Verizon adds 539,000 net customers in the first quarter, strong gains across the board
0. phoneArena 24 Apr 2014, 16:30 posted on
In what seems to be an established trend in recent tech and carrier reports, Big Red posted gains across...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. Neo_Huang (Posts: 1067; Member since: 06 Dec 2013)
Oh great...next thing you know, there's going to be an article about Sprint having strong gains across the board, leaving T-Mobile as the only one of the big four with losses.
Good luck, T-Mobile.
23. DonkeySauce (Posts: 194; Member since: 03 Dec 2011)
Where do you think all of the business for Verizon came from?
"You're welcome, Verizon." - Sprint
2. Slammer (Posts: 1515; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)
Here is why I say that Tmobile giving away the house, isn't hurting the two largest. History has repeated itself over and over again that the smaller carriers trying to "Shake up" the industry, has only played into benefiting the largest. The least profitable leave for better deals while the spenders move up.
16. djcody (Posts: 100; Member since: 17 Apr 2013)
So you mean loosing over 1milion customers isn't big deal?? That's 1% from 103 mln customers total. For Verizon maybe not big deal but for long frame time it will be different story. ;)
3. sprockkets (Posts: 1611; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
IOW, 539,000 people didn't care about being shafted by Verizon, saying that they felt it wasn't that bad with their awesome coverage lube.
Also, 100% of these customers don't mind buying apple and ms products that contribute to shafting android either.
29. jroc74 (Posts: 6004; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Well....to be fair.....since Verizon is overall the most expensive carrier....they must do something right to not really lose and keep gaining customers year after year.
I am a former Verizon subscriber....and their service is borderline legendary. See...I value phone service over data. But times have hit hard and I will be going the pre paid route from now on.
4. Planterz (Posts: 2047; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
Well, here's one they lost to T-Mobile. I get better coverage here (Tucson), MUCH faster speeds, unlimited data, and a MUCH smaller bill. Screw Big Red.
5. Salazzi (Posts: 537; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)
This is strange.. according to the WSJ Verizon lost 138,000 subscribers... It added around 670k TABLET accounts, which resulted in bringing subscriber base to 539k figure seen above. So no.. Verizon in fact lost phone customers fellas, so don't get ahead of yourselves. I'm not sure if 670k tablet comsumers would suddenly pop up.. good way to mask the losses though. I wonder if the overwhelming majority are by existing Verizon customers.. which would be explanitory.
7. Maxwell.R (Posts: 214; Member since: 20 Sep 2012)
Indeed, you are correct, but the subscriber base is still a "net" gain. All the carriers have been pushing tablets as a way to gain more paid subscriptions. Considering that the other carriers are literally paying for each other's customers to join them, it is quite a feat to post any gains at all when VZW has not joined that party.
8. mattkl (Posts: 212; Member since: 01 Feb 2010)
You should learn the difference between net and gross and then read more carefully. They clearly state net customers.
9. Salazzi (Posts: 537; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)
You should learn to read. My post doesn't argue against the 539 figure but is rather an attempt to show that indeed, phone subscribers have gone DOWN in Verizon. But to explain how the positive figure was reached, I established that those were from tablets. Nobody here was arguing about net or even gross subscribers but rather to educate those who wouldn't look past the figure that there were phone subscription losses during Q1 on behalf of Verizon.
11. kaintae (Posts: 73; Member since: 14 Dec 2011)
it's nice that you established that those were from tablets. however, you're the only one who's talking about tablets. unless i missed something in the article, it clearly states that they grew in net subscribers and in arpu. sounds like a win to me.
12. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
no, he makes an excellent point - yes, ScrewRizon gained postpaid subscribers...but, out of those NET gains 670k of them were TABLET subscribers. First of all, it is amazing that anyone would even add a tablet to their plan and get screwed even more, and then, Verizon hides the fact that it actually lost phone subscribers....
15. Planterz (Posts: 2047; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
In March I went to the Verizon store to get a warranty replacement shipped (so I could sell it on eBay and switch to T-Mobile). The rep (a very cute girl) pitched me their current promotion, which was a free Note 3 7.0 for "free" (after rebates/credits - I forget wich) with LTE for $10/mo on their shared plan. I went in with every intention of getting my phone replaced and sticking it to Big Red, but I have to admit, the offer was intriguing (and the girl was VERY cute). But I managed to escape (barely - did I mention how cute the rep was?) without signing up for anything extra and I made the switch to T-Mobile and sold my replacement phone on eBay for $275.
Anyway, it's clear that Verizon, while losing customers, gained subscriptions, even if those subscriptions gained were only $10/mo tablet subscribers to current customers.
19. kaintae (Posts: 73; Member since: 14 Dec 2011)
Why do you think they care whether or not a subscriber is on a phone or a tablet? i used to work for those guys and believe me, theyre not worried about losing poor smart or basic phone subscribers to tmobile or sprint. When you buy a tablet from them, most of the time youre paying full retail. Youre also paying a 35 dollar activation fee. So they get your 35, plus your 10 bucks a month without having to recover a subsidy like they do on the iphone they sold for 450 below retail cost. Thats how their arpu goes up, because youre also paying 20 bucks for a 50 cent piece of plastic to cover your screen, or any other accessory thats marked up 1000%. Point is: while people are talking about smartphone churn, their profits went up. While youre talking about lost phones, theyre actually making more money with less phone subscribers
26. Salazzi (Posts: 537; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)
Poor smart or basic phone subscribers? Perhaps you mean people who understand they're getting more value for their dollar at T-Mo? That just makes the ones that stay behind, idiots, as by your statement they're willing to throw out more money for less.
28. kaintae (Posts: 73; Member since: 14 Dec 2011)
No i was definitely referring to people with less money. They are like any other successful business in that they are all about trying to turn a profit. Therefore, they prefer people who will spend money. Not that they don't want poorer people...but they're not afraid of losing the guy that doesn't bring any significant value to them other than their minimalistic plan. Their focus is on the guy that is gonna bring his whole family, use a bunch of data, and add tablets and MBB devices to their plan. Value in subjective. For some it's about price. For others it's about price per unit. For some (like myself, who was with T-Mobile for 7years) T-Mobile doesn't offer me a return on my investment. That's why I'm willing to pay more
20. mattkl (Posts: 212; Member since: 01 Feb 2010)
You should read the main article, then read your own post because it does not talk about tablet vs phone just new accounts vs those lost. Net customers. Would you like to keep trying?
31. Salazzi (Posts: 537; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)
Perhaps you need to go screw yourself? In the most polite way as possible, of course. I wasn't referring to the article when I brought that info out.. which is still extremely relevant to the article at hand (as relevant as it gets!). This information, for most people is actually pretty valuable. Just because you don't like what I pointed out doesn't mean you should go on a b**** spree. It would have been wiser to simply ignore my comment and move on, instead of picking a fight because I simply extrapolated the article into more precise figures.
32. mattkl (Posts: 212; Member since: 01 Feb 2010)
I get what you were trying to do but you're still wrong pertaining to my replies. No one brought up phone vs tablets vs anything else beside just telling us that Verizon had added 539 thousand net accounts. That was the end of it, then you brought up extra details that weren't about this article. I read the Wall Street Journal article as well and that is the place for your comment. PA simplified the article to the basics; Verizon added 539K net customers. Period. You can talk all you want but we can all re-read the article and comments and see that you just out of the blue started talking about how those new accounts were tablets from a completely separate article.
There was nothing untruthful in this particular article to make you need to clarify the details. I'll say again, it's clearly about how many net customers, that's all that matters. If the article stated that they added that many net PHONE accounts, then I could see your point, but it didn't, so we don't. My truthful comment really made you mad though buddy, sorry.
35. Salazzi (Posts: 537; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)
No it didn't make me mad, but rather confused as to what you were trying to gain by making a point known that I already knew. Yes, the article did not mention that. But I interjected a piece of information that may have been interesting to some, that was in line with the article. What's the point of the comment section then? To just say "thank you author", or to actually discuss the information that was presented before us? I'd say it's the latter, and as such I chose to bring into discussion an aspect not brought up by the article (perhaps the author forgot? was lazy? didn't feel it was important enough? I don't know). Thank you for keeping your cool though with your last comment and not lashing it out, as well as for bringing the focus to the final and equally important detail.. which is that Verizon added 500k postpaid accounts. Still though, the reason I brought up the fact that they have lost over 100k phone subscribers (when interestingly enough every Verizon store I was at, and asked the question of T-Mobiles impact on their subscribers, and was told that there was no impact). This brings up another question.. are these customers who are switching to Verizon from a different carrier, and simply bringing in tablets (tablet only accounts) or are these basically current Verizon customers who merely decided to open a tablet line? Very important questions, that I genuinely seek more details to. You may have misunderstood me and that's ok. It happens. I wasn't trying to say the article was untruthful (which I have pointed out more than once), but rather seeking to bring extra details into discussion and get some questions answered (if possible).
38. mattkl (Posts: 212; Member since: 01 Feb 2010)
Fair enough we'll just have to disagree on this. You just made it seem as if you were upset at someone for trying to slant the facts to make a negative look like a positive. Which in this case I don't believe was done. This discussion didn't have much to do with what you said, rather how you said it.
"This is strange.(WHY IS THIS STRANGE?). according to the WSJ Verizon lost 138,000 subscribers... It added around 670k TABLET accounts, which resulted in bringing subscriber base to 539k figure seen above. So no.. Verizon in fact lost phone customers fellas, ("VERIZON ALSO REPORTED THAT IT ADDED 539,000 NET RETAIL SUBSCRIBERS FOR THE QUARTER." Does it say they didn't lose PHONE customers somewhere?) so don't get ahead of yourselves. (SO THEY DIDN'T GET AHEAD OF THEMSELVES) I'm not sure if 670k tablet comsumers would suddenly pop up.. good way to mask the losses though. (WHAT LOSSES WERE WHO TRYING TO MASK? They told how much they lost, then how much they gained, and finally, NET. Mask free.) I wonder if the overwhelming majority are by existing Verizon customers.(I don't know either but using the word ACCOUNT and not LINES added I believe they mean brand new accounts not existing.) which would be explanitory."
Not much of a polite FYI, accusations and attitude flying everywhere.
24. DonkeySauce (Posts: 194; Member since: 03 Dec 2011)
That's why they push tablets and MBB cards so hard. The market share for phones is saturated. The carriers are mainly just concerned with "subscriptions" As long as they have a device with a Monthly recurring charge locked into a contract. So they are happy to be net add positive.
10. kindlefireowner (Posts: 503; Member since: 05 Dec 2011)
I switched over to Verizon Prepaid this quarter to buy the Moto G. So now Big Red is getting my money. No complaints from me.
17. Planterz (Posts: 2047; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
I switched to T-Mobile, picked up a "used" (but immaculate condition) Galaxy Light for $120 off eBay (you can find the guy easily enough), and have unlimited everything. Smaller, lower def screen, but it's an LTE phone, it's powerful, and it has a microSD slot. If your area has LTE with TM, you should check it out. If not, you probably made a good choice. Half a year ago, TM sucked here. Now it's amazing.
21. sprockkets (Posts: 1611; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
Aio is a better deal and you get faster speeds. Cheaper rate too.
But both are dicks and disallow unlocking your bootloader and tethering, so I'd go with anyone else if that matters.
14. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
18. Adrian38 (Posts: 142; Member since: 05 Nov 2012)
Big red and big blue ain't afraid of little pink over there Haha T-Mobile can do whatever they want, but until they have the network to back up all that talk, because that's all it is, they will never make a REAL impact on the two big boys.
22. Sprissy (Posts: 160; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
I dumped Verizon for the 2nd time about a month ago, this time I chose AT&T and I am perfectly happy without Big Red, and trust me I won't be going back. T-Mobile and Sprint just don't have enough coverage and I need service up and down the east cost, not just in one area. I also know of others who have made this switch from Verizon. I don't think Verizon cares so much about new customers, their idea is to get the current customers they have to spend more money each month, that's why they were giving away a tablet, which will more then likely require more data each month too. I do like T-Mobile's new CEO though, not enough to use their service but his efforts are definitely noteworthy and have made impacts on both AT&T and Verizon.
25. Salazzi (Posts: 537; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)
hold faith. T-Mo will begin implementing the 700 mhz spectrum which will put its coverage on par with Verizon and ATT.. better building penetration and further coverage. Add to that, the fact that they're switching all their 2G to LTE, you can expect the network to become extremely reliable.
27. joe1blue (Posts: 168; Member since: 25 Jul 2013)
I just made the switch to T-mobile from sprint and I am having a great experience with them more than I ever expected to have.
33. mattkl (Posts: 212; Member since: 01 Feb 2010)
I hope soon. If so I'll be switching back to T-Mobile. No service inside for me from Tmo.
34. kaintae (Posts: 73; Member since: 14 Dec 2011)
So you agree that T-Mobile is somewhere behind the big two...I too hope they improve their service. It does me no good if they're not performing well against their competitors. But on one hand, you talk about how bad Verizon is, and on the other, you admit that T-Mobile is behind. Be objective
36. Salazzi (Posts: 537; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)
Behind? No I don't think that's the case. They have extensive coverage, most of which is 2G (which is being converted to LTE). You need to understand how to differentiate Kaintae. Nobody is bashing Verizons network or saying it's behind, rather people are VERY displeased with Verizons unwillingness to listen to customers, all while it charges obscene prices.
37. kaintae (Posts: 73; Member since: 14 Dec 2011)
Clearly no one is bashing Verizon's network. I was referring to your critique about their phone subscribers being down, even though their net subscribers are up. I'm not saying you're wrong about those numbers. But you're clearly biased. But to address your point about LTE and edge...even in the 3g days, T-Mobiles network wasn't up to their standard in termsbof coverage. T-Mobile wasn't even trying to make that argument. As I mentioned before...I hope they succeed, because competition is good. But the numbers don't suggest that customers are dissatisfied with verizons network and prices.
30. jroc74 (Posts: 6004; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
All I know is I will be going GSM from now on...too many positives to it...and I wish I had done it sooner.
I was caught in the Verizon mystic.....but not anymore.