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

VZW Radio Ad

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Alan Glaeske, Nov 6, 2003.

  1. Alan Glaeske

    Alan Glaeske Guest

    Lately there has been a really annoying radio ad for VZW. I'm not going
    to get into the annoying part. The ad claims that Verizon Wireless
    spends one billion dollars every ninety days for its network. My
    question: how much of that investment is actually physical (I would be
    willing to bet that that includes number pooling equipment, switches,
    E911, and other intangible assets). I suppose it depends on what
    Verizon Communications defines as Verizon Wireless Network.

    Any ideas?

    AD
     



    › See More: VZW Radio Ad
  2. Doc

    Doc Guest

    "Alan Glaeske" <glaeske@yifan.net> wrote in message
    news:3FAAB6B9.6050905@yifan.net...
    > Lately there has been a really annoying radio ad for VZW. I'm not going
    > to get into the annoying part. The ad claims that Verizon Wireless
    > spends one billion dollars every ninety days for its network. My
    > question: how much of that investment is actually physical (I would be
    > willing to bet that that includes number pooling equipment, switches,
    > E911, and other intangible assets). I suppose it depends on what
    > Verizon Communications defines as Verizon Wireless Network.
    >
    > Any ideas?
    >
    > AD
    >


    So Alan- check your accounting textbook and you'll see that the items you
    listed are in fact tangible assets which by definition are physical. What
    exactly are you whining about here?

    Doc
     
  3. Alan Glaeske

    Alan Glaeske Guest

    Doc wrote:
    > "Alan Glaeske" <glaeske@yifan.net> wrote in message
    > news:3FAAB6B9.6050905@yifan.net...
    >
    >>Lately there has been a really annoying radio ad for VZW. I'm not going
    >>to get into the annoying part. The ad claims that Verizon Wireless
    >>spends one billion dollars every ninety days for its network. My
    >>question: how much of that investment is actually physical (I would be
    >>willing to bet that that includes number pooling equipment, switches,
    >>E911, and other intangible assets). I suppose it depends on what
    >>Verizon Communications defines as Verizon Wireless Network.
    >>
    >>Any ideas?
    >>
    >>AD
    >>

    >
    >
    > So Alan- check your accounting textbook and you'll see that the items you
    > listed are in fact tangible assets which by definition are physical. What
    > exactly are you whining about here?
    >
    > Doc
    >
    >


    Number pooling isn't physical. What about software upgrades? Are those
    physical? Yes I agree that switches are physical, and so are tower,
    hardware upgrades for E911, and so on. Advertising (re-inforcing a
    brand name) is an intangible asset. I wonder if any of that four
    billion dollars a years goes into advertising? My question is to other
    people --

    What do you think the four billion dollars per year encompasses?
     
  4. CK

    CK Guest

    "(I would be willing to bet that that includes number pooling equipment,
    switches,
    E911, and other intangible assets)."

    You don't consider switches tangible assets? E911 is not a worthy service?
    At least Verizon has the resources to improve their network. While many are
    cutting back Verizon will be spending over $4.5 billion on wireless
    improvements this next year.



    "Alan Glaeske" <glaeske@yifan.net> wrote in message
    news:3FAAB6B9.6050905@yifan.net...
    > Lately there has been a really annoying radio ad for VZW. I'm not going
    > to get into the annoying part. The ad claims that Verizon Wireless
    > spends one billion dollars every ninety days for its network. My
    > question: how much of that investment is actually physical (I would be
    > willing to bet that that includes number pooling equipment, switches,
    > E911, and other intangible assets). I suppose it depends on what
    > Verizon Communications defines as Verizon Wireless Network.
    >
    > Any ideas?
    >
    > AD
    >
     
  5. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    Sure doesn't include new TOWERS in SC.....(c;



    On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:01:45 -0600, Alan Glaeske <glaeske@yifan.net>
    wrote:

    >Lately there has been a really annoying radio ad for VZW. I'm not going
    >to get into the annoying part. The ad claims that Verizon Wireless
    >spends one billion dollars every ninety days for its network. My
    >question: how much of that investment is actually physical (I would be
    >willing to bet that that includes number pooling equipment, switches,
    >E911, and other intangible assets). I suppose it depends on what
    >Verizon Communications defines as Verizon Wireless Network.
    >
    >Any ideas?
    >
    >AD
    >



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
     
  6. While many are
    > cutting back Verizon will be spending over $4.5 billion on wireless
    > improvements this next year.


    Who is cutting back? I hope you aren't implying that Cingular is? Last I
    heard they spent a chunk of change in Georgia alone to upgrade their GSM
    network.
     
  7. tom glaab

    tom glaab Guest

    Alan Glaeske <glaeske@yifan.net> wrote
    > What do you think the four billion dollars per year encompasses?


    Paying the annoying guy in their commercials to stay the heck away
    from them? ;-)

    Are licenses included in the four billion dollars? Labor costs? Maybe
    they're overpaying for equipment. Raw numbers don't tell us much
    without some information about what the money is used for.

    tg.
     
  8. On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:26:45 GMT, nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) wrote:

    >Sure doesn't include new TOWERS in SC.....(c;


    You damn sure got that right, Larry. When it comes to our new tower,
    we're like the Energizer bunny. We keep waiting and waiting and
    waiting and waiting...
     
  9. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:32:26 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
    <ghost@general.lee> wrote:

    >On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:26:45 GMT, nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) wrote:
    >
    >>Sure doesn't include new TOWERS in SC.....(c;

    >
    >You damn sure got that right, Larry. When it comes to our new tower,
    >we're like the Energizer bunny. We keep waiting and waiting and
    >waiting and waiting...
    >

    Nothing will change until the FCC imposes proof-of-performance testing
    on them. They have no incentive to cover the entire area until
    staring at stiff fines and penalties and loss of license....THAT would
    get their attention. Cellular doesn't own the airwaves....WE do.



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
     
  10. Quick

    Quick Guest

    "Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote
    > On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:32:26 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
    > <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
    >
    > >On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:26:45 GMT, nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) wrote:
    > >
    > >>Sure doesn't include new TOWERS in SC.....(c;

    > >
    > >You damn sure got that right, Larry. When it comes to our new tower,
    > >we're like the Energizer bunny. We keep waiting and waiting and
    > >waiting and waiting...
    > >

    > Nothing will change until the FCC imposes proof-of-performance testing
    > on them. They have no incentive to cover the entire area until
    > staring at stiff fines and penalties and loss of license....THAT would
    > get their attention. Cellular doesn't own the airwaves....WE do.


    So whats wrong with the free market? Their incentive to cover an entire
    area would be to retain the customers in (or who use) that area, wouldn't
    it? Or do you believe that they are maintaining their business by duping
    people with false/misleading advertisement. If so, doesn't that only work
    in the short term? For example, Cingular, here in the bay area.

    -Quick
     
  11. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:36:24 -0800, "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >So whats wrong with the free market? Their incentive to cover an entire
    >area would be to retain the customers in (or who use) that area, wouldn't
    >it? Or do you believe that they are maintaining their business by duping
    >people with false/misleading advertisement. If so, doesn't that only work
    >in the short term? For example, Cingular, here in the bay area.
    >

    As any cellular customer can tell you, it simply doesn't work! We've
    had this free-for-all, go your own way for years. Look at the mess we
    have. No, no....take off those company glasses and look...(c;

    Cellular is a mess of INCOMPATIBLE, PROPRIETARY phones, modulation
    schemes and company-specific firmware designed to prevent churning.
    "It's YOUR phone, but you can't use it on another system. You're
    stuck with us." The idea of cellular wasn't that way. FCC specified
    AMPS and everyone that wanted a license was forced to use it. Your
    phone would work on ANY system it could find, just like you IMTS phone
    would. That's what I'm getting at.....



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
     
  12. In article <1068226519.367318@sj-nntpcache-5>,
    "Quick" <dhorwitz@NOSPAMcisco.com> wrote:

    >
    > "Larry W4CSC" <nospam@home.com> wrote
    > > On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:32:26 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
    > > <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
    > >
    > > >On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:26:45 GMT, nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>Sure doesn't include new TOWERS in SC.....(c;
    > > >
    > > >You damn sure got that right, Larry. When it comes to our new tower,
    > > >we're like the Energizer bunny. We keep waiting and waiting and
    > > >waiting and waiting...
    > > >

    > > Nothing will change until the FCC imposes proof-of-performance testing
    > > on them. They have no incentive to cover the entire area until
    > > staring at stiff fines and penalties and loss of license....THAT would
    > > get their attention. Cellular doesn't own the airwaves....WE do.

    >
    > So whats wrong with the free market? Their incentive to cover an entire
    > area would be to retain the customers in (or who use) that area, wouldn't
    > it? Or do you believe that they are maintaining their business by duping
    > people with false/misleading advertisement. If so, doesn't that only work
    > in the short term? For example, Cingular, here in the bay area.


    EXACTLY - They only care about the short term, so they can cash in the
    100,000's of shares of their stock options.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?