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

Rumors of takeover?

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by GBSmith, Jun 2, 2004.

  1. Proconsul

    Proconsul Guest

    "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:298d9cbf.0406040854.73425e64@posting.google.com...
    | > I seriously doubt that you can back up that assertion with facts. In
    point
    | > of fact, Verizon is buying up carriers all over the country and
    expanding
    | > their network at a great rate. I'd like to know who else is "growing
    | > faster" - and, again, those of us who participate in this venue are
    | > interested in that discussion.....
    |
    | In calendar year 2003, T-Mobile added 3.212 M customers on top of the
    | 9.916 M they had at the end of 2002. That's an increase of 32.4%.
    |
    | In the same time period, NEXTEL added 2.270 M customers on top of the
    | 10.612 M they had at the end of 2002. That's an increase of 21.4%.
    |
    | VZW added 5.031 M customers on top of the 32.491 M they had at the end
    | of 2002. That's an increase of 15.5%.
    |
    | Therefore, other carriers do grow faster than VZW.

    Untrue - I neglected to mention that Verizon gained TWICE as many new
    customers as either of your examples and as many as they gained put
    together. Those are the figures that matters, as opposed to percentage
    change of customer base which is skewed toward those who have smaller bases
    and gained fewer new customers....

    Other carriers are not growing faster than Verizon....

    PC
     



    › See More: Rumors of takeover?
  2. In article <298d9cbf.0406040854.73425e64@posting.google.com>,
    xff@austin.rr.com says...
    > That's why VZW has endless holes created by Commnet filling in the
    > coverage gaps that VZW and its predecessors left uncovered. See the
    > Swiss cheese collection on the cellular B-side in the American west:
    > http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_B.html
    >
    > WWCA on the other hand has extremely few coverage holes subsequently
    > claimed by Commnet or others, indicating that their base coverage was
    > better to begin with:
    > http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_A.html


    I'm not sure what the source is for the maps XFF posted, but they are
    not coverage maps. The maps show every bit of the Western states
    covered by some carrier or other, when that is not actually the case.
    Compare the coverage of Verizon in SW North Dakota, for example, on its
    web site, with the solid red on the Natl_Cell_B map above.

    --
    Michael D. Sullivan
    Bethesda, MD, USA
    Delete nospam from my address and it won't work.
     
  3. XFF

    XFF Guest

    Michael D. Sullivan <nospam@camsul.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b2aea08c9101e7f9897b4@news.bellatlantic.net>...

    > In article <298d9cbf.0406040854.73425e64@posting.google.com>, xff@austin.rr.com says...


    > > That's why VZW has endless holes created by Commnet filling in the
    > > coverage gaps that VZW and its predecessors left uncovered. See the
    > > Swiss cheese collection on the cellular B-side in the American west:
    > > http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_B.html
    > >
    > > WWCA on the other hand has extremely few coverage holes subsequently
    > > claimed by Commnet or others, indicating that their base coverage was
    > > better to begin with:
    > > http://people.ku.edu/~cinema/wireless/Natl_Cell_A.html

    >
    > I'm not sure what the source is for the maps XFF posted, but they are
    > not coverage maps. The maps show every bit of the Western states
    > covered by some carrier or other, when that is not actually the case.
    > Compare the coverage of Verizon in SW North Dakota, for example, on its
    > web site, with the solid red on the Natl_Cell_B map above.


    You're absolutely correct, those are license maps, not coverage maps.
    My point was not to show that every square inch of the United States
    is covered, but that VZW has lost licensed service areas (not coverage
    areas) to Commnet Wireless by not providing any coverage. In a
    nutshell, cellular service areas are originally licensed to a provider
    who has 5 years to establish coverage throughout the licensed service
    area. If after those initial 5 years (phase 1) the licensed provider
    has failed to establish coverage throughout the service area, another
    provider can claim this unserved area by providing coverage where non
    existed before (phase 2).

    WWCA has lost very little licensed service areas during phase 2
    whereas VZW (or its predecessors) have lost dozens of service areas to
    Commnet Wireless by failing to provide coverage during phase 1.

    This topic has been explained in great detail before, so if you're
    interested in it simply do a Google search for "CGSA phase 1 phase 2
    unserved area" and you should find everything you ever wanted to know.
     
  4. XFF

    XFF Guest

    "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<ga2wc.47684$mm1.44247@fed1read06>...

    > "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:298d9cbf.0406040854.73425e64@posting.google.com...


    > | > I seriously doubt that you can back up that assertion with facts. In point
    > | > of fact, Verizon is buying up carriers all over the country and expanding
    > | > their network at a great rate. I'd like to know who else is "growing
    > | > faster" - and, again, those of us who participate in this venue are
    > | > interested in that discussion.....
    > |
    > | In calendar year 2003, T-Mobile added 3.212 M customers on top of the
    > | 9.916 M they had at the end of 2002. That's an increase of 32.4%.
    > |
    > | In the same time period, NEXTEL added 2.270 M customers on top of the
    > | 10.612 M they had at the end of 2002. That's an increase of 21.4%.
    > |
    > | VZW added 5.031 M customers on top of the 32.491 M they had at the end
    > | of 2002. That's an increase of 15.5%.
    > |
    > | Therefore, other carriers do grow faster than VZW.
    >
    > Untrue - I neglected to mention that Verizon gained TWICE as many new
    > customers as either of your examples and as many as they gained put
    > together. Those are the figures that matters, as opposed to percentage
    > change of customer base which is skewed toward those who have smaller bases
    > and gained fewer new customers....
    >
    > Other carriers are not growing faster than Verizon....


    It's not untrue. It's simply a different point of view. Growth can
    be measured either in absolute or relative terms. In absolute terms
    VZW is the fastest growing provider, in relative terms it is not.
     
  5. Proconsul

    Proconsul Guest

    "XFF" <xff@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:298d9cbf.0406051920.70c94e8e@posting.google.com...
    | "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:<ga2wc.47684$mm1.44247@fed1read06>...
    || > Untrue - I neglected to mention that Verizon gained TWICE as many new
    | > customers as either of your examples and as many as they gained put
    | > together. Those are the figures that matters, as opposed to percentage
    | > change of customer base which is skewed toward those who have smaller
    bases
    | > and gained fewer new customers....
    | >
    | > Other carriers are not growing faster than Verizon....
    |
    | It's not untrue. It's simply a different point of view. Growth can
    | be measured either in absolute or relative terms. In absolute terms
    | VZW is the fastest growing provider, in relative terms it is not.

    Point granted - however, "absolute" terms are, IMO, a far better indicator
    than "relative" terms insofar as the way they were presented in this
    thread....:)

    Thanks for the rational discussion....:)

    PC
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?