Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:05:01 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Notan wrote:
>
>> How is kill filing childish?
>
>Without kill-filing, Usenet would be almost unusable.

Kill filing is actually childish, and usually more effort than its worth
(negative payback) ... unless you're got some other reason.

>Many of the groups
>are over-run with trolls that clutter up the newsgroup with their
>nonsensical posts. They crave attention, and the fact that Usenet is
>rather anonymous, they can be disruptive and annoying and see the
>reaction that they get. It's almost like a child testing a parent to see
>how far they can go with bad behavior before being sent to their room.

You've described yourself quite well.

>Personally, I kill-file very few posters. It's bad form to kill-file
>someone just because they have different opinions than your own.
>
>I kill-filed the individual in question because he is a pathological
>liar, he is unable to rationally look at factual information and gain
>anything from it if it conflicts with his personal agenda.

The biggest reason is that I've so often exposed your fantasies for what
they are -- you just can't handle being shown to be so often wrong.
Jealousy also seems to be a factor.

>He spams
>newsgroups with his periodic postings, he illegally posts copyrighted
>material, and he is somehow convinced that charters for one newsgroup
>should be endlessly posted in newsgroups to which they have no
>relevance. He has made shilling for Cingular his life's work,

Your usual ad hominem. Just makes you look bad.

>Unlike the individual in
>question, I have a life outside of Usenet!

Had me fooled.

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

---

› See More: Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report

<http://www.thestreet.com/_htmlbtb/smallbusinesstech/smallbusinesstech/10348860.html>

Sprint's condition looks so dismal that an all-or-nothing bet on an
unproven wireless technology is actually shaping up as a bright spot.

Tuning out the static surrounding its repeated stumbles, Sprint late
last month announced a major expansion of its wireless broadband
project. After originally targeting Chicago and Baltimore, Sprint now
says it will launch the so-called 4G service in 17 additional cities
by the end of 2008.

Sprint has budgeted about $2.75 billion for the effort, effectively
doubling down on a not-yet-standardized wireless format known as
mobile Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access, or WiMax.
Theoretically, the new network will soon deliver the sort of speedy
mobile Internet connections that people now enjoy at their desktops.
....
"WiMax is our future," says one Sprint insider who is involved with
the decision. "There's no margin for error. It's not like we can say
'we gave it our best effort' and then move on."

[MORE]

Sprint loses out on major contract
<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-telecom30mar30,1,3918367.story?coll=la-headlines-business>

Dealing a significant blow to Sprint Nextel Corp., the government
Thursday awarded the largest-ever federal telecommunications contract
-- a 10-year deal worth as much as $48 billion -- to Sprint rivals
AT&T, Qwest Communications and Verizon.
....
The GSA announcement was a serious loss for Sprint Nextel, analysts
said, because the Reston, Va.-based company has been providing
telecom services to the federal government for nearly 20 years.

This year, Sprint announced thousands of job cuts amid service
troubles, a dwindling customer base and difficulty assimilating
Nextel Communications, which it acquired in 2004. Sprint shares are
down about 20% from a year ago and the company is forecasting
near-flat operating revenue and earnings this year.

"It's terrible for Sprint," said technology consultant Warren Suss of
Jenkintown, Pa. "The federal government was Sprint's first major
customer since the company started."

GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out.

[MORE]

Sprint Runs Out of Appeal
<http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rmct/rmoney/jimcramerblog/10331568.html>

Sprint was a pure takeover target. That's why people owned it. No
other reason. There was no earnings potential, none as the company
pretty much telegraphed. You could bank on a disappointment, but
people couldn't resist it. They believed that no matter how bad it
was, they could withstand the pain because of the buyout potential.

Of course, as with the Gap, as with Home Depot, when you speculate on
this nonsense you have a really terrible risk/reward. Sure, Sprint
could get a takeover bid, but it won't come from $20. It might not
even come from $17.

Fifteen feels more like it.

Nobody can resist speculating on crummy companies. I just have to
warn you that any potential buyers of this company know that things
are crummy there and they aren't interested, either.

The fundamentals of any company must be good enough that you will
want to buy more if there is a disappointment. It's pretty clear
today that Sprint owners want out. That's what you get when you make
a bet on unsound merchandise.

Caveat emptor.

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

What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
information? Navas, do you know anything?


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> <http://www.thestreet.com/_htmlbtb/smallbusinesstech/smallbusinesstech/10348860.html>
>
> Sprint's condition looks so dismal that an all-or-nothing bet on an
> unproven wireless technology is actually shaping up as a bright spot.
>
> Tuning out the static surrounding its repeated stumbles, Sprint late
> last month announced a major expansion of its wireless broadband
> project. After originally targeting Chicago and Baltimore, Sprint now
> says it will launch the so-called 4G service in 17 additional cities
> by the end of 2008.
>
> Sprint has budgeted about $2.75 billion for the effort, effectively
> doubling down on a not-yet-standardized wireless format known as
> mobile Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access, or WiMax.
> Theoretically, the new network will soon deliver the sort of speedy
> mobile Internet connections that people now enjoy at their desktops.
> ...
> "WiMax is our future," says one Sprint insider who is involved with
> the decision. "There's no margin for error. It's not like we can say
> 'we gave it our best effort' and then move on."
>
> [MORE]
>
> Sprint loses out on major contract
> <http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-telecom30mar30,1,3918367.story?coll=la-headlines-business>
>
> Dealing a significant blow to Sprint Nextel Corp., the government
> Thursday awarded the largest-ever federal telecommunications contract
> -- a 10-year deal worth as much as $48 billion -- to Sprint rivals
> AT&T, Qwest Communications and Verizon.
> ...
> The GSA announcement was a serious loss for Sprint Nextel, analysts
> said, because the Reston, Va.-based company has been providing
> telecom services to the federal government for nearly 20 years.
>
> This year, Sprint announced thousands of job cuts amid service
> troubles, a dwindling customer base and difficulty assimilating
> Nextel Communications, which it acquired in 2004. Sprint shares are
> down about 20% from a year ago and the company is forecasting
> near-flat operating revenue and earnings this year.
>
> "It's terrible for Sprint," said technology consultant Warren Suss of
> Jenkintown, Pa. "The federal government was Sprint's first major
> customer since the company started."
>
> GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out.
>
> [MORE]
>
> Sprint Runs Out of Appeal
> <http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rmct/rmoney/jimcramerblog/10331568.html>
>
> Sprint was a pure takeover target. That's why people owned it. No
> other reason. There was no earnings potential, none as the company
> pretty much telegraphed. You could bank on a disappointment, but
> people couldn't resist it. They believed that no matter how bad it
> was, they could withstand the pain because of the buyout potential.
>
> Of course, as with the Gap, as with Home Depot, when you speculate on
> this nonsense you have a really terrible risk/reward. Sure, Sprint
> could get a takeover bid, but it won't come from $20. It might not
> even come from $17.
>
> Fifteen feels more like it.
>
> Nobody can resist speculating on crummy companies. I just have to
> warn you that any potential buyers of this company know that things
> are crummy there and they aren't interested, either.
>
> The fundamentals of any company must be good enough that you will
> want to buy more if there is a disappointment. It's pretty clear
> today that Sprint owners want out. That's what you get when you make
> a bet on unsound merchandise.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901061.html?nav=rss_technology/techpolicy>

Although the contract is a big win for AT&T, Qwest and Verizon,
industry analysts said, it is a devastating blow for Sprint, which
has provided services under the government's previous two major
telecom contracts, spanning two decades.

"This doesn't just mean a loss of federal business -- this will
marginalize Sprint and really narrow their scope to a niche wireless
contractor versus a broad carrier," said Warren Suss, a telecom
analyst for Suss Consulting in Jenkintown, Pa. "The fact that they
didn't make the cut here means that from a pricing and technological
point of view, they had a hard time providing services across the
board."

Other analysts speculated that the government was wary of doing
business with Sprint, which has been losing subscribers and whose
stock has lost about 20 percent of its value, adjusted for dividends
and splits, since its 2005 merger with Nextel. William E. Kennard,
former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, was brought
on to Sprint's board of directors after the merger, in part to help
bolster the company's federal presence. He resigned from his post
three weeks ago -- an early sign, some say, that Sprint was facing
defeat.

[MORE]

<http://go.sosd.com/adapt/servlet/nrp?cid=RIM&cmd=sty&pgn=1&ino=1053510&cat=Technology>

While current GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out, Bob
Woods, a former official at the agency who now works as a consultant,
surmised that Sprint could not meet the low prices of its
competitors. Woods estimated that Sprint could lose roughly $200
million to $250 million annually in existing government business.

Executives from Sprint plan to meet with GSA officials next week to
discuss why their contract proposal fell short, and the company will
decide afterwards whether to file a protest, spokeswoman Sukhi Sahni
said in an e-mail.

[MORE]

Sprint Nextel will not protest contract
<http://www.kansascity.com/438/story/62087.html>

Sprint Nextel Corp., the only losing bidder among four companies
vying for a government telecommunications contract worth up to $48
billion, said Friday it has decided not to protest last week's
decision.

The company met with the General Service Administration on Wednesday
for a "debriefing" on why they weren't chosen for the 10-year
"Networx Universal" contract.
....
Sprint, which has been supplying telecom services to the government
for the last 18 years, lost out to Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T
Inc. and Qwest Communications International Inc. for the Universal
contract. As a result, Sprint will not be able to compete for
individual agency business for the next decade.

[MORE]

<http://svextra.com/blogs/gmsv/2007/03/big_telecom_party_in_dc_sprints_invitation_lost_in_the_mail.html>

The blow to Sprint, which had participated in providing telecom
services to the federal government for nearly 20 years, was a
crusher. The company has been leaking customers and jobs since
acquiring Nextel in 2005, and it had already announced plans to lay
off 5,000 workers this year as sales lagged. Asked why Sprint was
sent home, John Johnson of the GPA would say only, "The three
awardees best meet our needs." Sprint officials said they would press
the feds for a more detailed explanation next week before deciding
whether to protest its exclusion. [MORE]


On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:32:22 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
>information? Navas, do you know anything?
>
>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> <http://www.thestreet.com/_htmlbtb/smallbusinesstech/smallbusinesstech/10348860.html>
>>
>> Sprint's condition looks so dismal that an all-or-nothing bet on an
>> unproven wireless technology is actually shaping up as a bright spot.
>>
>> Tuning out the static surrounding its repeated stumbles, Sprint late
>> last month announced a major expansion of its wireless broadband
>> project. After originally targeting Chicago and Baltimore, Sprint now
>> says it will launch the so-called 4G service in 17 additional cities
>> by the end of 2008.
>>
>> Sprint has budgeted about $2.75 billion for the effort, effectively
>> doubling down on a not-yet-standardized wireless format known as
>> mobile Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access, or WiMax.
>> Theoretically, the new network will soon deliver the sort of speedy
>> mobile Internet connections that people now enjoy at their desktops.
>> ...
>> "WiMax is our future," says one Sprint insider who is involved with
>> the decision. "There's no margin for error. It's not like we can say
>> 'we gave it our best effort' and then move on."
>>
>> [MORE]
>>
>> Sprint loses out on major contract
>> <http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-telecom30mar30,1,3918367.story?coll=la-headlines-business>
>>
>> Dealing a significant blow to Sprint Nextel Corp., the government
>> Thursday awarded the largest-ever federal telecommunications contract
>> -- a 10-year deal worth as much as $48 billion -- to Sprint rivals
>> AT&T, Qwest Communications and Verizon.
>> ...
>> The GSA announcement was a serious loss for Sprint Nextel, analysts
>> said, because the Reston, Va.-based company has been providing
>> telecom services to the federal government for nearly 20 years.
>>
>> This year, Sprint announced thousands of job cuts amid service
>> troubles, a dwindling customer base and difficulty assimilating
>> Nextel Communications, which it acquired in 2004. Sprint shares are
>> down about 20% from a year ago and the company is forecasting
>> near-flat operating revenue and earnings this year.
>>
>> "It's terrible for Sprint," said technology consultant Warren Suss of
>> Jenkintown, Pa. "The federal government was Sprint's first major
>> customer since the company started."
>>
>> GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out.
>>
>> [MORE]
>>
>> Sprint Runs Out of Appeal
>> <http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rmct/rmoney/jimcramerblog/10331568.html>
>>
>> Sprint was a pure takeover target. That's why people owned it. No
>> other reason. There was no earnings potential, none as the company
>> pretty much telegraphed. You could bank on a disappointment, but
>> people couldn't resist it. They believed that no matter how bad it
>> was, they could withstand the pain because of the buyout potential.
>>
>> Of course, as with the Gap, as with Home Depot, when you speculate on
>> this nonsense you have a really terrible risk/reward. Sure, Sprint
>> could get a takeover bid, but it won't come from $20. It might not
>> even come from $17.
>>
>> Fifteen feels more like it.
>>
>> Nobody can resist speculating on crummy companies. I just have to
>> warn you that any potential buyers of this company know that things
>> are crummy there and they aren't interested, either.
>>
>> The fundamentals of any company must be good enough that you will
>> want to buy more if there is a disappointment. It's pretty clear
>> today that Sprint owners want out. That's what you get when you make
>> a bet on unsound merchandise.
>>
>> Caveat emptor.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>

--
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
news[email protected]:

> <http://www.thestreet.com/_htmlbtb/sm...lbusinesstech/
> 10348860.html>
>

Great article at face value but a few things stand out- I spotted at least
three major inaccuracies and no comparative mention of Cingular's merger
woes.

Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when Sprint is
the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I think that it is
time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to you later...


"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
>> information? Navas, do you know anything?
>>
>>
> Navas doesn't know anything if it's not contained in a Google link.
>
> One thought on the street is that Sprint might have half-assed the whole
> thing because while the dollars sound great, margin on those types of
> accounts are horrible. Between huge equipment subsidies (including
> contracted cell towers and private networks), huge pricing discounts,
> special billing requirements, budget shortfalls (which stop payment in a
> heartbeat) and the necessity to go through the GSA for payment puts net
> revenue far below any other tier of customer in the industry. The money
> looks good coming in, but id of no value if most of it goes right back
> out.
>
> The budget piece is of particular importance- the contract was advertised
> as being worth "up to $48B" over ten years. The real value won't be
> determined by the carriers- it will be determined by Congress.
>
> There is a secondary contract being offered later in the year with fewer
> requirements and worth $20B. Sprint may be focusing their energies there.

"Mij Adyaw" wrote:
>
> Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when Sprint is
> the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I think that it
> is time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to you later...
>

This must be painful for you, being both a Navas and Sprint supporter and
all.


--
Mike

On 4/10/2007 12:44 AM, Tinman wrote:
> "Mij Adyaw" wrote:
>> Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when Sprint is
>> the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I think that it
>> is time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to you later...
>>
>
> This must be painful for you, being both a Navas and Sprint supporter and
> all.
>
>
BFG

--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)

A metal's temper doesn't mean it is angry.

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when Sprint is
> the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I think that it is
> time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to you later...

What we haven't seen is something similar to what happened when the
RBOCs and RVOCs decided that they'd be better off selling DSL service to
the masses, at a lower price, rather than selling it to a relatively few
number of users at a high price. Of course seeding the market for FIOS
and U-Verse was one of the other reasons to go after market share for DSL.

Which wireless carrier will be the first to decide to drop their pants
on data pricing and try to sell it to the masses? And if they drop the
price, will the masses even be interested unless it can replace their
DSL or broadband connection? Unfortunately, despite the hundreds of
millions of dollars that the carriers have spent on 3G and 4G, they
don't have the capacity to sell data to the masses.

Personally, every client I have has wireless available for visitors.
Nearly every hotel I stay at (at least where 3G or 4G is available) also
has free wireless. Free wireless is widely available in coffee houses,
restaurants, libraries, and sometimes whole cities. I might pay
$10/month for unlimited 3G or 4G, unless it also replaces DSL, in which
case I'd pay $30 or so per month.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:36:54 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>> Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when Sprint is
>> the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I think that it is
>> time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to you later...
>
>What we haven't seen is something similar to what happened when the
>RBOCs and RVOCs decided that they'd be better off selling DSL service to
>the masses, at a lower price, rather than selling it to a relatively few
>number of users at a high price. Of course seeding the market for FIOS
>and U-Verse was one of the other reasons to go after market share for DSL.
>
>Which wireless carrier will be the first to decide to drop their pants
>on data pricing and try to sell it to the masses?

They (AT&T and T-Mobile) already have.

>And if they drop the
>price, will the masses even be interested unless it can replace their
>DSL or broadband connection? Unfortunately, despite the hundreds of
>millions of dollars that the carriers have spent on 3G and 4G, they
>don't have the capacity to sell data to the masses.

They, following the lead of NTT DoCoMo, are actually already well along
in what the masses want, not replacement of wired broadband connections
(something of interest only to a few of us geeks), but broadband content
appropriate to wireless: music, video, radio, etc. CNN News video on my
new V3xx is quite good -- I'm surprised at how often I watch it.

>Personally, every client I have has wireless available for visitors.
>Nearly every hotel I stay at (at least where 3G or 4G is available) also
>has free wireless. Free wireless is widely available in coffee houses,
>restaurants, libraries, and sometimes whole cities. I might pay
>$10/month for unlimited 3G or 4G, unless it also replaces DSL, in which
>case I'd pay $30 or so per month.

The price point for handset (not tethered) data seems to be $10-20 per
month. Tethered data seems likely to stay at a premium over wired
broadband, $40-80 per month.

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

"John Navas" wrote:
>
> The price point for handset (not tethered) data seems to be $10-20 per
> month. Tethered data seems likely to stay at a premium over wired
> broadband, $40-80 per month.
>

That's a rather big range. At $80 it will remain a niche market--a shrinking
market if WiFi coverage gets larger.

In addition, the "must have a plan" thing is getting old. Like Stephan
wrote, I also encounter WiFi, or wired Ethernet, in most of my business
traveling. There is no way I'll be willing to pay $80 a month for the few
times WiFi isn't available--not even $40 per month.

I would be willing to pay a fair price for occasional use, but not at the
per-megabyte rate (last I checked rates, anyway). Actually, I recently
turned down paying $9.95 for a day of WiFi usage at IAH airport (Houston).
Considering I was only there for a few hours, had just flown in from (and
was headed to) an airport that had free WiFi, and would have had to supply
CC and other info over the apparently unsecured WLAN I didn't think it was
worth it. Ironically Sprint ran that WiFi service--and it was slower than
heck (there was some non-subscription access).


--
Mike

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:03:15 -0700, "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>"John Navas" wrote:
>>
>> The price point for handset (not tethered) data seems to be $10-20 per
>> month. Tethered data seems likely to stay at a premium over wired
>> broadband, $40-80 per month.
>
>That's a rather big range. At $80 it will remain a niche market--a shrinking
>market if WiFi coverage gets larger.

Those price ranges cover ranges of speed and capability, just as pricing
varies in the wired market. I could easily see full HSDPA/EV-DO speed
only at the high end of the price range, with capped speed at the low
end of the price range, and even $80 as a viable option with that kind
of speed. Wi-Fi is too balkanized to really compete with the
flexibility and ubiquitousness of fast 3+G data. WiMAX might be a
different story, especially given all the money Sprint is throwing at
it, but mobile WiMAX is still a long way off (at best).

>In addition, the "must have a plan" thing is getting old. Like Stephan
>wrote, I also encounter WiFi, or wired Ethernet, in most of my business
>traveling. There is no way I'll be willing to pay $80 a month for the few
>times WiFi isn't available--not even $40 per month.

Different strokes I guess -- like most of the people I know, I too often
find I can't get Wi-Fi or wired Internet, and don't see the need to have
a data package as much of an issue (especially if business picks up the
tab), which is why I'm now happily using HSDPA for much (most?) of my
Internet access.

>I would be willing to pay a fair price for occasional use, but not at the
>per-megabyte rate (last I checked rates, anyway). Actually, I recently
>turned down paying $9.95 for a day of WiFi usage at IAH airport (Houston).
>Considering I was only there for a few hours, had just flown in from (and
>was headed to) an airport that had free WiFi, and would have had to supply
>CC and other info over the apparently unsecured WLAN I didn't think it was
>worth it. ...

That's my point, why I think a 3+G data package is better than relying
on finding Wi-Fi or wired Internet. I've got wireless data pretty much
wherever I am at a flat price per month. I think that's pretty
compelling.

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

"John Navas" wrote:
>
> That's my point, why I think a 3+G data package is better than relying
> on finding Wi-Fi or wired Internet. I've got wireless data pretty much
> wherever I am at a flat price per month. I think that's pretty
> compelling.
>

I can't argue that when I was stuck in the airport with no connectivity, I
wasn't looking enviously at those with data connect cards/adapters. <g>

The other thing with WiFi is being careful about connecting to unknown
networks. Too many "Free WiFi!!!" SSIDs out there for my comfort level.

That said I'd probably pay around $20 per month or so for wireless access
(carrier based). This could be on top of my plan, via tethering, or with a
connection card/adapter. I wouldn't expect any subsidies on the card or
adapter, naturally.

If no one is willing to sell that to me, I suppose I'll do without. Even $20
a month is tough to justify when I only need it a few times a year. And I
really don't want another "don't ask, don't tell" policy, nor a per-megabyte
option that could bury me with a few hours of usage. If they can't or don't
want to sell it to me at that price I will do without. I personally think
I'm in the majority on this, but time will tell.


--
Mike

Even with $20 on top of my regular plan's handset 'Net, assuming handset
tethering here, that still seems more money than most people would pay. And
$20

"Tinman" <[email protected]> sed:

> "Mij Adyaw" wrote:
>>
>> Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when
>> Sprint is the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I
>> think that it is time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to
>> you later...
>>
>
> This must be painful for you, being both a Navas and Sprint supporter
> and all.
>
>

Bad Pony Boy!

--
BG - aka Chilly elswhere

SMS wrote:

> Personally, every client I have has wireless available for visitors.
> Nearly every hotel I stay at (at least where 3G or 4G is available) also
> has free wireless. Free wireless is widely available in coffee houses,
> restaurants, libraries, and sometimes whole cities. I might pay
> $10/month for unlimited 3G or 4G, unless it also replaces DSL, in which
> case I'd pay $30 or so per month.

A lot depends on where you are located. I am not in the sticks but
everything you described is unusual in the areas where I typically
work/travel. If you want mobile connectivity here you buy an aircard.