1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  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!

Verizon Wireless Better Run By Vodaphone? Hell No.

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Trimodeman, Nov 8, 2003.

  1. Trimodeman

    Trimodeman Guest

    Here are the actual stats on the debt, which shows that Verzon has paid down
    its amount of debt, net of cash, by $7.1 billion, from the end of 2002 to
    9/30/03:

    "Debt Reduction: Net debt (non-GAAP, gross debt less cash and cash
    equivalents) reduced by $7.1 billion since year-end 2002 to $44.7 billion"

    Also, Verizon's free cash flow, after ALL capX, is a strong $5.0 billion in
    the first nine months of 2003, not shabby:

    "Free Cash Flow (non-GAAP, cash from operating activities less capital
    expenditures and dividends): $5.0 billion in first nine months of 2003"

    Would suggest someone compare with Vodaphone. I don't know what you will
    find, but I guess a lot worse.

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:GPkrb.1017$9l4.502564@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > Trimodeman wrote:
    >
    > > I just looked at the 10-Q. It was $915 million in segment information

    for
    > > landline for the latest quarter. But.... that's not cash flow. They

    have
    > > very heavy depreciation, but not nearly as large a CAP-X because it is a
    > > mature business. I will bet the free cash flow from landline is far

    larger
    > > than $915 million. It may be in their 10-Q, which I only just glanced

    at,
    > > but I am sure other filings, at least for the year, could pinpoint
    > > landline business free cash flow.
    > >

    >
    > And I think some of your statement might point to my questioning of the
    > overal financial stability of the company. You point out quite accurately
    > that landline doesn't have the capex of wireless, and yet net income is
    > only about 3 1/2 that of wireless with at least twice the number of
    > customers (I'm a little foggy on how they are breaking this down). And
    > cash in hand for the first six months of the year are down over $2B over
    > the same period last year, while overall Operating Revenues increased by
    > .5% over the same period. My bottom line is that the numbers do not point
    > to a company that is making financial headway. Did they get too big too
    > soon?
    >
    >



    › See More: Verizon Wireless Better Run By Vodaphone? Hell No.
  2. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:7ghrb.947$9l4.460435@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    >
    > 1. Sprint PCS is bought by Nextel (one of the few carriers that would get
    > this through antitrust scrutiny). This gives Nextel subscribers access to
    > what would then be the largest native network in the country. With it no
    > longer being a Sprint product, subscriber increases would rival (if not
    > surpass) VZW numbers.


    Hmm, that is actually one of the most interesting conjectures I have
    seen.

    I would suspect they could develop a dual mode phone, i.e. one that had
    Iden and CDMA on it, and have a winner of a product. Where Sprint service is
    available, phone calls move off of the Nextel network, freeing capacity for
    PTT calls. They could also bag the CDMA voice over IP scheme. And tt also
    would finally give Nextel users a viable data option, something that is
    going to matter more and more for their business and contractors market. I
    know a number of newspapers that love the PTT to feature, but who are giving
    up as they can't get their digital pictures back with reasonable speed on
    Nextel.

    How does the Nextel footprint compare with Sprint?


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe
  3. "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:s5jrb.984$9l4.480446@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > Larry W4CSC wrote:
    >
    > ....... In addition, they have openly stated that they
    > will bypass 3G altogether, and put their efforts towards the
    > yet-to-be-defined 4G technology.


    I think a key point here is that what they are using now doesn't offer
    as simple an upgrade path to 3G as does CDMA. I suspect that they are hoping
    for a data solution that can co-exist with their present system.

    Your other points are excellent.

    Actually, in cellular, Alltel seems to have a somewhat similar plan.
    They seem to test things moe thoroughly and never try to be first. They have
    a PTT plan coming, but what I keep hearing is that it is a different scheme
    than the one sprint and VZW are using.


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe
  4. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 04:08:56 GMT, Scott Stephenson
    <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    >
    >Verizon PTT- how this product got through testing and into the market as-is
    >will always be one of the world's greatest mysteries to me. They hyped it
    >to the extreme, and then quickly pulled it from the public eye when it
    >became apparent that the product was extremely inferior and not as
    >advertised. We even had salespeople in this very group a month after
    >rollout stating that PTT was just a niche thing, and that the real focus
    >for Verizon was now camera phones. I would have needed a neck brace after
    >doing such an about face.
    >

    Verizon, of late, seems to be pointing its business plan at the "dumb
    teenage blond" who's need for a cellphone is to call her current
    boyfriend. (Look at the stream of kiddiephones they sell, all glitzy
    and gadgets.) This target audience has no concept of how it should
    work and Verizon thinks their slick marketing department can sell it
    to her, the naive customer.

    I think that's the same reason they don't seriously worry about the
    holes in their coverage areas. Have you seen any tower crews buiding
    out new sites, lately? Not around here....



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
  5. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 01:31:02 -0800, "Peter Pan"
    <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >Too bad Larry, I used to think you were halfway smart until you started
    >spouting the above lunacy. You just proved to many people how stupid you
    >really are. Have you ever actually BEEN in DC or San Diego and used the
    >system? In both places I regularly get 500kb-1mb, and when the network isn't
    >that busy (3AM or so) bursting up to 2mb. That's as fast as my cable modem
    >at home, and way faster than my DSL at work. If you won't believe it until
    >you see it, maybe you should get off your lyin ass and go to one of the
    >places that have it, see it for yourself, and shut up?
    >
    >

    I'll bite. Where does all this bandwidth come from? Is trying to
    service this market the reason the phone calls fail?

    Is your system on 800 Mhz CDMA?



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
  6. Thomas M. Goethe wrote:

    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:7ghrb.947$9l4.460435@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    >>
    >> 1. Sprint PCS is bought by Nextel (one of the few carriers that would
    >> get
    >> this through antitrust scrutiny). This gives Nextel subscribers access
    >> to
    >> what would then be the largest native network in the country. With it no
    >> longer being a Sprint product, subscriber increases would rival (if not
    >> surpass) VZW numbers.

    >
    > Hmm, that is actually one of the most interesting conjectures I have
    > seen.
    >
    > I would suspect they could develop a dual mode phone, i.e. one that
    > had
    > Iden and CDMA on it, and have a winner of a product. Where Sprint service
    > is available, phone calls move off of the Nextel network, freeing capacity
    > for
    > PTT calls. They could also bag the CDMA voice over IP scheme. And tt also
    > would finally give Nextel users a viable data option, something that is
    > going to matter more and more for their business and contractors market. I
    > know a number of newspapers that love the PTT to feature, but who are
    > giving up as they can't get their digital pictures back with reasonable
    > speed on Nextel.
    >
    > How does the Nextel footprint compare with Sprint?
    >
    >


    Sprint has a far superior footprint to Nextel. ANd Nextel actually owns
    rights to Qualcomm technology that offers the closest PTT to their own on
    CDMA, and offers a CDMA-to-iDen bridge. A dual-mode phone would be no
    problem for Motorola to make.
  7. Thomas M. Goethe wrote:


    >
    > I think a key point here is that what they are using now doesn't offer
    > as simple an upgrade path to 3G as does CDMA. I suspect that they are
    > hoping for a data solution that can co-exist with their present system.


    They may already own the data solution you are looking for- the high speed
    wireless assets they bought in auction from MCI earlier this year. Its
    possible that they have started developing a true high speed data stream
    technology with these assets, and it could be something that blows 3G out
    of the water.

    >
    > Your other points are excellent.
    >
    > Actually, in cellular, Alltel seems to have a somewhat similar plan.
    > They seem to test things moe thoroughly and never try to be first. They
    > have a PTT plan coming, but what I keep hearing is that it is a different
    > scheme than the one sprint and VZW are using.
    >
    >


    I've heard rumor of that, and I'm interested to see what technology they are
    using. The inherent limitations in the Verizon product do not make it a
    viable product, until they are able to make the data stream blaze through
    the air.
  8. Trimodeman wrote:

    > What you ignoring about the smaller cash on hand is that they paid down a
    > substantial amount of debt.



    I'm trying to not ignore anything- you've pointed out a debt buydown of some
    kind that I do need to research. I haven't had time to look at the 3rd
    quarter financials in any detail, so that is obviously something I need to
    do. The $5B in free cash flow is impressive- is free cash flow a part of
    GAAP (honest question)?
  9. Trimodeman wrote:

    > What you ignoring about the smaller cash on hand is that they paid down a
    > substantial amount of debt.



    I'm trying to not ignore anything- you've pointed out a debt buydown of some
    kind that I do need to research. I haven't had time to look at the 3rd
    quarter financials in any detail, so that is obviously something I need to
    do. The $5B in free cash flow is impressive- is free cash flow a part of
    GAAP (honest question)?
  10. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > Too bad Larry, I used to think you were halfway smart until you started
    > spouting the above lunacy. You just proved to many people how stupid you
    > really are. Have you ever actually BEEN in DC or San Diego and used the
    > system? In both places I regularly get 500kb-1mb, and when the network

    isn't
    > that busy (3AM or so) bursting up to 2mb. That's as fast as my cable modem
    > at home, and way faster than my DSL at work. If you won't believe it until
    > you see it, maybe you should get off your lyin ass and go to one of the
    > places that have it, see it for yourself, and shut up?


    Heck, the max through put of one of the cellular A/B bands is 2.5Mbps.
    At 500Kbps, you would have a max user base of 5 full speed connections
    per tower, per sector.

    If all 5 users tried downloading something at the same time, they
    would either have to cut back on the downloading speed
    on all of them, or terminate all the voice calls on that sector
    to clear up bandwidth.

    What you basically have is a shared 500Kbps pipe.
    You see a nice open stream when no one else is using it.
    but if someone else actually starts using the network while you are,
    then your open stream will become a straw in no time.

    And I can assure you that you won't get through put in the 1Mbps range.
    That is more bandwidth that a CDMA carrier has.
    The actual through put of a CDMA carrier is around 500Kbps.
    If you see any data stream larger than that, then you are
    using some form of data compression to get it to fit in
    the 500Kbps stream.
    1X will give you a through put of around 500Kbps max
    with no other voice or data users on that channel.
  11. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
    news:3fae459f.173434384@news.knology.net...
    > On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 01:31:02 -0800, "Peter Pan"
    > <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Too bad Larry, I used to think you were halfway smart until you started
    > >spouting the above lunacy. You just proved to many people how stupid you
    > >really are. Have you ever actually BEEN in DC or San Diego and used the
    > >system? In both places I regularly get 500kb-1mb, and when the network

    isn't
    > >that busy (3AM or so) bursting up to 2mb. That's as fast as my cable

    modem
    > >at home, and way faster than my DSL at work. If you won't believe it

    until
    > >you see it, maybe you should get off your lyin ass and go to one of the
    > >places that have it, see it for yourself, and shut up?
    > >
    > >

    > I'll bite. Where does all this bandwidth come from? Is trying to
    > service this market the reason the phone calls fail?
    >
    > Is your system on 800 Mhz CDMA?
    >
    >
    >
    > Larry W4CSC
    >
    > "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
    >


    Yes but your math totally ignores digital and data packetizing, and you are
    assuming dedicated channels like voice. You said:
    > Too funny. They're tryin to cram 24 8Kbps CDMA phones on a
    > channel.....24 X 8 = 192Kbps. That ain't broadband....What they gonna
    > do dedicate the whole cell to your PDA until the 8MB file is
    > downloaded?

    By that math, you can't even have multiple express users on at the same
    time. Ever seen a WAP router? That sends data channels (802.11B&G) at 11 &
    54 MB over a 900 MH signals, and can support up to 242 users at one time?
    How about a Sat signal that has packetized video and can xmit hundreds of
    channels of video and data to hundreds of high speed internet users at the
    same time, or the internet would only be able to support one user at a time,
    rather than thousands at a time by packetizing, HDTV wouldn't even be
    possible unless they were digital transmissions instead of the old analog.
    Maybe it's time to start looking beyond the old analog/bagphone mentality,
    to digital shared service? I think the world is moving to digital/shared
    rather than analog unique. While they do cost a bit, they do have 3 watt
    signal boosters that can plug into "toy" phones (both digital and analog).
  12. Trimodeman

    Trimodeman Guest

    GAAP is generally accepted accounting principles. The reason I think they
    refer to free cash flow as non-GAAP is I don't think GAAP defines free cash
    flow. However, they defined ut in the quote I used from their 10Q: "cash
    from operating activities less capital expenditures and dividends."

    Actually, Verizon is really fortunate because their wireline business (even
    though it is a mature business that will slowly decline over time) is
    throwing off very strong cash flows that can fund other ventures. This is
    what makes them so strong. Another similar, and actually much stronger one,
    is Alltel. Its wireline business is very, very profitable and generating
    huge cash flows that it can use to grow its wireless business. Alltel is
    really a well run operation and a stock that really is worth a look. Where
    they have wireless coverage, they do an excellent job of it and are doing a
    lot of things to fill in holes in coverage, improve where coverage is weak,
    etc.


    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:pYtrb.1108$9l4.617904@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > Trimodeman wrote:
    >
    > > What you ignoring about the smaller cash on hand is that they paid down

    a
    > > substantial amount of debt.

    >
    >
    > I'm trying to not ignore anything- you've pointed out a debt buydown of

    some
    > kind that I do need to research. I haven't had time to look at the 3rd
    > quarter financials in any detail, so that is obviously something I need to
    > do. The $5B in free cash flow is impressive- is free cash flow a part of
    > GAAP (honest question)?
    >
  13. Trimodeman wrote:

    > GAAP is generally accepted accounting principles. The reason I think they
    > refer to free cash flow as non-GAAP is I don't think GAAP defines free
    > cash
    > flow. However, they defined ut in the quote I used from their 10Q: "cash
    > from operating activities less capital expenditures and dividends."
    >


    Don't get me wrong- I understand what you are saying about cash flow. I
    just don't put a lot of merit in numbers that are loosely defined
    (non-GAAP) and can be manipulated to suit a company's need. THat is one
    reason I try to stick to generally accepted numbers- net income being one
    of those.


    > Actually, Verizon is really fortunate because their wireline business
    > (even though it is a mature business that will slowly decline over time)
    > is
    > throwing off very strong cash flows that can fund other ventures. This is
    > what makes them so strong. Another similar, and actually much stronger
    > one, is Alltel. Its wireline business is very, very profitable and
    > generating
    > huge cash flows that it can use to grow its wireless business. Alltel is
    > really a well run operation and a stock that really is worth a look.
    > Where they have wireless coverage, they do an excellent job of it and are
    > doing a lot of things to fill in holes in coverage, improve where coverage
    > is weak, etc.


    But the wireline is starting to show some signs of serious strain, and I
    question just how long the gravy train can continue.

    I totally agree about Alltel- their business seems to be very solid, and I
    have heard very few complaints about their level of service.
  14. Trimodeman wrote:

    > GAAP is generally accepted accounting principles. The reason I think they
    > refer to free cash flow as non-GAAP is I don't think GAAP defines free
    > cash
    > flow. However, they defined ut in the quote I used from their 10Q: "cash
    > from operating activities less capital expenditures and dividends."
    >


    Don't get me wrong- I understand what you are saying about cash flow. I
    just don't put a lot of merit in numbers that are loosely defined
    (non-GAAP) and can be manipulated to suit a company's need. THat is one
    reason I try to stick to generally accepted numbers- net income being one
    of those.


    > Actually, Verizon is really fortunate because their wireline business
    > (even though it is a mature business that will slowly decline over time)
    > is
    > throwing off very strong cash flows that can fund other ventures. This is
    > what makes them so strong. Another similar, and actually much stronger
    > one, is Alltel. Its wireline business is very, very profitable and
    > generating
    > huge cash flows that it can use to grow its wireless business. Alltel is
    > really a well run operation and a stock that really is worth a look.
    > Where they have wireless coverage, they do an excellent job of it and are
    > doing a lot of things to fill in holes in coverage, improve where coverage
    > is weak, etc.


    But the wireline is starting to show some signs of serious strain, and I
    question just how long the gravy train can continue.

    I totally agree about Alltel- their business seems to be very solid, and I
    have heard very few complaints about their level of service.
  15. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 08:56:36 -0800, "Peter Pan"
    <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >Yes but your math totally ignores digital and data packetizing, and you are
    >assuming dedicated channels like voice. You said:
    >> Too funny. They're tryin to cram 24 8Kbps CDMA phones on a
    >> channel.....24 X 8 = 192Kbps. That ain't broadband....What they gonna
    >> do dedicate the whole cell to your PDA until the 8MB file is
    >> downloaded?

    >By that math, you can't even have multiple express users on at the same
    >time. Ever seen a WAP router? That sends data channels (802.11B&G) at 11 &
    >54 MB over a 900 MH signals, and can support up to 242 users at one time?
    >How about a Sat signal that has packetized video and can xmit hundreds of
    >channels of video and data to hundreds of high speed internet users at the
    >same time, or the internet would only be able to support one user at a time,
    >rather than thousands at a time by packetizing, HDTV wouldn't even be
    >possible unless they were digital transmissions instead of the old analog.
    >Maybe it's time to start looking beyond the old analog/bagphone mentality,
    >to digital shared service? I think the world is moving to digital/shared
    >rather than analog unique. While they do cost a bit, they do have 3 watt
    >signal boosters that can plug into "toy" phones (both digital and analog).
    >

    Gee, I thought we were discussing the dream of broadband internet over
    a cellular telephone circuit never designed for such data intensive
    activity. Even CDMA voice is a cluge of the original FM voice
    channels.




    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
  16. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    For some reason, logic and arithmetic (you could hardly call it
    math...(c;) gives way to hype and marketing and magic.

    Cellular phones are never going to be broadband for obvious reasons of
    physics unless some really WIDE new bands to operate it come into
    existence that are not shared with my bagphone....



    On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:44:56 GMT, "N9WOS"
    <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    >> Too bad Larry, I used to think you were halfway smart until you started
    >> spouting the above lunacy. You just proved to many people how stupid you
    >> really are. Have you ever actually BEEN in DC or San Diego and used the
    >> system? In both places I regularly get 500kb-1mb, and when the network

    >isn't
    >> that busy (3AM or so) bursting up to 2mb. That's as fast as my cable modem
    >> at home, and way faster than my DSL at work. If you won't believe it until
    >> you see it, maybe you should get off your lyin ass and go to one of the
    >> places that have it, see it for yourself, and shut up?

    >
    >Heck, the max through put of one of the cellular A/B bands is 2.5Mbps.
    >At 500Kbps, you would have a max user base of 5 full speed connections
    >per tower, per sector.
    >
    >If all 5 users tried downloading something at the same time, they
    >would either have to cut back on the downloading speed
    >on all of them, or terminate all the voice calls on that sector
    >to clear up bandwidth.
    >
    >What you basically have is a shared 500Kbps pipe.
    >You see a nice open stream when no one else is using it.
    >but if someone else actually starts using the network while you are,
    >then your open stream will become a straw in no time.
    >
    >And I can assure you that you won't get through put in the 1Mbps range.
    >That is more bandwidth that a CDMA carrier has.
    >The actual through put of a CDMA carrier is around 500Kbps.
    >If you see any data stream larger than that, then you are
    >using some form of data compression to get it to fit in
    >the 500Kbps stream.
    >1X will give you a through put of around 500Kbps max
    >with no other voice or data users on that channel.
    >
    >



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
  17. Trimodeman

    Trimodeman Guest

    GAAP is actually easily manipulated. Actually free cash flow is one of the
    least easily manipulated as they based on it actual cash results the way
    they defined it. Earnings is about the most easily manipulated thing there
    is. There many possible interpretations of GAAP. Cash, though, is just
    that, cash.
    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:iJwrb.1173$9l4.645307@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > Trimodeman wrote:
    >
    > > GAAP is generally accepted accounting principles. The reason I think

    they
    > > refer to free cash flow as non-GAAP is I don't think GAAP defines free
    > > cash
    > > flow. However, they defined ut in the quote I used from their 10Q:

    "cash
    > > from operating activities less capital expenditures and dividends."
    > >

    >
    > Don't get me wrong- I understand what you are saying about cash flow. I
    > just don't put a lot of merit in numbers that are loosely defined
    > (non-GAAP) and can be manipulated to suit a company's need. THat is one
    > reason I try to stick to generally accepted numbers- net income being one
    > of those.
    >
    >
    > > Actually, Verizon is really fortunate because their wireline business
    > > (even though it is a mature business that will slowly decline over time)
    > > is
    > > throwing off very strong cash flows that can fund other ventures. This

    is
    > > what makes them so strong. Another similar, and actually much stronger
    > > one, is Alltel. Its wireline business is very, very profitable and
    > > generating
    > > huge cash flows that it can use to grow its wireless business. Alltel

    is
    > > really a well run operation and a stock that really is worth a look.
    > > Where they have wireless coverage, they do an excellent job of it and

    are
    > > doing a lot of things to fill in holes in coverage, improve where

    coverage
    > > is weak, etc.

    >
    > But the wireline is starting to show some signs of serious strain, and I
    > question just how long the gravy train can continue.
    >
    > I totally agree about Alltel- their business seems to be very solid, and I
    > have heard very few complaints about their level of service.
    >
    >
    >
  18. Trimodeman

    Trimodeman Guest

    I agree completely that Verizon Communication's wireline gravy train will
    decline over time and the gravy train will run out. However, I think that is
    a long way off and they are rightly using that cash flow to pay down debt
    and reinvest in areas for the future. The slowly declining wireline
    business is a challenge every local exchange carrier faces long term. The
    reason Alltel has a lot longer than most to benefit from the cash flow on
    the wireline is that their properties mostly serve rural areas which which
    are very profitable and don't yet have the ubiquitious wireless coverage to
    compete. Long-term, though, this is changing, but at a slower pace than the
    competition wireless poses to wireline in urban and suburban areas for
    wireline carriers like Verizon, BellSouth, SBC Communication, etc.


    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:sKwrb.1174$9l4.646978@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > Trimodeman wrote:
    >
    > > GAAP is generally accepted accounting principles. The reason I think

    they
    > > refer to free cash flow as non-GAAP is I don't think GAAP defines free
    > > cash
    > > flow. However, they defined ut in the quote I used from their 10Q:

    "cash
    > > from operating activities less capital expenditures and dividends."
    > >

    >
    > Don't get me wrong- I understand what you are saying about cash flow. I
    > just don't put a lot of merit in numbers that are loosely defined
    > (non-GAAP) and can be manipulated to suit a company's need. THat is one
    > reason I try to stick to generally accepted numbers- net income being one
    > of those.
    >
    >
    > > Actually, Verizon is really fortunate because their wireline business
    > > (even though it is a mature business that will slowly decline over time)
    > > is
    > > throwing off very strong cash flows that can fund other ventures. This

    is
    > > what makes them so strong. Another similar, and actually much stronger
    > > one, is Alltel. Its wireline business is very, very profitable and
    > > generating
    > > huge cash flows that it can use to grow its wireless business. Alltel

    is
    > > really a well run operation and a stock that really is worth a look.
    > > Where they have wireless coverage, they do an excellent job of it and

    are
    > > doing a lot of things to fill in holes in coverage, improve where

    coverage
    > > is weak, etc.

    >
    > But the wireline is starting to show some signs of serious strain, and I
    > question just how long the gravy train can continue.
    >
    > I totally agree about Alltel- their business seems to be very solid, and I
    > have heard very few complaints about their level of service.
    >
    >
    >
  19. The smallest spectrum licenses defined in the PCS band are 5 MHz.
    Others are 15 MHz.
    As you said, however, they are not shared with your bagphones.
    ---JRC---

    "Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message =
    news:3faea90c.198890823@news.knology.net...
    >=20
    >=20
    >=20
    > Cellular phones are never going to be broadband for obvious reasons of
    > physics unless some really WIDE new bands to operate it come into
    > existence that are not shared with my bagphone....
    >
  20. About Dakota

    About Dakota Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Trimodeman wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Again, true. Verizon Communications made some truly stupid company
    >>investments, and my guess is that Vodaphone will indeed put their interest
    >>back- they will need the cash. But Nextel can't keep their profit at that
    >>level. I realize VZW's PTT is lame now, but everyone is jumping on the
    >>bandwagon and soon, even, if at the margin, it will cut into Nextel's
    >>income. I predict Nextel will not be an independent company within 3 to 5
    >>years.

    >
    >
    > VZW showed the true importance of PTT when they shelved all of the
    > advertising within a month of rollout. There is no bandwagon, because the
    > competing technology utilized by VZW (and soon for Sprint) has limitations
    > that can not be overcome, and that prevent it from having the same
    > functionality as Nextel.
    >
    > As far as both cutting into Nextel income and your prediction for Nextel's
    > future, here's my own prediction:
    >
    > 1. Sprint PCS is bought by Nextel (one of the few carriers that would get
    > this through antitrust scrutiny). This gives Nextel subscribers access to
    > what would then be the largest native network in the country. With it no
    > longer being a Sprint product, subscriber increases would rival (if not
    > surpass) VZW numbers.
    >
    > 2. Nextel partners with MCI to provide package offerings that no other
    > provider will be able to bundle. High speed wireless data becomes the
    > major cashflow for both companies, with consumer cell phone subscibers
    > coming along for the free ride. Both companies flourish.
    >
    >
    >>Even though access lines are declining for Verizon's wireline business, I
    >>don't see it as dead. You have to remember that while part of that is
    >>wireless and competition, a lot of it is people getting rid of second
    >>lines they don't need because they have DSL. That part of the decline will
    >>abate. I do agree long term it will have a slow decline. But in trouble it
    >>is not- it throws off a huge amount of free cash flow that enables Verizon
    >>to fund its debt burden, expand into long distance, and do things that
    >>many purely
    >>wireless carriers cannot. Milk the landline cash flow while it lasts.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Telecom only accounted for just over $900M last quarter- this is not a huge
    > amount of cash flow. The numbers continue to spiral down. And as people
    > port landline numbers to cellular, the numbers will continue downward.


    Scott:

    I just wanted to point out something that you may not have taken into
    account. Did you take into account the difference between Nextel and
    Nextel Partners? Also, Extend America also went live this month. Did
    you take into account Nextel's affiliates when thinking about Nextel?

    AD

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?