"Mobile users diss premium content"

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:57:20 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Someone out there has to pay retail.
>
>Not necessarily -- ads underwrite much of the Internet, and might well
>underwrite mobile content as well.

Yep. If I were paying for measured rate bandwidth (i.e. airtime),
then having my content delivered with advertisements might be
perceived that the user was paying for delivering the advertising. A
solution might be to give the users the option of getting advertising
at a lower rate, or paying more for advertising free content.

As for paying for the internet, judging by the predominance of file
sharing programs occupying much of the bandwidth, the internet is
being paid for by stolen content, copyright violations, and
pornography. Whether the cell phone market can handle such mainstream
internet content is questionable.

>>This is the automobile that includes a snow plow and trailer as
>>standard. Very useful, but might get in the way. I found that out
>>the hard way when I plugged a 512MByte SD card into a Sony Clie PDA
>>and played a rather long video clip over and over until the battery
>>died. 15 minutes and it was dead. I suspect cell phones will be
>>similar (or worse).
>
>My Motorola V551 does quite a bit better than that -- even with steady use of
>multimedia I still get a few hours of battery life.

I'm not familiar with the V551. (I'm on Verizon, not Cingular). Note
that the Sony Clie has a much larger screen than the V551 and is
several years older technology. I don't recall if the file was AVI or
MOV but I recall that the Clie was getting noticeably warm after about
5 minutes of playing. I'll conceed that it can be done on modern
phones without killing the battery. However, it would be interesting
to run a test of how many minutes of video can be played before
killing the battery.

I found no numbers in any of the reviews or on the official data
sheet:
http://www.motorola.com/motoinfo/pro.../0,,72,00.html

>That's more bulk and complexity than I'm prepared to deal with.

There's no bulk. You only carry the phone. Think of it like a TV
remote control for the other gadgets. When you wanna watch your
multimedia content, just drag out the viewer and watch the show. When
done, stuff it back where it hides.

Disigning a user interface that is both handles all the possible modes
and functions, while at the same time is useful, is a major challenge.
I have some experience doing that for mobile radios and have a few
ideas about how it may be done. A minor problem will be managing the
storage and controlling the movie display. The phone might end up
looking like a Tivo remote control with a mic and earphone. Not a
great idea and probably useless. Yet, all the functions need to be
there. I think the complexity can be reduced sufficiently, but there
will be some oddities. For example, want buttons on both sides of
your cell phone?

>I prefer to
>just carry a high-end cell phone that can do all the essential tasks. (If and
>when I need more, I'll tether a full notebook computer.) The current Motorola
>V360 does that pretty well now. An HSDPA version, or something like the
>Motorola V1150/V3X, would be even better.

I agree and that's also my vision of my current cell phone
requirements. However, the discussion was about multimedia content
delivered to a cell phone. If this is going to be the next big thing,
some thought should go into how the multimedia cell phone of the
future will look and act. Perhaps you might not like my vision of
such a phone, but there may be some potential customers that are
willing to pay for such a service.

Incidentally, my only use of the internet from my cell phone is at
14Kbits/sec for a WAP browser doing directory lookups. If I want
access, I'll do it via Wi-Fi (because it's cheaper).

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 [email protected]
# http://802.11junk.com [email protected]
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

---

› See More: "Mobile users diss premium content"

SMS wrote:
> It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that
> mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think
> that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs.
> The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes
> the first time.

That's me.

I think it's ridiculous that I have Laptop Connect Unlimited (with a
Sony Ericcson PC card) which I use frequently to download a fairly
large amount of data, yet I have to pay extra if I want to use the WAP
browser in my cell phone to download a limited amount of data. I used
to be with Nextel and I was using their Packetstream Gold unlimited
data plan while tethering my cell phone. In the beginning I had to pay
an extra $10/month to use the WAP browser on the cell phone. Several
months later Nextel changed the requirements so that Packetstream Gold
users had unlimited WAP browser use as well for no additional charge.
This made a lot more sense to me.

I think that as a Laptop Connect Unlimited user, I should be able to
use my WAP browser in my cell phone for no additional charge. AFAIK,
since this is not the case, I do not use the WAP browser in my cell
phone except for extremely limited use. The same goes for SMS
messages. I would use this feature if I did not have to pay the
current rate. As it is, I have only used it a couple of times in the
past year. Again my point is, I do not want to pay extra for data
services on my cell phone when I already have an unlimited data plan
with the PC card. I'll take the inconvenience instead.

If anyone is wondering why I pay for Laptop Connect unlimited - it's
because I work for weeks at a time on the water. If I want internet
service, an unlimited data plan is my only practical choice. I do like
my internet, so I am willing to pay for it. I use the internet for
personal business, news, and information, as well as for entertainment.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (known to some as Wolf Kirchmeir) scribed...

> Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
> [...]
> > Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
> > point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
> > I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
>
> You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.

Only in the sense that the basic connection to ANY open WiFi access
point is insecure by its very nature.

Read my post again. I'm using VPN over wireless while on the road.
VPN traffic is heavily encrypted by its very nature. In my case, the
client software I use is provided to work specifically with our hardware
firewall/router. It implements IPSec with 3DES encryption, though PPTP
is another popular protocol.

Properly-implemented VPN makes it nearly as safe to use as if you
were still hardwired to your office network. If you're curious about it,
here's a handy link.

http://vpn.shmoo.com/vpn/FAQ.html

Keep the peace(es).


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (known to some as John Navas) scribed...

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:22:34
> -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
> >[...]
> >> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
> >> point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
> >> I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
> >
> >You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.
>
> Just the opposite. VPN can create a very secure connection, and can work over
> a secure wireless connection.
>
> The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to
> secure your connection.

Quite true. Some open networks, for whatever reason, do not permit
VPN traffic to go through. In most cases I've found of such, it was
simply misconfiguration of the access point involved, in that the owners
of it were unaware that they needed to actually tell the thing 'allow
traffic on port x to go through.'

No evil plots, no conspiracy to extract a premium for allowing VPN
to go through. Just plain ignorance.


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (known to some as Wolf Kirchmeir) scribed...
>
>> Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
>>> point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
>>> I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
>> You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.
>
> Only in the sense that the basic connection to ANY open WiFi access
> point is insecure by its very nature.
>
> Read my post again. [...]

I misunderstood.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:27:34
GMT, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:57:20 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>Not necessarily -- ads underwrite much of the Internet, and might well
>>underwrite mobile content as well.
>
>Yep. If I were paying for measured rate bandwidth (i.e. airtime),
>then having my content delivered with advertisements might be
>perceived that the user was paying for delivering the advertising.

You mean like with cable TV? While it's not metered, I think the
principle is pretty similar.

>A
>solution might be to give the users the option of getting advertising
>at a lower rate, or paying more for advertising free content.

Attempts to do that in other areas haven't been very successful -- given a
choice, consumers have usually voted overwhelmingly for "free" ad-supported
content.

>As for paying for the internet, judging by the predominance of file
>sharing programs occupying much of the bandwidth, the internet is
>being paid for by stolen content, copyright violations, and
>pornography.

Pornography is indeed a big factor, but I think ads are now king in terms of
revenue, witness the revenues of Google, Doubleclick, Yahoo, et al. As for
file sharing, there's no incremental revenue -- you'd have to argue that it's
driving broadband. While it's almost certainly a factor, I don't think it's
the dominant factor.

>Whether the cell phone market can handle such mainstream
>internet content is questionable.

Porn is already a significant factor overseas.

>>That's more bulk and complexity than I'm prepared to deal with.
>
>There's no bulk. You only carry the phone. Think of it like a TV
>remote control for the other gadgets. When you wanna watch your
>multimedia content, just drag out the viewer and watch the show. When
>done, stuff it back where it hides.

Hides? Where? In a backpack? No thanks. This afternoon I was wandering
around with just my cell phone in a belt holster, and that's usually all that
I want to be carrying.

>... For example, want buttons on both sides of
>your cell phone?

I have buttons on both edges of my cell phone, in addition to the keyboard.
Methinks you need a slider form factor.

>>I prefer to
>>just carry a high-end cell phone that can do all the essential tasks. (If and
>>when I need more, I'll tether a full notebook computer.) The current Motorola
>>V360 does that pretty well now. An HSDPA version, or something like the
>>Motorola V1150/V3X, would be even better.
>
>I agree and that's also my vision of my current cell phone
>requirements. However, the discussion was about multimedia content
>delivered to a cell phone. If this is going to be the next big thing,
>some thought should go into how the multimedia cell phone of the
>future will look and act. Perhaps you might not like my vision of
>such a phone, but there may be some potential customers that are
>willing to pay for such a service.

You may be right. My own vision is high resolution heads up display and
speakers on my glasses, driven from the phone over your short range wireless.

>Incidentally, my only use of the internet from my cell phone is at
>14Kbits/sec for a WAP browser doing directory lookups. If I want
>access, I'll do it via Wi-Fi (because it's cheaper).

I'm guessing that's driven by your carrier. On Cingular I have an unlimited
data package for only $20/month. That enables heavy use of such useful tools
as:
* Google Mobile personalized (email, weather, news, movies)
* Google Local for Mobile (maps, businesses, and directions)
* Opera Mini for full Web browsing
* Froogle Mobile (shopping)
* Weather
* Movies (reviews and showtimes)
* Phone directories
* Flight schedules
* eBay
* FedEx tracking

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:47:01
-0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
>
>> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:22:34
>> -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
>> >> point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
>> >> I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
>> >
>> >You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.
>>
>> Just the opposite. VPN can create a very secure connection, and can work over
>> a secure wireless connection.
>>
>> The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to
>> secure your connection.
>
> Quite true. Some open networks, for whatever reason, do not permit
>VPN traffic to go through. In most cases I've found of such, it was
>simply misconfiguration of the access point involved, in that the owners
>of it were unaware that they needed to actually tell the thing 'allow
>traffic on port x to go through.'
>
> No evil plots, no conspiracy to extract a premium for allowing VPN
>to go through. Just plain ignorance.

In other cases it's based on being able to monitor all traffic, as I've found
in some public libraries.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:44:49
-0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <[email protected]> wrote:

> Properly-implemented VPN makes it nearly as safe to use as if you
>were still hardwired to your office network. ...

Arguably safer, since a wired network may well be subject to physical
compromise, exposing all unencrypted traffic.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on 22 Mar 2006
16:43:02 -0800, "GomJabbar" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think it's ridiculous that I have Laptop Connect Unlimited (with a
>Sony Ericcson PC card) which I use frequently to download a fairly
>large amount of data, yet I have to pay extra if I want to use the WAP
>browser in my cell phone to download a limited amount of data.

Why? Just move the PC card SIM to the phone.

>I used
>to be with Nextel and I was using their Packetstream Gold unlimited
>data plan while tethering my cell phone. In the beginning I had to pay
>an extra $10/month to use the WAP browser on the cell phone. Several
>months later Nextel changed the requirements so that Packetstream Gold
>users had unlimited WAP browser use as well for no additional charge.
>This made a lot more sense to me.

Sure, but giving network resources away for free doesn't make sense for the
carrier, unless the carrier has to give it away to make up for how
uncompetitive it is, as in the case of Nextel.

>... The same goes for SMS
>messages. I would use this feature if I did not have to pay the
>current rate. ...

Why not use messaging over an Internet connection instead of SMS?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sure, but giving network resources away for free doesn't make sense for
> the
> carrier, unless the carrier has to give it away to make up for how
> uncompetitive it is, as in the case of Nextel.
>

So, the highest ARPU carrier in the industry is "giving" resources away?

Are you really that stupid?

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:47:01
> -0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
>>
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:22:34
>>>-0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
>>>>>point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
>>>>>I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
>>>>
>>>>You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.
>>>
>>>Just the opposite. VPN can create a very secure connection, and can work over
>>>a secure wireless connection.
>>>
>>>The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to
>>>secure your connection.
>>
>> Quite true. Some open networks, for whatever reason, do not permit
>>VPN traffic to go through. In most cases I've found of such, it was
>>simply misconfiguration of the access point involved, in that the owners
>>of it were unaware that they needed to actually tell the thing 'allow
>>traffic on port x to go through.'
>>
>> No evil plots, no conspiracy to extract a premium for allowing VPN
>>to go through. Just plain ignorance.
>
>
> In other cases it's based on being able to monitor all traffic, as I've found
> in some public libraries.
>


They can monitor me all they want - but watching my VPN payload is like
watching paint dry.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:45:31 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:27:34
>GMT, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:57:20 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Not necessarily -- ads underwrite much of the Internet, and might well
>>>underwrite mobile content as well.
>>
>>Yep. If I were paying for measured rate bandwidth (i.e. airtime),
>>then having my content delivered with advertisements might be
>>perceived that the user was paying for delivering the advertising.
>
>You mean like with cable TV? While it's not metered, I think the
>principle is pretty similar.

Yep, almost exactly, but for a different reason. With CATV, the
"streaming" content is continuous and uninterrupted. The cable
content bundlers assemble a package of entertainment, advertisements,
announcements, and previews, that are streamed at the user
continuously and without interruption. Hopefully, that won't happen
with streaming content to a cell phone. However, it is possible that
some brilliant cellular marketeer may decide that some of the data
bandwidth be dedicated to some form of broadcasting. It wouldn't be
bad if it were traffic reports, weather reports, terrorist alerts,
sports scores, stockmarket numbers, AMBER alerts, and other useful
items (similar to what the pager people have been broadcasting for
many years). However, it could easily also be advertising, promos,
and manure. It's the more like the wireless version of the "last
mile", where vendors fight to own the "last mile" to the customer so
they can act as a funnel for all the garbage that various groups want
to shovel at the customer. Yep, just like CATV.

>>A
>>solution might be to give the users the option of getting advertising
>>at a lower rate, or paying more for advertising free content.
>
>Attempts to do that in other areas haven't been very successful -- given a
>choice, consumers have usually voted overwhelmingly for "free" ad-supported
>content.

That's fine. Then the advertisers shouldn't complain if people are
willing to tolerate the ads. A few might find it sufficiently
obnoxious to pay for a clean feed. For things I use often, I would
probably pay.

My vision (or nightmare) of the internet of the future is a virtual
reality headset, where users navigate their way through a virtual
shopping mall, make purchases, negotiate deals, ask for information,
and generally use current reality as a paradigm for navigation. Of
course, it will all be paid for by advertisers, who lurk in the
shadows, and accost the users with sales pitches. I don't see a VR
headset option for a cell phone, but given sufficient memory and
bandwidth, it's possible.

>Pornography is indeed a big factor, but I think ads are now king in terms of
>revenue, witness the revenues of Google, Doubleclick, Yahoo, et al.

Certainly. But if you add up the alleged revenue lost to file
sharing, methinks the numbers may be considerably larger than
advertising revenue. The internet doesn't generate this revenue, but
it certainly defrays the expenses for many of the file sharing users.
I also forgot to mention the spammers. I keep reading erratic reports
of substantial revenue from spamming. I don't know if they're true.

>As for
>file sharing, there's no incremental revenue -- you'd have to argue that it's
>driving broadband. While it's almost certainly a factor, I don't think it's
>the dominant factor.

Yep. Personally, I think Windoze Updates are driving broadband, but
file sharing is certainly number one. One of my less astute customers
had Limewire running on his laptop over a Verizon EV-DO link and was
bugging me to figure out why his connection was so slow. Duh.

I'm not sure which came first. The chicken or egg, or file sharing or
broadband. Each one drives the other. Give them more bandwidth and
they'll share more content, er... copyright violations. Does
bandwidth increase to meet the needs, or are new needs invented to use
the bandwidth. In the case of wireless internet, the needs will by
necessity be limited by the bandwidth and never approach those of
wired carriers. That just might drive the technology. Who know, we
may just have wireless file sharing. Sigh.

>>Whether the cell phone market can handle such mainstream
>>internet content is questionable.
>
>Porn is already a significant factor overseas.

One of my friends just returned from Europe. I got to play with his
new cell phone. The porno collection in memory was truly impressive.
Never mind ring tones, lets bring on the multimedia pornography.
Hmmm... maybe the VR headset wouldn't be a bad idea if it can play 3D
porno video clips. Premium services perhaps?

>>There's no bulk. You only carry the phone. Think of it like a TV
>>remote control for the other gadgets. When you wanna watch your
>>multimedia content, just drag out the viewer and watch the show. When
>>done, stuff it back where it hides.

>Hides? Where? In a backpack? No thanks. This afternoon I was wandering
>around with just my cell phone in a belt holster, and that's usually all that
>I want to be carrying.

Ok, so you're not a real geek. I have my PDA cell phone, flashlight,
and tape measure on my belt. On the dash of my gas guzzler, I have a
Panasonic Toughbook CF-M34 laptop that acts as a file server. It
could just as easily be a multimedia movie viewer. In my scenario,
either the vehicle server or the phone downloads the video files, and
play them to the display via UWB (wireless USB). No need to play them
on the tiny cell phone display. However, if you're going into a
restraunt, hotel, or airport, and you wanna watch your own movies,
bring your own viewer. It's not that big.

>I have buttons on both edges of my cell phone, in addition to the keyboard.
>Methinks you need a slider form factor.

Think voice recognition and control. The major functions remain on
the keyboard. User defined buttons for creative applications. Voice
control does the rest. Ideally, it should recognize and parse phrases
and offer options. There's only so much that can be done with
buttons.

>You may be right. My own vision is high resolution heads up display and
>speakers on my glasses, driven from the phone over your short range wireless.

Yep. Take a giant step backwards and look at the cell phone from the
standpoint of a user interface to the digital (and analog POTS) world.
Is it a good interface? Does it do its job efficiently? Can it be
done better? In my never humble opinion, the operation and cybernetic
features of a cell phone are terrible. Only the basics like dialing a
number are handled gracefully. For example, my vision of programming
a phone is to use two shaft encoders (dials). One dial selects the
function to be set, the other selects the value. Punch enter and it's
saved. Total no-brainer to learn and no maze of sub menus to
navigate. I once designed a marine radio that worked like that.
Everyone loved it except the dealers. They claimed that customers
judged the "value" of a radio by the number of knobs and buttons. The
more the better. So, we added knobs and buttons all over the place.

Bluetooth hang it on your ear headsets is another kludge. It would be
so easy to make one that folds flat and fits in my pocket instead of
being a big, lumpy, fragile, and light weight ear hanger. Mine would
unfold, expand to something like a normal headset, and get put away
when not in use.

However, the real problem with Bluetooth is pairing. Bluetooth
headsets can only pair with one device at a time. This makes it
useless for fast switching between a cell phone and a computer. 4000
companies in the Bluetooth Sig and nobody thought a headset might be
used with more than one device.

Add a VR display (or something similar) will only solve the output
problem. The device still needs to be controlled and that's where
methinks the problems hide. Think wearable computers where one of the
wearable boxes is a cell phone.

>>Incidentally, my only use of the internet from my cell phone is at
>>14Kbits/sec for a WAP browser doing directory lookups. If I want
>>access, I'll do it via Wi-Fi (because it's cheaper).
>
>I'm guessing that's driven by your carrier. On Cingular I have an unlimited
>data package for only $20/month. That enables heavy use of such useful tools
>as:
>* Google Mobile personalized (email, weather, news, movies)
>* Google Local for Mobile (maps, businesses, and directions)
>* Opera Mini for full Web browsing
>* Froogle Mobile (shopping)
>* Weather
>* Movies (reviews and showtimes)
>* Phone directories
>* Flight schedules
>* eBay
>* FedEx tracking

True. Verizon offers two levels of service. 14.4 for $5/month and
EV-DO for about $60/month. At $20/month, I would probably subscribe
for the data service. At $60/month, I can live without it. Actually,
the 14Kbit/sec is quite adequate for what I need (directory service).
The catch is that it eats minutes of connect time and my use is very
close to my maximum minutes.
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/p...tion=miniStart

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 [email protected]
# http://802.11junk.com [email protected]
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Ok, so you're not a real geek. I have my PDA cell phone, flashlight,
> and tape measure on my belt. On the dash of my gas guzzler, I have a
> Panasonic Toughbook CF-M34 laptop that acts as a file server.

I'll raise the geek bar with my Hughes satellite dish in the bed of my
truck. Might win me the best camp belt buckle at the next rodeo if I
throw up a WiFi hotspot.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:20:37 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Ok, so you're not a real geek. I have my PDA cell phone, flashlight,
>> and tape measure on my belt. On the dash of my gas guzzler, I have a
>> Panasonic Toughbook CF-M34 laptop that acts as a file server.

>I'll raise the geek bar with my Hughes satellite dish in the bed of my
>truck. Might win me the best camp belt buckle at the next rodeo if I
>throw up a WiFi hotspot.

I'll raise your pizza dish and add my ham radio geek paraphenalia to
my sagging waist belt. I sometimes have a Yeasu 2-meter radio on my
belt. For special ocassions, I substitute one of perhaps 20 assorted
radios in my collection (most with half dead batteries). If I'm
trying to impress other geeks, I'll wear one of my commercial Motorola
status symbol radios, which demonstrates to everyone that I overpaid
for the radio.
| http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/off...adio-mess.html
That was about a year ago. The pile is 3 times larger now.

Of course, high fashion has it's designer cell phones:
| http://www.pcworld.com/news/article.asp?aid=33322
That was 6 years ago and I haven't seen any such phones. Oh well.

I think this is what John is worried about happening to cell phones:
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...pevolution.jpg
No, I don't think we're ready for the cell phone cyborg.

Drivel: When I was much younger (in the 1960's) I thought that when
technology was finally able to deliver a working Dick Tracy wrist
radio, everyone would rush out and buy one. I tried to build several
during my past life in designing radios. Nobody wanted them. So much
for my abilities to predict the future of technology.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 [email protected]
# http://802.11junk.com [email protected]
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Sure, but giving network resources away for free doesn't make sense for
>> the
>> carrier, unless the carrier has to give it away to make up for how
>> uncompetitive it is, as in the case of Nextel.
>>
>
> So, the highest ARPU carrier in the industry is "giving" resources away?
>
> Are you really that stupid?
>
>

LOL.

Nextel is rather unique in that is offers a useful premium service that
customers actually want, actually use, and are willing to pay a premium
for. They also have a great barrier to entry of other competitors, at
least for now.