bagels
@myvzw.com | so much
for the "U-Verse can't compete" argument..... |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits |  Wireless income up huge; wired down moderately
As more and more people switch to a wireless communication method and drop a wired connection, the results are seen in these quarterly profit reports. Verizon yesterday and AT&T today.
AT&T's wireless net income was up 58% year over year and wired net income was down 7%. When the two modes are combined the increase in net income year over year was 7.7%
»www.att.com/Investor/Financial/E···4Q08.xls
»www.att.com/Investor/Financial/E···4Q08.xls
Wireless gross income is 25% of revenues while
wired gross income is only 16% of revenues. So mostly unregulated wireless traffic is more profitable.
As wireless connections, which are mostly unregulated unlike wired connections, continue to grow profits should increase for the telcos. This depends, of course, on whether the new administration in Washington continues the policy of light regulation of wireless communications.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Shouldn't be able to combine
the SEC should not allow them to combine their income. Especially when they use two different names for business. Like VZW and VZ. VZW= Cellco Partnership. Verizon is Verizon.
AT&T is AT$T, Inc. AT&T Mobility is AT$T Mobility. only owned by AT$T, Inc. Still two separate companies according to their site. |
|
gopnick
join:2005-01-07
Benton, AR | Good for them
It's amazing how well things for the telcos when they offer services that people want (Uverse, wireless) instead of things they don't want (POTS, 768k DSL). |
|
gigahurtz
Premium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL
clubs:
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
 ·VoicePulse
| No thanks, AT&T
While I love my AT&T wireless service, I stay far away from any type of AT&T internet/television service. I've had issues with customer service with my landline and the stability (probably related to my area). I'm tempted to switch to VoIP for my home phone service at this time. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to gopnick
Re: Good for them
said by gopnick  :It's amazing how well things for the telcos when they offer services that people want (Uverse, wireless) instead of things they don't want (POTS, 768k DSL). I think it's U-Verse and iPhone. Their wireless service, itself, is not coveted by the masses. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Shouldn't be able to combine
AT&T Mobility is a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. VZW is a private company, partially owned by Verizon Communications, Inc. Why would T and VZ not report their earnings? |
|
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Wireless income up huge; wired down moderately
Well, I would say that and increase of 7.7 % isn't too shabby in these days and times. |
|
youngmoore
join:2001-03-16
Marietta, GA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to jmn1207
Re: Good for them
Its more of a "lets cut a deal" than actually adding users by normal means. ATT blew through here last month selling their wares door to door. The "common" deal so far has been tv 400, 6meg internet, home phone with UL LD, and 5 UL ATT wireless cell phones all for the price of 100 bucks. Now that's a smoking good deal, so much so that I don't know of any other company even able to compete with that. Is it wrong for them to be able to make deals like that when alot of people pay more just for their cell phone? Maybe but it just goes to show how overpriced things have been for years.
ym |
|
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to bagels
Re: so much
said by bagels :
for the "U-Verse can't compete" argument.....
To bad it sucks and takes 6 hours and several techs to install. FTTH would have been a better long term investment.
How long do you think U-verse will last? |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
1 edit | reply to openbox9
Re: Shouldn't be able to combine
VZW is actually a separate company. they may share the same name with "wireless" at the end but its still separate. They're a private company with only VZ owning part of them. they're a joint venture. Mobility is still a separate company as well and has their own HQ as well. They only have the same parent company.
By mixing the numbers together one could argue that they're fixing the numbers and it could lead to either increase their stock price falsely due to they do not actually have that many of customers as far as Internet or voice is considered.
If it was Comcast or any other cable company doing that the Telco's would be calling for the numbers to be separate as well as people on here. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to bagels
Re: so much
said by bagels :
for the "U-Verse can't compete" argument.....
You will always have a segment of people who will switch and try a new service, who actually love the phone company and will sign up for anything they sell, and people who are desperate to move off of cable or satellite. |
|
enamorate
@sbcglobal.net | love the service
I have had the service for over a year. The installation was only the bad part. I love the service, and I will never return to Time Warner Cable. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Shouldn't be able to combine
said by hottboiinnc :VZW is actually a separate company. they may share the same name with "wireless" at the end but its still separate. They're a private company with only VZ owning part of them. they're a joint venture. Mobility is still a separate company as well and has their own HQ as well. They only have the same parent company. That's what I said.said by hottboiinnc :By mixing the numbers together one could argue that they're fixing the numbers and it could lead to either increase their stock price falsely due to they do not actually have that many of customers as far as Internet or voice is considered. But T and VZ do own the respective companies (partial stake in VZ's case), so they do have that many customers, and the revenue streams that go along with them.said by hottboiinnc :If it was Comcast or any other cable company doing that the Telco's would be calling for the numbers to be separate as well as people on here. If the cablcos, or the telcos for that matter, spin off publicly traded companies, then the earnings should be reported separately. These subsidiaries aren't separate publicly traded companies, i.e. you aren't investing in the wireless segments separately, therefore you don't care about the financials separately. |
|
whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
1 edit | Wouldn't wish U verse on my worst enemy HERE
I have EVERY OPTION,AT&T offers both landline & cell phone and i tried their Uverse when it 1st came out (said i try it for a week-4 days layer called to tell them to COME GET THIS OUT
1st the tec was here 3 hrs oncell phone every minute with a supervisor telling him what to do
2nd it took 4, (no kidding) 4 recievers out of the box to find one that worked & got past the Uverse intro screen on tv @ startup-that should have been my 1st warning about the service
3rd then so called tec didn't know know to run the while cord from reciever to opposite side of room for router / computer.
4thon 3rd day of eatching the tv,the tv part crapped out,(was offered another reciever)
I'll stick with my DSL elite & Directv until AT&T get some experienced tech pple to install & some better equipment, keeping att on;y for phone services.
no way would I recc & have steered some FRIENDS away from AT&T Uverse.
--
some know how listen to both side & discuss an issue,others have a closed mind & only know how to criticize
|
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to XBL2009
Re: so much
said by XBL2009 :To bad it sucks and takes 6 hours and several techs to install. FTTH would have been a better long term investment. How long do you think U-verse will last? U-verse sucks way less than my cable company, and took only one installer about an hour and a half. A little over a half hour of that time was taken at the VRAD. I'm sure techs run into issues but the in-home portion of the install was not complicated in my case.
DirecTV and Dish are probably a better on the TV side of things, but U-verse offers huge cash rebates, so they've been marvelous on my pocketbook. The 18/1.5 internet speeds are great for my purposes. They do slow down a bit (to around 14mbps or so) when watching two HD streams, but I'm rarely ever doing both at the same time.
I do feel AT&T undershot their bandwidth requirements a bit. U-verse could be so much better with a bit more bandwidth behind it. Compare that to our cable company, Time Warner, who has loads of potential in their coax, but any technological advantage is entirely wasted on god awful cable boxes from 2003 with no upgrades in sight. At least AT&T really pushes the limites of what they can get out of their VDSL, and the product continues to evolve.
As long as U-verse continues to offer good deals and the cable companies continue their commitment to mediocrity, U-verse isn't going anywhere. Remember, U-verse will be judged against other options available to that customer. A very, very small number of people will ever have a choice between U-verse and FiOS.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
italiansmoke
join:2005-07-21
Monroe, MI
2 edits | reply to whocares
Re: Wouldn't wish U verse on my worst enemy HERE
Just to let you know, when a new service comes out that is as instrusive to every device in your house as Uverse is. You will run into a few problems, and some techs that haven't really gotten up to speed with installation and real-world application.
You tried it for 4 days, and that was back when Uverse had just come out. Well, you gambled with a new technology and got bitten. If I were you, I might try it again especially since the technology has been out a bit longer and the tech have better learned installation procedures.
From what I've seen/heard from friends, Uverse isn't all that bad. They install new equipment, new wiring, and the actual service is overall really good and reliable. As for me, I don't have Uverse. Considered it recently, but eventually I just stuck with Comcast because they were giving me a pretty good deal on a triple play service with 16/2Meg internet. So I've just stayed. But eventually, I will test the waters(in 1-2 years) and possibly try Uverse if Fios isn't rolled out here. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to djrobx
Re: so much
Cable companies can offer better than U-Verse if they get rid of the analog channels and use MPEG-4 transport for their video offerings.
Remember that U-Verse is using LESS bandwidth than what a typical cable company has yet is offering more. |
|
w4ncr
join:2000-10-27
| reply to italiansmoke
Re: Wouldn't wish U verse on my worst enemy HERE
It was so funny this morning listening to AT&T conference
call after call discussing the decrease in numbers of DSL and voice services.
In southeastern U-VERSE deployment being so slow as there are not many RT-SITES out there.
All of their packages are way too expensive for what little service they offer. |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
| reply to djrobx
Re: so much
said by djrobx :said by XBL2009 :To bad it sucks and takes 6 hours and several techs to install. FTTH would have been a better long term investment. How long do you think U-verse will last? U-verse sucks way less than my cable company, and took only one installer about an hour and a half. A little over a half hour of that time was taken at the VRAD. I'm sure techs run into issues but the in-home portion of the install was not complicated in my case. Is this comment supposed to be positive? LOL
I think that your uverse sucks way more than whatever cableco you have and you are just being over zealous about that uverse thingie.
The funny thing is that you are comparing uverse with 20th century cable, well unless you compare it with that juggernaut called comcast with 50mbps internet and lots of low comp HD channels at least less compressed than uverse. I agree that most cable companies are not even trying but what will happen when the cablecos wake up? DOCSIS3.0, SDV etc it is going to be a massacre in non FIOS territory.
Other thing you failed to mention is that the vast majority of uverse TV subscribers will be very happy if they were allowed to drop the TV portion of the service. You even have FAQs in the uverse forum on how to do this. |
|
