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 advertising- did they just admit to a lie?

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Scott Stephenson, Nov 17, 2003.

  1. I just got through a Reuter's article concerning the nearly 10% of their
    employees who opted to take the early retirement package. THe article goes
    on to quote them on future financial performance. On of the things
    mentioned is that Capital Expenditure for the entire company will be in the
    range of $12-12.5B. Their current ad campaign for wireless states that
    they spend over a billion dollars a month upgrading their wireless network.
    The numbers don't match- even if I am to believe that they have no CapEx on
    thier landline business (there has to be some), you would think that some
    of this money would be going to any high-speed data products (dsl, etc.)
    they are currently expanding or rolling out. Did they just invalidate
    their own advertising?

    The article can be viewed at:

    http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/17/news/companies/verion_retire.reut/
     



    › See More: VZW advertising- did they just admit to a lie?
  2. Tom J

    Tom J Guest

    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:QC6ub.1816$_i1.1290715@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > I just got through a Reuter's article concerning the nearly 10% of their
    > employees who opted to take the early retirement package. THe article goes
    > on to quote them on future financial performance. On of the things
    > mentioned is that Capital Expenditure for the entire company will be in the
    > range of $12-12.5B. Their current ad campaign for wireless states that
    > they spend over a billion dollars a month upgrading their wireless network.
    > The numbers don't match-


    They are not the same numbers!!

    Verizon of NY, that is being reported in that article, is a joint owner of
    Verizon Wireless, a separate company, and both companies have different books.

    Tom J
     
  3. Tom J wrote:

    >
    > "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:QC6ub.1816$_i1.1290715@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    >> I just got through a Reuter's article concerning the nearly 10% of their
    >> employees who opted to take the early retirement package. THe article
    >> goes
    >> on to quote them on future financial performance. On of the things
    >> mentioned is that Capital Expenditure for the entire company will be in
    >> the
    >> range of $12-12.5B. Their current ad campaign for wireless states that
    >> they spend over a billion dollars a month upgrading their wireless
    >> network. The numbers don't match-

    >
    > They are not the same numbers!!
    >
    > Verizon of NY, that is being reported in that article, is a joint owner of
    > Verizon Wireless, a separate company, and both companies have different
    > books.
    >
    > Tom J



    Verizon Wireless is a division of Verizon, as backed up by their 10Q
    filings- wireless revenues are reported along with landline revenues.
     
  4. James H. Fox

    James H. Fox Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    >> They are not the same numbers!!
    >>
    >> Verizon of NY, that is being reported in that article, is a joint
    >> owner of Verizon Wireless, a separate company, and both companies
    >> have different books.
    >>
    >> Tom J

    >
    >
    > Verizon Wireless is a division of Verizon, as backed up by their 10Q
    > filings- wireless revenues are reported along with landline revenues.


    Vodafone owns 44.3% of Verizon Wireless.
    http://www.vodafone.com/opco/0,3033,CATEGORY_ID%3D302%26LANGUAGE_ID%3D0%26CONTENT_ID%3D40033,00.html
     
  5. Tom J wrote:


    >
    > They are not the same numbers!!
    >
    > Verizon of NY, that is being reported in that article, is a joint owner of
    > Verizon Wireless, a separate company, and both companies have different
    > books.
    >
    > Tom J



    Not seperate books- see the 10Q below - Wireless numbers reported by Verizon

    http://investor.verizon.com/SEC/ed_sec_frame.cgi?fid=2585114
     
  6. James H. Fox

    James H. Fox Guest

    Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > Tom J wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> They are not the same numbers!!
    >>
    >> Verizon of NY, that is being reported in that article, is a joint
    >> owner of Verizon Wireless, a separate company, and both companies
    >> have different books.
    >>
    >> Tom J

    >
    >
    > Not seperate books- see the 10Q below - Wireless numbers reported by
    > Verizon
    >
    > http://investor.verizon.com/SEC/ed_sec_frame.cgi?fid=2585114


    Verizon Wireless is referred to as a joint venture (or limited partnership)
    therein. It is not apparent to me that they would include their numbers in
    Verizon's statement, since they are not a wholly-owned subsidiary. Do you
    conclude otherwise?
     
  7. James H. Fox wrote:


    >
    > Verizon Wireless is referred to as a joint venture (or limited
    > partnership)
    > therein. It is not apparent to me that they would include their numbers
    > in
    > Verizon's statement, since they are not a wholly-owned subsidiary. Do you
    > conclude otherwise?


    What I have been able to determine so far:

    1. All Verizon Wireless revenues and liabilities appear on Verizon's books.
    2. A quick glance of Vodafone's financials show revenue and income, but no
    liabilities for Verizon Wireless.
    3. The amount of open debt reported by Vodafone backs up the last
    statement. Given the numbers reported by Verizon, it would represent a
    substantial portion of Vodafone's reported debt, which would be out of line
    considering the relatively small piece of the Vodafone pie that Verizon
    Wireless represents.

    I also find it very odd that the original article I posted would have
    Verizon making an announcement about landline concerns, and then blending
    in Wireless numbers that would not have an effect on the article's original
    content, unless the financials were indeed blended.
     
  8. CK

    CK Guest

    I have never heard VZW claim $1 billion a month. I have heard $1 billion
    every 90 days which would translate to $4 billion a year which is correct.


    "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:yO9ub.1839$_i1.1337315@news2.news.adelphia.net...
    > James H. Fox wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > > Verizon Wireless is referred to as a joint venture (or limited
    > > partnership)
    > > therein. It is not apparent to me that they would include their numbers
    > > in
    > > Verizon's statement, since they are not a wholly-owned subsidiary. Do

    you
    > > conclude otherwise?

    >
    > What I have been able to determine so far:
    >
    > 1. All Verizon Wireless revenues and liabilities appear on Verizon's

    books.
    > 2. A quick glance of Vodafone's financials show revenue and income, but

    no
    > liabilities for Verizon Wireless.
    > 3. The amount of open debt reported by Vodafone backs up the last
    > statement. Given the numbers reported by Verizon, it would represent a
    > substantial portion of Vodafone's reported debt, which would be out of

    line
    > considering the relatively small piece of the Vodafone pie that Verizon
    > Wireless represents.
    >
    > I also find it very odd that the original article I posted would have
    > Verizon making an announcement about landline concerns, and then blending
    > in Wireless numbers that would not have an effect on the article's

    original
    > content, unless the financials were indeed blended.
     
  9. Tom J

    Tom J Guest

    "James H. Fox" <foxjh_NOMAILSPAM_@rcn.com> wrote in message
    news:bpb69j$a3m$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
    > Scott Stephenson wrote:
    > > Tom J wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> They are not the same numbers!!
    > >>
    > >> Verizon of NY, that is being reported in that article, is a joint
    > >> owner of Verizon Wireless, a separate company, and both companies
    > >> have different books.
    > >>
    > >> Tom J

    > >
    > >
    > > Not seperate books- see the 10Q below - Wireless numbers reported by
    > > Verizon
    > >
    > > http://investor.verizon.com/SEC/ed_sec_frame.cgi?fid=2585114

    >
    > Verizon Wireless is referred to as a joint venture (or limited partnership)
    > therein. It is not apparent to me that they would include their numbers in
    > Verizon's statement, since they are not a wholly-owned subsidiary. Do you
    > conclude otherwise?


    http://news.vzw.com/investor/index.html
    I still contend the build out referred to are separate numbers.
    Tom J
     
  10. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    Did you just discover Verizon will lie to you?.....(c;

    On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:24:16 GMT, Scott Stephenson
    <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    >I just got through a Reuter's article concerning the nearly 10% of their
    >employees who opted to take the early retirement package. THe article goes
    >on to quote them on future financial performance. On of the things
    >mentioned is that Capital Expenditure for the entire company will be in the
    >range of $12-12.5B. Their current ad campaign for wireless states that
    >they spend over a billion dollars a month upgrading their wireless network.
    >The numbers don't match- even if I am to believe that they have no CapEx on
    >thier landline business (there has to be some), you would think that some
    >of this money would be going to any high-speed data products (dsl, etc.)
    >they are currently expanding or rolling out. Did they just invalidate
    >their own advertising?
    >
    >The article can be viewed at:
    >
    >http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/17/news/companies/verion_retire.reut/



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
     
  11. Viper

    Viper Guest

    If Verizon Wireless claims that it spends over a billion dollars to upgrade
    there wireless network. I have not seen any improvement in my service. When
    I go south where I live the service still sucks and I can hardly use my
    phone. I have a hell of a time using it even at home I still get a bad
    signal. I live in Northern KY close to Cincinnati OH and I first for
    Cincinnati Bell Wireless and switched from them because I do not like the
    Nokia phones. That was 3 years ago. I was with verizon for 5 months and
    canceled them and when back to Cincy Bell Wireless because of the crappy
    signal and usage and now Verizon has better phones but the service is still
    the same as it was 3 years ago. Some thing is wrong if they say that they
    upgrade there network, because I have not seen any thing happen yet in 3
    years. They are false advertising on there capain. On a seperate note:

    I was wondering if Verizon was going to do like Sprint dose. I think that
    sprints Night & Weekends start at are going to start at 7 p.m now. And the
    web and the PCS vision is only a small fee a month and the minutes that you
    use for the web and what ever features sprint offers, you do not use any
    minutes or you are not billed any minutes. My friend was telling me about
    the plan that he has. Not sure if that is really true but if any one else
    knows let me know

    Steven
     
  12. Larry W4CSC wrote:

    > Did you just discover Verizon will lie to you?.....(c;
    >


    You should know better than that.
     
  13. Mark Allread

    Mark Allread Guest

    On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:24:16 GMT, Scott Stephenson
    <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    > On of the things
    > mentioned is that Capital Expenditure for the entire company will be in
    > the
    > range of $12-12.5B. Their current ad campaign for wireless states that
    > they spend over a billion dollars a month upgrading their wireless
    > network.
    > The numbers don't match-


    Sure they do. If you can provide a way of installing $12B in capital
    equipment for $0 in expenses, I'm sure Verizon would LOVE to hear from
    you. $1B/mo in upgrade costs equates to much less than $1B/mo in capital
    equipment.

    --
    Mark
     
  14. Mark Allread wrote:

    > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:24:16 GMT, Scott Stephenson
    > <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
    >
    >> On of the things
    >> mentioned is that Capital Expenditure for the entire company will be in
    >> the
    >> range of $12-12.5B. Their current ad campaign for wireless states that
    >> they spend over a billion dollars a month upgrading their wireless
    >> network.
    >> The numbers don't match-

    >
    > Sure they do. If you can provide a way of installing $12B in capital
    > equipment for $0 in expenses, I'm sure Verizon would LOVE to hear from
    > you. $1B/mo in upgrade costs equates to much less than $1B/mo in capital
    > equipment.
    >

    You know- that makes sense if CapEx does not include anything but
    equipment.
     
  15. Mike

    Mike Guest

    On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:04 -0500, "Viper" <Viper0580@fuse.net>
    wrote:

    >If Verizon Wireless claims that it spends over a billion dollars to upgrade
    >there wireless network. I have not seen any improvement in my service. When
    >I go south where I live the service still sucks and I can hardly use my
    >phone. I have a hell of a time using it even at home I still get a bad
    >signal. I live in Northern KY close to Cincinnati OH


    The only way you're going to get better service out of Verizon
    Wireless is to move.

    Kentucky is a notoriously bad state for VZW. Just take a look at
    their America's Choice coverage maps...most of the state aside from
    the Louisville and Lexington metro areas and your part of Northern
    Kentucky is a blank spot!

    I have seen rumors here that some of the other cell carriers in
    Kentucky - small, rural companies - will be eventually going to CDMA,
    Verizon's digital standard, which may or may not fix the problem
    depending on if these carriers become VZW roaming partners (or if they
    already are and just offering analog coverage).

    VZW has excellent coverage in the eastern part of the U.S., but the
    Kentucky situation is far different.

    Mike
     
  16. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:49:03 GMT, Scott Stephenson
    <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

    >Larry W4CSC wrote:
    >
    >> Did you just discover Verizon will lie to you?.....(c;
    >>

    >
    >You should know better than that.
    >

    hee hee....(c;



    Larry W4CSC

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

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    In the middle of North Charleston, SC, the third largest city in the
    state, I had a real noisy call DROP today at the lunch counter of
    Graffiti Grille. AND I WAS USING A 3W BAGPHONE!

    Same story here. Must be Vaporware.


    On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:04 -0500, "Viper" <Viper0580@fuse.net>
    wrote:

    >If Verizon Wireless claims that it spends over a billion dollars to upgrade
    >there wireless network. I have not seen any improvement in my service. When
    >I go south where I live the service still sucks and I can hardly use my
    >phone. I have a hell of a time using it even at home I still get a bad
    >signal. I live in Northern KY close to Cincinnati OH and I first for
    >Cincinnati Bell Wireless and switched from them because I do not like the
    >Nokia phones. That was 3 years ago. I was with verizon for 5 months and
    >canceled them and when back to Cincy Bell Wireless because of the crappy
    >signal and usage and now Verizon has better phones but the service is still
    >the same as it was 3 years ago. Some thing is wrong if they say that they
    >upgrade there network, because I have not seen any thing happen yet in 3
    >years. They are false advertising on there capain. On a seperate note:
    >
    >I was wondering if Verizon was going to do like Sprint dose. I think that
    >sprints Night & Weekends start at are going to start at 7 p.m now. And the
    >web and the PCS vision is only a small fee a month and the minutes that you
    >use for the web and what ever features sprint offers, you do not use any
    >minutes or you are not billed any minutes. My friend was telling me about
    >the plan that he has. Not sure if that is really true but if any one else
    >knows let me know
    >
    >Steven
    >
    >



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
     
  18. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:01:34 GMT, Scott Stephenson
    <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >1. All Verizon Wireless revenues and liabilities appear on Verizon's books.


    All? Or that portion allocatable to Verizon NY?
     
  19. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:44:04 -0500, "Viper" <Viper0580@fuse.net>
    posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >the same as it was 3 years ago. Some thing is wrong if they say that they
    >upgrade there network, because I have not seen any thing happen yet in 3
    >years.


    There's a lot more to the network than the Cincinnati towers.
     
  20. Al Klein wrote:

    > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:01:34 GMT, Scott Stephenson
    > <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>1. All Verizon Wireless revenues and liabilities appear on Verizon's
    >>books.

    >
    > All? Or that portion allocatable to Verizon NY?


    All- the figures that appear match the quarterly press release numbers for
    VZW.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?