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

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:14:33 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

>At 11 Apr 2007 19:00:23 -0500 Scott wrote:

>> Other things are going to force their hands as well. The more data they
>> try to push through their voice networks is going to cause a capacity
>> problem that Sprint won't have to deal with by running seperate voice
>> and data networks. They won't last long if customers are leaving in
>> droves because the network is overloaded.
>
>True, but the wireless networks give priority to voice, so those who
>notice congestion will be the data users whose connections will slow and
>stutter. They'll need to decide whether it's "good enough" for the
>price! ;-)

Actually not, because (a) it doesn't work that way [it's not that
dynamic], and (b) there's ample 3G spectrum [thanks to technical
efficiency that's been increasing faster than demand].

Sprint OTOH faces major technical risks -- even assuming WiMAX lives up
to the hype, it's by no means clear that Sprint can successfully
integrate cellular with WiMAX -- efforts to integrate cellular with
Wi-Fi have been notably unsuccessful thus far.

>> > some folks will want to ditch
>> > wired broadband to avoid two bills as well, even if the speed isn't as
>> > fast as wired. This might put Sprint in the awkward position of
>> > metering/capping usage, or enforcing a restrictive TOS.
>>
>> They have ample spectrum and backbone to prevent this from happening.
>> If it fails, it won't be due to the lack of technical resources
>> available.
>
>Then why not target fixed broadband as a market as well?

The economics aren't there -- wired broadband is cheaper, and going
toe-to-toe with DSL and cable would probably be a disaster.

>> I don't see that happening. The advantage Sprint has is that the
>> technology will be embedded in consumer technology, which will be hard
>> for VZW and ATT to overcome.
>
>Perhaps. Frankly, I've never found plugging in a PCMCIA card much of a
>technological barrier personally... ;-) Having a "cable-ready" TV
>didn't stop me from subscribing to cheaper satellite TV. I go where the
>deals are.

There's actually no advantage there -- it's just as easy to bundle 3G
(as is already happening) as it is to bundle WiMAX.

>> Limited by network, spectrum and technology, there's not much further
>> they can go without sacrificing something. It could be riskier to
>> sacrifice their current networks than it is for Sprint to build a new
>> and untested one.
>
>You're assuming that the networks ar running near capacity. The
>ridiculous rates and draconian TOS's prevent that. Heck, Verizon has so
>much leftover bandwidth they're showing TV on the excess! ;-)

Correct. There is no capacity crunch. Sprint faces far greater risks.

>After WiMax launches, Verizon will throw up a bunch of TV ads with maps
>showing that their 3G has more coverage than "any other wireless data
>company," remind you that you save x dollars off the regular price by
>adding it to your voice plan, and show that little dork in the jacket in
>the middle of an Arizona desert tapping out on his laptop "Can you e-
>mail me now?" and Sprint will have a hard, hard, sell, even with the
>better product- because, frankly, we're all stupid, and we seem to
>believe that Verizon actually sends people to swamps with phones to test
>reception for us! ;-)

Not to mention AT&T/Cingular. And that's assuming WiMAX works for
Sprint without major issues, a very risky assumption.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:14:33 -0600, Todd Allcock
> <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>

>>
>>True, but the wireless networks give priority to voice, so those who
>>notice congestion will be the data users whose connections will slow
>>and stutter. They'll need to decide whether it's "good enough" for
>>the price! ;-)
>
> Actually not, because (a) it doesn't work that way [it's not that
> dynamic], and (b) there's ample 3G spectrum [thanks to technical
> efficiency that's been increasing faster than demand].

Rubbish- ca[acity issues have been resolvewd by going back in beefing up
the network bottlenecks. That does not qualify as technocal efficiency.

>
> Sprint OTOH faces major technical risks -- even assuming WiMAX lives
> up to the hype, it's by no means clear that Sprint can successfully
> integrate cellular with WiMAX -- efforts to integrate cellular with
> Wi-Fi have been notably unsuccessful thus far.

OK, John- read this next part real slowly- it contains important public
information that runs contrary to your your consumer opinion.

Sprint has no plans to combine CDMA and Wimax or to integrate the two
products. The current offering of voice and data services will continue
to run on the CDMA network. New data options will be run on the WiMax
network. The two networks will run exclusive to the other and
technology offered on each network will be exclusive to that network. A
very clean business plans that eliminates all of messy isues trying to
integrate products.


>
>>> > some folks will want to ditch
>>> > wired broadband to avoid two bills as well, even if the speed
>>> > isn't as fast as wired. This might put Sprint in the awkward
>>> > position of metering/capping usage, or enforcing a restrictive
>>> > TOS.
>>>
>>> They have ample spectrum and backbone to prevent this from
>>> happening. If it fails, it won't be due to the lack of technical
>>> resources available.
>>
>>Then why not target fixed broadband as a market as well?
>
> The economics aren't there -- wired broadband is cheaper, and going
> toe-to-toe with DSL and cable would probably be a disaster.

The correct answer here is that they don't need to. Hisory indicates
that consumers will make the decsion to drop wireline broadband, much as
they did with cellular. And it might take as long as it did for
wireless voice- dropping the landline became a popular option only in
the last couple of years after many years of carrying both products.
When wireless data becomesfast and cheap enough, we'll see the same kind
of movement with broadband.

>

I'd really like to be able to pay about $50 for a modem that supports
1xRTT, EVDO, EDGE, HSDPA, and Wi-Fi. When you fire up the modem it
would show you which signals are available and then allow you to
select a network and a "pay-per-use" plan for that day (or other time-
frame).

I know I'm too ignorant to realize all the complications that would be
involved in such a device. But I'm kind of frustrated with the fact
that we basically have two data networks (three now with Wi-Max and
four if you count Wi-Fi) and neither of these two data networks really
offer satisfactory high-speed coverage. For those who live in
metropolitan areas and seldom venture from them, they do not see this
as an issue. But for the rest of us, it's a big issue. Providers have
been slow to cover some heavily populated areas that are not inside a
popular metropolis, thinking more specifically of EVDO and HSDPA. It
simply doesn't pay for me to pay for a data plan when the high-speed
service isn't available anyway.

$10 per day would make me squirm a little. I do like the idea of
having this available for occasional use, but if you use it more than
five times a month, you might as well have a data plan. $5 per day
sounds a lot more agreeable, considering it would raise the "need-for-
a-data-plan" threshold to a more acceptable level.

I think some hardware standardization for cell. phones is a critical
part of providing data services. The Motorola Sprint/Nextel ic502 now
uses a more standardized USB cable (without a proprietary end at the
phone). This is a move that all mfg's should follow in order to
simplify hooking your phone up to your computer, but i don't really
expect it any time soon, if ever. It appears that proprietary
solutions have been proven to fill the coffers so why would
manufacturers and providers consider otherwise?

On 12 Apr 2007 05:41:49 -0700, "HK" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>I'd really like to be able to pay about $50 for a modem that supports
>1xRTT, EVDO, EDGE, HSDPA, and Wi-Fi.

Me too. I'd also like a new BMW for $20,000. Both are unrealistic.
One standard, but not the whole gamut -- technology just isn't there
today.

>I know I'm too ignorant to realize all the complications that would be
>involved in such a device. But I'm kind of frustrated with the fact
>that we basically have two data networks (three now with Wi-Max and
>four if you count Wi-Fi) and neither of these two data networks really
>offer satisfactory high-speed coverage. For those who live in
>metropolitan areas and seldom venture from them, they do not see this
>as an issue. But for the rest of us, it's a big issue. Providers have
>been slow to cover some heavily populated areas that are not inside a
>popular metropolis, thinking more specifically of EVDO and HSDPA. It
>simply doesn't pay for me to pay for a data plan when the high-speed
>service isn't available anyway.

EGPRS(EDGE) offers respectable speed and very wide coverage, with 1xRTT
not too far behind. Why won't they work for you?

>$10 per day would make me squirm a little. I do like the idea of
>having this available for occasional use, but if you use it more than
>five times a month, you might as well have a data plan. $5 per day
>sounds a lot more agreeable, considering it would raise the "need-for-
>a-data-plan" threshold to a more acceptable level.

The problem is that the carrier can't make money at that kind of low
price point on such a complex service -- even $10 is probably too low.
That's why data packages make sense for both the carrier and the
customer.

>I think some hardware standardization for cell. phones is a critical
>part of providing data services. The Motorola Sprint/Nextel ic502 now
>uses a more standardized USB cable (without a proprietary end at the
>phone). This is a move that all mfg's should follow in order to
>simplify hooking your phone up to your computer, but i don't really
>expect it any time soon, if ever. It appears that proprietary
>solutions have been proven to fill the coffers so why would
>manufacturers and providers consider otherwise?

For the reason that Motorola is now using standard mini USB cables.
Standardization greatly increases the market, and makes retail
distribution of accessories practical. It will be particularly driven
by retailers and carriers, but benefits manufacturers as well.

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

HK wrote:
> I'd really like to be able to pay about $50 for a modem that supports
> 1xRTT, EVDO, EDGE, HSDPA, and Wi-Fi. When you fire up the modem it
> would show you which signals are available and then allow you to
> select a network and a "pay-per-use" plan for that day (or other time-
> frame).
>
> I know I'm too ignorant to realize all the complications that would be
> involved in such a device. But I'm kind of frustrated with the fact
> that we basically have two data networks (three now with Wi-Max and
> four if you count Wi-Fi) and neither of these two data networks really
> offer satisfactory high-speed coverage. For those who live in
> metropolitan areas and seldom venture from them, they do not see this
> as an issue. But for the rest of us, it's a big issue. Providers have
> been slow to cover some heavily populated areas that are not inside a
> popular metropolis, thinking more specifically of EVDO and HSDPA.

Actually EVDO coverage does extend beyond major metro areas.

"http://b2b.vzw.com/broadband/coveragearea.html"
"http://www.sprint.com/business/products/products/evdoEnterZip.jsp"

> $10 per day would make me squirm a little. I do like the idea of
> having this available for occasional use, but if you use it more than
> five times a month, you might as well have a data plan. $5 per day
> sounds a lot more agreeable, considering it would raise the "need-for-
> a-data-plan" threshold to a more acceptable level.

It's a fine line between an acceptable level for occasional use, and
losing many of your monthly customers, but I agree, $5 would be acceptable.

> I think some hardware standardization for cell. phones is a critical
> part of providing data services.

Not really. Many notebooks now build in HSDPA or EV-DO, and a CardBus or
ExpressCard modem, would make providing data services less complex.

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>> Then you have the new limitations on how far DSL will reach. Straight from
>> AT&T's sales department here are the latest deployment distances:
>>
>> 6 Mbps up to 6,500 ft.
>> 3 Mbps up to 9,500 ft.
>> 1.5 Mbps up to 14,000 ft.
>
> Those limits aren't really new.

They were implemented about a year ago. "Latest" means there have been no
changes to that policy up to present.


>> For these customers, wireless broadband might be an alternative. But with
>> the telcos aggressively deploying DSLAMs in pedestals along the roadsides
>> instead of only at the central office as in the past, we're seeing DSL
>> being offered out in the country side.
>
> RE-ADSL2 and ADSL2+/RE-ADSL2+ are capable of much longer distances than
> standard ADSL, a range increase of roughly 50%.
> The questions are
> if and when AT&T will deploy them.

IMHO they are more likely to drop in a new DSLAM on a buried fiber line
along the roadside.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:50:21 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>HK wrote:

>> I think some hardware standardization for cell. phones is a critical
>> part of providing data services.
>
>Not really. Many notebooks now build in HSDPA or EV-DO, and a CardBus or
>ExpressCard modem, would make providing data services less complex.

Really. Complexity isn't a function of form factor. Those devices need
complex device drivers and control software.

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

Scott wrote:
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>> RE-ADSL2 and ADSL2+/RE-ADSL2+ are capable of much longer distances
>> than standard ADSL, a range increase of roughly 50%. ("RE" is short
>> for "Reach Extended.) ADSL2 and ADSL2+ are also capable of much
>> higher speeds, up to 12 mbps and up to 24 mbps respectively. The
>> questions are if and when AT&T will deploy them.
>>
>
> Vaporware.

Like Extended GSM...Extended meaning extended range, not extended
frequencies which is a common phrase in the GSM world.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:34:02 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> Then you have the new limitations on how far DSL will reach. Straight from
>>> AT&T's sales department here are the latest deployment distances:
>>>
>>> 6 Mbps up to 6,500 ft.
>>> 3 Mbps up to 9,500 ft.
>>> 1.5 Mbps up to 14,000 ft.
>>
>> Those limits aren't really new.
>
>They were implemented about a year ago. "Latest" means there have been no
>changes to that policy up to present.

They were actually implemented (albeit not as explicitly and publicly
stated) long before that.

>>> For these customers, wireless broadband might be an alternative. But with
>>> the telcos aggressively deploying DSLAMs in pedestals along the roadsides
>>> instead of only at the central office as in the past, we're seeing DSL
>>> being offered out in the country side.
> >
>> RE-ADSL2 and ADSL2+/RE-ADSL2+ are capable of much longer distances than
>> standard ADSL, a range increase of roughly 50%.
>> The questions are
>> if and when AT&T will deploy them.
>
>IMHO they are more likely to drop in a new DSLAM on a buried fiber line
>along the roadside.

You may well be correct in many (or even most) cases, but these newer
ADSL technologies are compelling from a cost standpoint in cases where
that kind of major upgrade isn't needed.

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

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 +0000 DTC wrote:
>> Personally I think that's a failed model as Clearwire
>
> Spoken like a city slicker! ;-)

I can speak polysyllabic or redneck...name yer poison.

> The appeal of $50 1.5Mbps service will be in the "sticks" where the only
> viable broadband options are currently satellite ($300-600 for equipment,
> and $50-80/month for 512k-1.5m.)

Very true..IF the "sticks" are kind of close into town or a nearby remote
DSLAM...but still there a lot of "deep sticks" where rural WiFi can find a
home.

>> For these customers, wireless broadband might be an alternative. But
>> with the telcos aggressively deploying DSLAMs in pedestals along the
>> roadsides instead of only at the central office as in the past, we're
>> seeing DSL being offered out in the country side.
>
> There's country and then there's country! Rural DSL deployment isn't
> happening fast enough that Clearwire won't have a solid opportunity for a
> few years if they can deploy their service before that happens.

I haven't looked at Clearwire's license maps to see if they really have the
coverage, so I can't say if they be able to pull that off. On the other
hand, its going to be far more expensive for them than a rural WiFi
provider as they don't use outside antennas - their unit sits nest to you
PC on the desk. Looking at the coverage maps and AP locations, it looks
like each AP has only about a two mile radius compared to six or eight mile
radius for rural WiFi.

> (Look at> the third world countries that have leapfrogged past wireline
> telephony
> right in to wireless, because the per customer cost of deploying wireless
> is much cheaper.)

The Third World doesn't have the copper infrastructure like the U.S telcos,
so its certainly cheaper and faster to deploy.

> Many rural areas in the US will likely be better
> served by wireless or satellite internet for quite some time.

I'd say that's a good bet.

John Navas wrote:
> the battle
> between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
> to most users.

On a slightly different note on importance...

I'm seeing customers in the rural WiFi market that choose aesthetics of the
installation over price and speed.

"I don't want anything with guy wires and will go with a company that can
put a small antenna on the roof of my house" (never mind the cost or speed
of the connection).

John Navas wrote:
> The law actually doesn't work that way -- it's actually hard to block
> towers.

I'll take it up a notch and say its more like damned impossible to block
new towers.

Scott wrote:
> As usenet geeks, we tend to take things for granted that would keep our
> neighbors busy for hours :-)

[semi-snicker mode activated]

And a corollary might be, we tend to spend hours ridding our PCs of evil
tool bars and spyware that the neighbors take poor PC performance as granted.

[/semi-snicker mode]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:01:11 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> the battle
>> between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
>> to most users.
>
>On a slightly different note on importance...
>
>I'm seeing customers in the rural WiFi market that choose aesthetics of the
>installation over price and speed.
>
>"I don't want anything with guy wires and will go with a company that can
>put a small antenna on the roof of my house" (never mind the cost or speed
>of the connection).

I've seen that too, particularly in higher-end neighborhoods. Likewise
when people are browsing in a retail store, not only the product, but
also the packaging. Esthetics can indeed be a powerful force. We geeks
tend to dismiss that as silliness, but average folks lack our expertise,
and have found that better products tend to have better esthetics,
making esthetics a useful albeit imperfect criterion.

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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Sprint OTOH faces major technical risks -- even assuming WiMAX lives up
> to the hype, it's by no means clear that Sprint can successfully
> integrate cellular with WiMAX -- efforts to integrate cellular with
> Wi-Fi have been notably unsuccessful thus far.
>

Why integrate? Dump cellular and put a VoIP phone on WiMax.

Larry
--