1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

$38 billion, and not a penny more.

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by N9WOS, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:rmarkoff-759AED.19331018022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...

    >
    > OK, how many towers could you build, buy or lease for $27 Bilion ???


    It depends- if we use your trollish math, maybe two- one for the antenna,
    and the other to push your stupid ass off.

    Now the real question (have Mommy help if its too hard)- how many spectrum
    licenses could you buy at auction in major metropolitan areas in today's
    market for $28B? Would the remainder build out an entire infrastructure of
    3G network? And would the remaining amount after all that come to just a
    couple of hundred dollars per customer?
     



    › See More: $38 billion, and not a penny more.
  2. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:wJWdnXg_ku-tiqndRVn-gQ@adelphia.com...
    >
    > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:rmarkoff-759AED.19331018022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    >
    > >
    > > OK, how many towers could you build, buy or lease for $27 Bilion ???

    >
    > It depends- if we use your trollish math, maybe two- one for the antenna,
    > and the other to push your stupid ass off.
    >
    > Now the real question (have Mommy help if its too hard)- how many spectrum
    > licenses could you buy at auction in major metropolitan areas in today's
    > market for $28B? Would the remainder build out an entire infrastructure

    of
    > 3G network? And would the remaining amount after all that come to just a
    > couple of hundred dollars per customer?


    How much spectrum is for sale?


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe
     
  3. "Thomas M. Goethe" <goethe11@lycos.com> wrote in message
    news:c115ce$1co21d$1@ID-192964.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:wJWdnXg_ku-tiqndRVn-gQ@adelphia.com...
    > >
    > > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    > > news:rmarkoff-759AED.19331018022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    > >
    > > >
    > > > OK, how many towers could you build, buy or lease for $27 Bilion ???

    > >
    > > It depends- if we use your trollish math, maybe two- one for the

    antenna,
    > > and the other to push your stupid ass off.
    > >
    > > Now the real question (have Mommy help if its too hard)- how many

    spectrum
    > > licenses could you buy at auction in major metropolitan areas in today's
    > > market for $28B? Would the remainder build out an entire infrastructure

    > of
    > > 3G network? And would the remaining amount after all that come to just

    a
    > > couple of hundred dollars per customer?

    >
    > How much spectrum is for sale?
    >

    None, and that was sort of my point. If spectrum were available in the big
    markets today, Cingular would pay a fortune to win the auctions for the
    spectrum they just acquired with ATTW, not to mention the associated
    infrastructure costs to use it.
     
  4. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <Go6dncSE1ICuiKndRVn-jA@adelphia.com>,
    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    > Yeah yeah yeah- every one of your financial predictions over the last 9
    > months have been sxxt,


    Like the prediction that Sprint churn would not improve, and it would
    continue to lose money?

    That's been spot on.

    But most folks tend not to give credence to folks that need to use
    obscenities to try to emphasize their false arguments.
     
  5. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <wJWdnXg_ku-tiqndRVn-gQ@adelphia.com>,
    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    >
    > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:rmarkoff-759AED.19331018022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    >
    > >
    > > OK, how many towers could you build, buy or lease for $27 Bilion ???

    >
    > It depends- if we use your trollish math, maybe two- one for the antenna,
    > and the other to push your stupid ass off.
    >
    > Now the real question (have Mommy help if its too hard)- how many spectrum
    > licenses could you buy at auction in major metropolitan areas in today's
    > market for $28B? Would the remainder build out an entire infrastructure of
    > 3G network? And would the remaining amount after all that come to just a
    > couple of hundred dollars per customer?


    We can easily settle this in 2007 when and if Cingular finally gets back
    to profitabilty. You are aware that corporate predictions in this
    industry have always been too rosy??
     
  6. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <SM-dnS2kct4BhKndRVn-vg@adelphia.com>,
    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    > None, and that was sort of my point. If spectrum were available in the big
    > markets today, Cingular would pay a fortune to win the auctions for the
    > spectrum they just acquired with ATTW, not to mention the associated
    > infrastructure costs to use it.


    Anyway you slice it Cingular paid $2350 per customer.
     
  7. "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:rmarkoff-EAE32F.20574418022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <wJWdnXg_ku-tiqndRVn-gQ@adelphia.com>,
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    > > news:rmarkoff-759AED.19331018022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    > >
    > > >
    > > > OK, how many towers could you build, buy or lease for $27 Bilion ???

    > >
    > > It depends- if we use your trollish math, maybe two- one for the

    antenna,
    > > and the other to push your stupid ass off.
    > >
    > > Now the real question (have Mommy help if its too hard)- how many

    spectrum
    > > licenses could you buy at auction in major metropolitan areas in today's
    > > market for $28B? Would the remainder build out an entire infrastructure

    of
    > > 3G network? And would the remaining amount after all that come to just

    a
    > > couple of hundred dollars per customer?

    >
    > We can easily settle this in 2007 when and if Cingular finally gets back
    > to profitabilty. You are aware that corporate predictions in this
    > industry have always been too rosy??


    Yeah- Verizon is cooking the books when they meet the very guidance they
    gave at the beginning of the year. And Nextel must do the same when they
    upped their guidance twice during the year, and are going to announce
    positive earnings tomorrow that beat their latest guidance. I don't have to
    wait until 2007 to prove that you are an idiot- you just gave me the
    opportunity. So much for being too rosy. Open the window, Phil- that tiny
    little brain needs some fresh air.
     
  8. "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:rmarkoff-F48B58.20583518022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <SM-dnS2kct4BhKndRVn-vg@adelphia.com>,
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    > > None, and that was sort of my point. If spectrum were available in the

    big
    > > markets today, Cingular would pay a fortune to win the auctions for the
    > > spectrum they just acquired with ATTW, not to mention the associated
    > > infrastructure costs to use it.

    >
    > Anyway you slice it Cingular paid $2350 per customer.


    Nope- you will not find that number in a single newswire item that hit the
    stands today. In fact, you are significantly off any figure out there.
    Imagine that.
     
  9. "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:rmarkoff-265D45.20562418022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...

    >
    > Like the prediction that Sprint churn would not improve, and it would
    > continue to lose money?


    Time to take your meds, Phil- that's not what you said. You said that churn
    would increase significantly, and that they would be out of business by the
    end of the year, guaranteed. You can't keep your lies straight.

    >
    > That's been spot on.
    >
    > But most folks tend not to give credence to folks that need to use
    > obscenities to try to emphasize their false arguments.


    I would have answered sooner, but I had to clear my eyes- you (of all
    people) talking about credibility made me laugh so hard my eyes teared up.
    That is funny.
     
  10. "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:rmarkoff-F48B58.20583518022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <SM-dnS2kct4BhKndRVn-vg@adelphia.com>,
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    > > None, and that was sort of my point. If spectrum were available in the

    big
    > > markets today, Cingular would pay a fortune to win the auctions for the
    > > spectrum they just acquired with ATTW, not to mention the associated
    > > infrastructure costs to use it.

    >
    > Anyway you slice it Cingular paid $2350 per customer.


    Wow- and to think that they got all that spectrum and infrastructure for
    free. What a great bargain.
     
  11. Brsmnky007

    Brsmnky007 Guest

    > Yeah yeah yeah- every one of your financial predictions over the last 9
    > months have been shit, and none have come anywhere near close to the

    truth-
    > glad to see you're keeping the streak intact.


    LOL!!
     
  12. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <QbmdnQaWQL4ItKnd4p2dnA@adelphia.com>,
    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    > more drivel


    Meanwhile it may all be moot. Why is CINGULAR keeping its side agreement
    with AT&T Wireless about divestures SECRET???


    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&ncid=1293&e=4&u=/the
    deal/20040219/bs_deal_thedeal/cingularinvestorsleftguessing
     
  13. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <rMWdndb8Qc5tuqndRVn-uA@adelphia.com>,
    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    > Open the window, that tiny
    > little brain needs some fresh air.



    Your childish insults don't change the fact.

    CINGULAR has said IF the merger goes through they won't be profitable
    until 2007. If you disagree with that, you're entitled. But you're
    arguing with CINGULAR then, not me.
     
  14. "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:rmarkoff-DE9770.06142619022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <QbmdnQaWQL4ItKnd4p2dnA@adelphia.com>,
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    > > more drivel

    >
    > Meanwhile it may all be moot. Why is CINGULAR keeping its side agreement
    > with AT&T Wireless about divestures SECRET???
    >
    >
    > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&ncid=1293&e=4&u=/the
    > deal/20040219/bs_deal_thedeal/cingularinvestorsleftguessing


    Stuff like that is normal in deals like this. A lot of reporting is
    indicating that there won't be any required divestitures, but would you ink
    an agreement without putting something in that protects from government
    whims?

    The deal here is that we have three mediocre GSM carriers trying to
    compete with one strong CDMA carrier. After this, we may have one strong and
    one weak GSM carrier to compete with Verizon. I see that as being good for
    the consumer as we will have some serious competition to Verizon.

    If Cingular gets real smart, they will demand (and get) some GSM phones
    that have analog and we can have a real race between providers. Until analog
    gets shut off, I don't want to have a phone that doesn't have analog and
    that pretty much keeps me off of GSM.


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe
     
  15. cingular will not be much competition for verizon until after they
    upgrage/switch to wcdma.


    Thomas M. Goethe wrote:
    > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:rmarkoff-DE9770.06142619022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    >
    >>In article <QbmdnQaWQL4ItKnd4p2dnA@adelphia.com>,
    >> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>more drivel

    >>
    >>Meanwhile it may all be moot. Why is CINGULAR keeping its side agreement
    >>with AT&T Wireless about divestures SECRET???
    >>
    >>
    >>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&ncid=1293&e=4&u=/the
    >>deal/20040219/bs_deal_thedeal/cingularinvestorsleftguessing

    >
    >
    > Stuff like that is normal in deals like this. A lot of reporting is
    > indicating that there won't be any required divestitures, but would you ink
    > an agreement without putting something in that protects from government
    > whims?
    >
    > The deal here is that we have three mediocre GSM carriers trying to
    > compete with one strong CDMA carrier. After this, we may have one strong and
    > one weak GSM carrier to compete with Verizon. I see that as being good for
    > the consumer as we will have some serious competition to Verizon.
    >
    > If Cingular gets real smart, they will demand (and get) some GSM phones
    > that have analog and we can have a real race between providers. Until analog
    > gets shut off, I don't want to have a phone that doesn't have analog and
    > that pretty much keeps me off of GSM.
    >
    >
     
  16. "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:Kq3Zb.10971$W74.6178@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > cingular will not be much competition for verizon until after they
    > upgrage/switch to wcdma.


    That can be debated, but I don't think any of the GSM carriers have a
    chance to compete now. Cingular and ATTWS together certainly could in the
    future. A big issue is still the fact that there are a lot of places where
    we still don't have digital signals and until that day ends, any GSM carrier
    will be at a major disadvantage unless they get smart and add analog to
    their phones.


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe


    >
    >
    > Thomas M. Goethe wrote:
    > > "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    > > news:rmarkoff-DE9770.06142619022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    > >
    > >>In article <QbmdnQaWQL4ItKnd4p2dnA@adelphia.com>,
    > >> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>more drivel
    > >>
    > >>Meanwhile it may all be moot. Why is CINGULAR keeping its side agreement
    > >>with AT&T Wireless about divestures SECRET???
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    >>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1498&ncid=1293&e=4&u=/the
    > >>deal/20040219/bs_deal_thedeal/cingularinvestorsleftguessing

    > >
    > >
    > > Stuff like that is normal in deals like this. A lot of reporting is
    > > indicating that there won't be any required divestitures, but would you

    ink
    > > an agreement without putting something in that protects from government
    > > whims?
    > >
    > > The deal here is that we have three mediocre GSM carriers trying to
    > > compete with one strong CDMA carrier. After this, we may have one strong

    and
    > > one weak GSM carrier to compete with Verizon. I see that as being good

    for
    > > the consumer as we will have some serious competition to Verizon.
    > >
    > > If Cingular gets real smart, they will demand (and get) some GSM

    phones
    > > that have analog and we can have a real race between providers. Until

    analog
    > > gets shut off, I don't want to have a phone that doesn't have analog and
    > > that pretty much keeps me off of GSM.
    > >
    > >

    >
     
  17. Robert M.

    Robert M. Guest

    In article <c12fg2$jklaa$1@ID-192964.news.uni-berlin.de>,
    "Thomas M. Goethe" <goethe11@lycos.com> wrote:

    > The deal here is that we have three mediocre GSM carriers trying to
    > compete with one strong CDMA carrier.


    And what is Sprint PCS? Chopped liver?
     
  18. Most customers do not need to roam from their carriers native
    signals.

    Thomas M. Goethe wrote:

    > "Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:Kq3Zb.10971$W74.6178@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    >> cingular will not be much competition for verizon until after they
    >>upgrage/switch to wcdma.

    >
    >
    > That can be debated, but I don't think any of the GSM carriers have a
    > chance to compete now. Cingular and ATTWS together certainly could in the
    > future. A big issue is still the fact that there are a lot of places where
    > we still don't have digital signals and until that day ends, any GSM carrier
    > will be at a major disadvantage unless they get smart and add analog to
    > their phones.
    >
    >
     
  19. Brsmnky007

    Brsmnky007 Guest

    > And what is Sprint PCS? Chopped liver?

    Ummm.... as a former subscriber, chopped liver would be generous, at
    least in my area.
     
  20. "Robert M." <rmarkoff@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:rmarkoff-F2DC83.08363019022004@news4.west.earthlink.net...
    > In article <c12fg2$jklaa$1@ID-192964.news.uni-berlin.de>,
    > "Thomas M. Goethe" <goethe11@lycos.com> wrote:
    >
    > > The deal here is that we have three mediocre GSM carriers trying to
    > > compete with one strong CDMA carrier.

    >
    > And what is Sprint PCS? Chopped liver?


    Yes.


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?