Re: All-you-can-eat 3G may not last

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:26:26 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <449070ea$0$96996$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Tinman wrote:
>
>> Moreover, the carriers have been promoting handsets for data usage which
>> gives them a much greater pool of prospects to sell to. Whether it is
>> music, video, streaming radio or whatnot, today's 3G handsets are
>> perfectly capable of sucking down large amounts of data. It might not be
>> stored on the handset, but the network doesn't care about that.
>
>They've been promoting it, but the adoption rates have been dismal.

In the USA -- actually doing quite well in Asia, and it's too early to
really tell here, because it's just gotten off the ground.

>Do
>they really expect a huge market for watching videos on a 2" screen?

They do, and with good reason, given the experience in Asia, and now in
Europe, not to mention the success of the Video iPod and millions of
iPod video downloads.

>As
>to audio, we all saw the huge flop of the Motorola/Apple handset.

Again, it's too early to really tell, and that's only one device --
there are clear signs that a combo phone + audio player could do very
well.

>Occasional web browsing and e-mail are what the masses will end up using
>their fancy handsets for.

They're already using them as cameras, and more is sure to follow. Cell
phone manufacturers are now the biggest digital camera companies in the
world as measured by unit sales.


"The IM Generation in Charge - Part 2"
<http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=14842_0_1_0_C>

Kids not only taught us how to instant-message and how to program our
mobile phones (and VCRs), but they're demonstrating that the "mobile
PC" is the new client/server model. Of the teens Pew surveyed, 45%
have mobile phones. A third of them have text-message access and use
their mobile phones to access websites and services. They also use
their mobile phones to take and send photos, record and send messages
complemented by graphics and video clips, and serve up other
multimedia content.

The mobile entertainment light bulb has gone off in the traditional
entertainment industry as the result of the new mobile fixation. ABC,
NBC, and the cable networks are now actively cutting deals to offer
up TV shows for $1.99 a pop via Apple's iTunes, for playback on the
new video iPod. Steve Jobs bragged that since he cut the deal with
Disney last October and kicked off the new service to sell popular
hits like Desperate Housewives and Lost, Apple sold more than eight
million videos and TV shows in the service's first three months.

[MUCH MORE]

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

SMS wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
>> Moreover, the carriers have been promoting handsets for data usage
>> which gives them a much greater pool of prospects to sell to.
>> Whether it is music, video, streaming radio or whatnot, today's 3G
>> handsets are perfectly capable of sucking down large amounts of
>> data. It might not be stored on the handset, but the network doesn't
>> care about that.
>
> They've been promoting it, but the adoption rates have been dismal. Do
> they really expect a huge market for watching videos on a 2" screen?

I think at this point they are willing to throw as much **** against the
wall as they can, and hope something sticks.


>
> Occasional web browsing and e-mail are what the masses will end up
> using their fancy handsets for.

If that. But you never know if the carriers will find that "killer app"
that finally reels in the masses. I'd guess they'd be perfectly happy
with $10-to-$15 data ARPUs. ;-)


--
Mike

John Navas wrote:
> Carriers are trying to differentiate the pricing for untethered (phone)
> use and tethered (computer) use.

WOW...now where did we hear that first??? SITYS

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44906f36$0$96934$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> With so much free wireless available, it'll really limit the number of
> non-power users that are willing to pay $60, or even $30, for more
> ubiquitous coverage.

As you allude to, the premise ("so much free wireless available") is not at
all true outside of large cities... and of course WiFi isn't viable at all
while on-the-road. Finally, I guarantee you that there are a lot of people
out there who can, e.g., have a friend setup a shortcut to their e-mail
account such that they can check if from their phone whenever they want, but
aren't quite up to setting up a WiFi connection every time they move to a
new location.

By the way, have you ever visited a *high end* hotel? Unlike the cheaper
ones, where WiFi is usually "free," at high end hotels they often charge you
something like $5-$15 *per day!* Talk about highway robbery...

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:449071cc$0$96914$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Sprint seems to have had an attitude adjustment recently.

Good points, although one move that was definitely in favor of "fast and
easy profits" was Sprint's dropping Vision plans that included unlimited SMS
messaging. Nothing wrong with that, of course, although it's clear what the
motivation is when you take a look at revenue per byte sent... *SMS messages
have the highest cost per byte sent* as well as not really driving network
buildout since they're not a real-time service.

But I would say the people I speak to at Sprint these days seem to try to be
more helpful and friendly than those of, say, 4 years ago.

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:gfm092dg80jpf8ijivsta78ihn8lsmpr5u@4ax.com...
> And though the technology is there to detect and stop
> terms-of-service violations, doing so could tarnish the image of 3G
> and lead to a backlash, said In-Stat analyst Allen Nogee.

I just don't see a backlash -- the people who Sprint "cut off" from
"unlimited" plans are those who statistically are QUITE the outliars. I
think it's pretty hard to argue that Sprint has "done you wrong" if the
average user downloaded, say, 10MB of data per month with their phone and
you downloaded 10GB.

> It may make sense to lock in an unlimited data package (as I have),
> since carriers have historically grandfathered in old packages
> indefinitely.

Good point...

> I covered that already, and data access on a PC is now being tracked by
> most carriers differently than handset usage. There's a reason for that.

You covered it? Okay.

Remember when dialup modems were charged by minutes per month! Wasn't that
long ago was it. It'll go down in price. Guaranteed. Just tell them, in two
years, that Frank guaranteed that it would be lower They'll honor it.
LOL!

-Frank

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:18:52 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
<JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in
<1291dbqi8ek5gb3@corp.supernews.com>:

>... and of course WiFi isn't viable at all
>while on-the-road.

WiMAX is.

>Finally, I guarantee you that there are a lot of people
>out there who can, e.g., have a friend setup a shortcut to their e-mail
>account such that they can check if from their phone whenever they want, but
>aren't quite up to setting up a WiFi connection every time they move to a
>new location.

Google Mail (free) has a slick WAP interface that works great from a
standard cell phone.

>By the way, have you ever visited a *high end* hotel? Unlike the cheaper
>ones, where WiFi is usually "free," at high end hotels they often charge you
>something like $5-$15 *per day!* Talk about highway robbery...

Depends. Some of the high-end hotels do have free Wi-Fi.

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

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:26:04 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
<JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in
<1291dpa6mp5s4f0@corp.supernews.com>:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:gfm092dg80jpf8ijivsta78ihn8lsmpr5u@4ax.com.. .
>> And though the technology is there to detect and stop
>> terms-of-service violations, doing so could tarnish the image of 3G
>> and lead to a backlash, said In-Stat analyst Allen Nogee.

For the record, that was a quote -- I didn't write that.

>I just don't see a backlash -- the people who Sprint "cut off" from
>"unlimited" plans are those who statistically are QUITE the outliars. I
>think it's pretty hard to argue that Sprint has "done you wrong" if the
>average user downloaded, say, 10MB of data per month with their phone and
>you downloaded 10GB.

There was a pretty big backlash on cable "abusers." Likewise "fair use"
on satellite Internet, which seemed to really chill the enthusiasm.

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

Joel Kolstad wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:44906f36$0$96934$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> With so much free wireless available, it'll really limit the number of
>> non-power users that are willing to pay $60, or even $30, for more
>> ubiquitous coverage.
>
> As you allude to, the premise ("so much free wireless available") is not at
> all true outside of large cities... and of course WiFi isn't viable at all
> while on-the-road. Finally, I guarantee you that there are a lot of people
> out there who can, e.g., have a friend setup a shortcut to their e-mail
> account such that they can check if from their phone whenever they want, but
> aren't quite up to setting up a WiFi connection every time they move to a
> new location.
>
> By the way, have you ever visited a *high end* hotel? Unlike the cheaper
> ones, where WiFi is usually "free," at high end hotels they often charge you
> something like $5-$15 *per day!* Talk about highway robbery...

In Asia, a lot of the high end hotels include either wired or wireless
access for the customers that join their rewards programs.

An occasional $5-10 per day isn't unreasonable.

Last time I was in NYC, my $300 per night hotel charged $10 per day for
high speed access, but there were plenty of free networks available.

I recently stayed at a Hampton Inn in Newark, N.J., and they had free
wired internet access in the room. There was a cable modem with about
10 feet of Cat 5 cable attached, so it could reach from the desk to the
bed.

Interestingly, I received a virus alert from my AV software while I was
browsing "safe" commercial sites. I do not believe the virus came from
a website, but rather straight from the internet connection. My AV
software did it's job, so no harm done. Normally I connect through my
wireless router with it's built-in firewall or through Cingular's
Laptop Connect service, and I do not see virus alerts like this.

John Navas wrote:

>
>
>>I just don't see a backlash -- the people who Sprint "cut off" from
>>"unlimited" plans are those who statistically are QUITE the outliars. I
>>think it's pretty hard to argue that Sprint has "done you wrong" if the
>>average user downloaded, say, 10MB of data per month with their phone and
>>you downloaded 10GB.
>
>
> There was a pretty big backlash on cable "abusers." Likewise "fair use"
> on satellite Internet, which seemed to really chill the enthusiasm.
>

I knew at least a dozen people who had the satellite Internet systems.
The deal breaker was the extremely high latency and low speeds (without
FAP) that weren't even close to what was promised. Also stuff like VPNs
don't work because of the latency.

Like a lot of things in life the most vocal people are always a small
minority especially in the case of someone with an entitlement mentality
who always wants more than their share. Remember the huge press coverage
that family got after being asked to leave a buffet after eating 10
pounds of meat?

Most people just want a reliable always on connection and don't stream
DVDs 24x7 .

Usually people who want AYCE are those who don't want to monitor their
usage but aren't pigs but they don't want surprises with overage charges.

Frankster wrote:
> The way I read it, the implications in the article are... they will have to
> stop freeloaders sooner or later, and, the rates will have to go up to
> support the supposed higher network demand in the future.

You know, I remember everyone saying the same thing about
all-you-can-eat *wired* broadband, such as DSL and cable. People were
worried about the 2-percenters... the fabled small minority of power
users who account for the vast majority of bandwidth usage. Comcast was
(and sometimes still is) down on anyone being a top talker on their
network, even though they never tell you what the threshold is.

Even so, most broadband networks haven't crashed in speed shortages yet.

>
> My personal view is... yes, they will have to stop freeloading, but the
> rates will go *down* due to higher consumer demand and use (if everybody
> wants data, and pays, the fee will not be so bad). Like the Internet
> globally, I believe the infrastructure will increase and eventually support
> lots of users on relatively low cost high speed access. Lower than the
> $59/mo today.

Hopefully so. Sprint's already going in that direction with the $39.99
PAM plan.


> Especially with all the FREE Internet stuff popping up all over. It will
> become harder and harder to pay for away-from-home Internet when it is
> available free in so many places with more popping up every day.

While that's true, WiFi has its issues. It takes a lot of money to
build out a seamless Wifi network. There's still no such thing as a
free lunch, and *someone* has to pay for these "free" networks. In
business establishments, usually it's built into the cost of drinks and
food (many are now requiring that you buy something in order to use the
"free" network). Even the municipal networks that are starting to spring
up are paid through government funds, which end up being paid by taxpayers.


So it's important to be careful when you refer to any network as "free."


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

> So it's important to be careful when you refer to any network as "free."
>

Yes, of course. Howevever, most (I thought all, but maybe not) business that
offer "free" access. do so simply for the increased walk-in traffic and
don't have any "minimum" purchase. Much like "free" TV in a sports bar.

-Frank

Isaiah Beard wrote:
> Frankster wrote:
>> The way I read it, the implications in the article are... they will
>> have to stop freeloaders sooner or later, and, the rates will have to
>> go up to support the supposed higher network demand in the future.
>
> You know, I remember everyone saying the same thing about
> all-you-can-eat *wired* broadband, such as DSL and cable. People were
> worried about the 2-percenters... the fabled small minority of power
> users who account for the vast majority of bandwidth usage. Comcast was
> (and sometimes still is) down on anyone being a top talker on their
> network, even though they never tell you what the threshold is.
>
> Even so, most broadband networks haven't crashed in speed shortages yet.
>
>>
>> My personal view is... yes, they will have to stop freeloading, but
>> the rates will go *down* due to higher consumer demand and use (if
>> everybody wants data, and pays, the fee will not be so bad). Like the
>> Internet globally, I believe the infrastructure will increase and
>> eventually support lots of users on relatively low cost high speed
>> access. Lower than the $59/mo today.
>
> Hopefully so. Sprint's already going in that direction with the $39.99
> PAM plan.
>
>
>> Especially with all the FREE Internet stuff popping up all over. It
>> will become harder and harder to pay for away-from-home Internet when
>> it is available free in so many places with more popping up every day.
>
> While that's true, WiFi has its issues. It takes a lot of money to
> build out a seamless Wifi network. There's still no such thing as a
> free lunch, and *someone* has to pay for these "free" networks. In
> business establishments, usually it's built into the cost of drinks and
> food (many are now requiring that you buy something in order to use the
> "free" network).

It's the opposite. The free WiFi is increasing the volume of food and
drink sold, driving down unit prices. In my area, it's good to see
Starbucks at a disadvantage, with their paid hot spots, versus a
plethora of better coffee places that provide free WiFI. If you divide
the cost of providing free WiFi by the number of espresso based drinks,
the burdened cost per drink of the WiFi is lost in the noise, maybe a
couple of cents per drink.

Of course, once every cafe and restaurant has free WiFi, the competitive
advantage may go away slightly, but it still drives more people out to
buy these ridiculously priced drinks.