Cingular "My Account" info
at all. Hawk now has their own version but with bill paying and ring-
tone downloading only--nowhere near all the features as Cingular's.

One other point. In 2007 the AMPS requirement sunsets. Cingular and a
lot of the other large carriers will most likely DROP AMPS from their
towers. Guess what. Verizon depends on that AMPS coverage to jack up
their coverage claims--without the ability to roam on other carriers
AMPS systems Verizon's coverage area is going to shrink drastically
whereas by then those carriers will have converted to GSM so Cingular's
coverage won't. Compare the Verizon national map to the Enhanced
Services map if you want to see what that's going to do to their
coverage. With AMPS now they can honestly say they offer nation wide
coverage--without AMPS they simply won't be able to say that--even today
native CDMA isn't that common away from the large cities and it
certainly won't be able to compete with GSM once all the TDMA/AMPS
carriers have converted.
--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

Why would anyone use Verizon is beyond me...
They are so much more expensive and their service is not any better.
To me, a phone is a phone... and the cheapest wins my business..

I do carry a mobile phone. But are we better off than when mobile phones
were out of reach to most individuals? I'd rather have leisure time and
money do do what I enjoy instead of chasing technology. BTW, I love
technology but I'm not willing to pay a premium for it.

With what most people spend on cable, broadband, mobile phone, computers
and gadgets every year, one can take a nice vacation abroad and learn a lot
more about the world.


"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-11CA6D.17175624102004@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <txUed.774$_3.16698@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <jzwick3-81F220.15392124102004@news1.west.earthlink.net> on Sun, 24
>> Oct
>> 2004 20:39:11 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <wDTed.755$_3.16355@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Initially for sure, but if the high churn numbers aren't corrected
>> >> >Verizon could be back on top within 2 years
>> >>
>> >> While churn is important, net additions are what matter in this
>> >> context.
>> >>
>> >> Together, Cingular and AT&T Wireless will have about 46 million
>> >> wireless
>> >> subscribers combined, as compared to 37.5 million customers at No. 2
>> >> Verizon
>> >> Wireless, a difference of 8.5 million subscribers. Thus it would be
>> >> difficult
>> >> for Verizon to retake the #1 spot anytime soon. To do so in 2 years
>> >> would
>> >> mean a net gain for Verizon on Cingular of more than a million
>> >> subscribers
>> >> per
>> >> quarter, which I think is unlikely.
>> >
>> >Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
>> >growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
>> >growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years. ... <SNIP>
>>
>> As I wrote, while churn is important, net additions are what matter in
>> this
>> context. In the most recent quarters for which numbers are available,
>> Verizon had a net gain of about 700 thousand subscribers on Cingular and
>> ATTWS.
>> That's well below the pace needed to catch Cingular within your 2 years,
>> and
>> since these quarters were unusually favorable to Verizon, future net
>> gains
>> are likely to be lower, not higher. Thus your projection is unlikely.
>
> Why should it be lower?, you're reaching.
>
>
> Why do you snip out half my argument when you respond? Quite childish:
>
> Not difficult at all. DO THE MATH. The CHURN alone will hold down the
> growth of the new Cingular, and Verizon with a low churn and faster
> growth rate will likely overtake Cingular in about 2 years. Then with
> its greater profitablility Verizon can afford some marketing curveballs
> to throw at Cingular. Depends on your definition of "soon", and whether
> with rose colored glasses you think Cingular can cure problems with