Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Agreed, and I hope they don't. I'd love to see this happen as planned.
> Sprint's track record, however, is against them. IMHO, Sprint already
> offers the best wireless data option today in terms of coverage, speed
> and value, yet their marketing department can't sem to wrestle that
> business away from Verizon.

Verizon seems to have the high-end business market locked up, not
because of data, but because of the combination of voice coverage that
Sprint can't duplicate, data coverage that is almost as good as Sprint's
but far superior to Cingular's, and value-added services that Cingular
can't offer because their network doesn't support them.

I don't see any way for Sprint to overcome the issue of coverage.

> Similarly, if Sprint comes out of the gate at $50/month, Verizon or
> Cingular can just go to $30. They won't like it any more than Qwest
> likes their $25 price point, but the reality of the situation will force
> their hand.

Verizon hasn't participated in a lot of the price wars, or come up with
stuff like Sprint's short-lived "Fair and Flexible," Cingular's
rollover, or T-Mobile's and Alltel's calling circles.

> Yes and no- just as many folks have ditched their home phones rather than
> pay for both wireless and wireline, some folks will want to ditch wired
> broadband to avoid two bills as well, even if the speed isn't as fast as
> wired.

I would ditch the landline if not for DSL. I wouldn't mind 1.5MB/s
service for home use.

> (Quasi-off-topic, but related, I've often wondered why no wireless
> carrier has ever offered a pay-per-day cellular data option to go after
> the airport/hotel wi-fi hotspot market.

For the same reason that they aren't really interested in pay-per-use
text messaging. If they priced it reasonably, the believe that it would
affect sales of their data plans.

> Consumers care about the benefits, not the underlying technology. In a
> world where it took nearly a decade for the public to learn TiVo was more
> than a tapeless VCR, I suspect Cingular and Verizon will still be selling
> 3G data long after WiMax finally launches.

Hmm, you mean Tivo isn't just a DVR?

---

› See More: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:27:26 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Agreed, and I hope they don't. I'd love to see this happen as planned.
>> Sprint's track record, however, is against them. IMHO, Sprint already
>> offers the best wireless data option today in terms of coverage, speed
>> and value, yet their marketing department can't sem to wrestle that
>> business away from Verizon.
>
>Verizon seems to have the high-end business market locked up, not
>because of data, but because of the combination of voice coverage that
>Sprint can't duplicate, data coverage that is almost as good as Sprint's
>but far superior to Cingular's, and value-added services that Cingular
>can't offer because their network doesn't support them.

AT&T/Cingular is actually quite strong in the business market thanks to
the strength of ATTWS in that market and current business offerings from
AT&T/Cingular that are easily as strong as Verizon.

>I don't see any way for Sprint to overcome the issue of coverage.

As the recent devastating loss of government business clearly shows,
Sprint is still struggling to realize the Nextel merger, and faces
further challenges in its big all-or-nothing bet on WiMAX.

>> Yes and no- just as many folks have ditched their home phones rather than
>> pay for both wireless and wireline, some folks will want to ditch wired
>> broadband to avoid two bills as well, even if the speed isn't as fast as
>> wired.
>
>I would ditch the landline if not for DSL. I wouldn't mind 1.5MB/s
>service for home use.

I've long since ditched landline. HSDPA is quite sufficient for my own
needs, and probably those of most of the average users -- the battle
between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
to most users.

>> (Quasi-off-topic, but related, I've often wondered why no wireless
>> carrier has ever offered a pay-per-day cellular data option to go after
>> the airport/hotel wi-fi hotspot market.
>
>For the same reason that they aren't really interested in pay-per-use
>text messaging. If they priced it reasonably, the believe that it would
>affect sales of their data plans.

That makes no sense. In fact, just the opposite is probably true, that
pay-per-day customers have the potential to become regular subscribers.
The obvious real problems are complexity and cost.

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

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:11:25 GMT, Paul Miner <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:40:32 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've long since ditched landline. HSDPA is quite sufficient for my own
>>needs, and probably those of most of the average users -- the battle
>>between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
>>to most users.
>
>I was under the impression that the battle between cable and DSL had
>come down overwhelmingly in favor of cable, indicating that most
>people are swayed by the higher speed, even though most of those same
>people probably only use/need a fraction of that speed.

Cable grabbed market share early, but DSL has been taking market share
lately, largely with lower pricing. See " DSL Is America's Choice for
Broadband" (June 2006) <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-147036176.html>

More Than Half of New Broadband Subscribers Now Choose DSL Over
Cable

As Many as One in Seven New Verizon Online DSL Customers Have
Switched From Cable

U.S. Broadband Penetration to Hit 60% in 2007, Led by DSL Growth
<http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-broadband-penetration-hit-60/story.aspx?guid=%7B81E650BB-CF55-4648-B960-BDFDBDC87B95%7D>
January 2007

About 60 percent of all U.S. homes will subscribe to broadband
service by the end of the year, but cable operators will come
precariously close to losing their majority market share, Pike &
Fischer concludes in a new report published by its Broadband Advisory
Services unit.

Cable operators will see their share of the high-speed Internet
market fall to slightly more than 50 percent as adoption of standard
DSL and, to an increasing extent, fiber to the home or node (FTTx),
continues to help the major telephone companies net the largest
number of new broadband customers, Pike & Fischer forecasts in its
"Broadband Business Outlook 2007."

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

At 11 Apr 2007 10:27:26 -0700 SMS wrote:

> I don't see any way for Sprint to overcome the issue of coverage.

Nationwide, Sprint's coverage tends to be better, IMHO, because they
allow roaming on Verizon and smaller CDMA/AMPS carriers where necessary,
while a Verizon customer's roaming abilities on currently-offered plans
is more limited.

> Verizon hasn't participated in a lot of the price wars, or come up
> with stuff like Sprint's short-lived "Fair and Flexible," Cingular's
> rollover, or T-Mobile's and Alltel's calling circles.


Because they sell on the strength (real or perceived) of "the Network."
If a new ubiquitous technology challenged that, they'd compete with it if
forced to.

> > (Quasi-off-topic, but related, I've often wondered why no wireless
> > carrier has ever offered a pay-per-day cellular data option to go
after
> > the airport/hotel wi-fi hotspot market.
>
> For the same reason that they aren't really interested in pay-per-use
> text messaging. If they priced it reasonably, the believe that it would
> affect sales of their data plans.

True, but the solution there would be to price it "unreasonably"- $10/day
vs. $70/month. Wireless carriers certainly don't mind charging you
$0.15/text if you insist on pay-per-use- they just hope it will convince
you to buy a bundle. A $10/day data access charge would similarly
encourage some to buy the "bundle" (a monthly plan) and allow the carrier
to still milk those customers who refuse to invest in a monthly plan.

> > it took nearly a decade for the public to learn TiVo was more
> > than a tapeless VCR...

> Hmm, you mean Tivo isn't just a DVR?

It IS a DVR- what I said was it's more than just a tapeless _VCR_. The
major difference they had to communicate to the consumer was a DVR's
ability to manipulate live televison (pause for a potty break, replay the
dialog you missed when the actor mumbled, make your own instant-replay or
slo-mo in the big game, etc.) rather than sell it as a fancy tapeless VCR
with easy-to-use menus and a difficult-to-justify monthly fee.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Paul Miner wrote:

> I was under the impression that the battle between cable and DSL had
> come down overwhelmingly in favor of cable, indicating that most
> people are swayed by the higher speed, even though most of those same
> people probably only use/need a fraction of that speed.

No, according to industry reports, DSL has been the big winner, due to
price. In terms of market share, cable led, barely, at the end of 2006
(50% to 47%) but DSL is signing up a lot more new subscribers, so by now
it may be about equal.

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Nationwide, Sprint's coverage tends to be better, IMHO, because they
> allow roaming on Verizon and smaller CDMA/AMPS carriers where necessary,
> while a Verizon customer's roaming abilities on currently-offered plans
> is more limited.

But Sprint doesn't allow roaming onto Verizon in Sprint dead spots, only
in markets where Sprint doesn't have a network, unless things have
changed recently.

I live in one of those markets with poor Sprint coverage. Sprint (and
T-Mobile) are constantly showing up at planning commission meetings
asking for permission for new towers, and most of their requests are
turned down. They try to explain that due to their later entry into the
market that they have a different system than Verizon and Cingular, one
that requires more towers, but the neighbors always prevail. There is no
upside to these planning commissioners, most of whom want to run for
higher office, upsetting potential voters. Most of these planning
commissioners are real estate people or developers, and they don't
understand the difference in range between 1900 MHz PCS, and 800 MHz
cellular.

> you to buy a bundle. A $10/day data access charge would similarly
> encourage some to buy the "bundle" (a monthly plan) and allow the carrier
> to still milk those customers who refuse to invest in a monthly plan.

That's what I would like to believe. Maybe they could offer pay per use
only to their cellular voice customers to at least try to gain some
market share out of the deal.

> It IS a DVR- what I said was it's more than just a tapeless _VCR_. The
> major difference they had to communicate to the consumer was a DVR's
> ability to manipulate live televison (pause for a potty break, replay the
> dialog you missed when the actor mumbled, make your own instant-replay or
> slo-mo in the big game, etc.) rather than sell it as a fancy tapeless VCR
> with easy-to-use menus and a difficult-to-justify monthly fee.

It still has a difficult to justify monthly fee, considering Myth TV's
lack of a monthly charge, plus its superior capabilities.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:32:14 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>I live in one of those markets with poor Sprint coverage. Sprint (and
>T-Mobile) are constantly showing up at planning commission meetings
>asking for permission for new towers, and most of their requests are
>turned down. They try to explain that due to their later entry into the
>market that they have a different system than Verizon and Cingular, one
>that requires more towers, but the neighbors always prevail. There is no
>upside to these planning commissioners, most of whom want to run for
>higher office, upsetting potential voters.

The law actually doesn't work that way -- it's actually hard to block
towers. I'm guessing you haven't actually been to many if any such
meetings in the past several years.

>Most of these planning
>commissioners are real estate people or developers, and they don't
>understand the difference in range between 1900 MHz PCS, and 800 MHz
>cellular.

There is no real difference in urban areas, as I've explained a number
of times.

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

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Agreed, and I hope they don't. I'd love to see this happen as
>> planned. Sprint's track record, however, is against them. IMHO,
>> Sprint already offers the best wireless data option today in terms of
>> coverage, speed and value, yet their marketing department can't sem
>> to wrestle that business away from Verizon.
>
> Verizon seems to have the high-end business market locked up, not
> because of data, but because of the combination of voice coverage that
> Sprint can't duplicate,

Is there a study out there that I'm not aware of?

> data coverage that is almost as good as
> Sprint's but far superior to Cingular's, and value-added services that
> Cingular can't offer because their network doesn't support them.
>
> I don't see any way for Sprint to overcome the issue of coverage.

Overlay the maps, Steve. They are already there, except for a few remote
areas of the country that very few people travel to or through.

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



>
> As the recent devastating loss of government business clearly shows,
> Sprint is still struggling to realize the Nextel merger, and faces
> further challenges in its big all-or-nothing bet on WiMAX.

You'll need something more than a basic consumer opinion here, Johnny. The
big kids took this thread over a long time ago. Why don't you get back on
your tricycle and go find somebody more in line with your knowledge base.
I'm sure the kids down the street will be awed with your opinions.

Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:40:32 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've long since ditched landline. HSDPA is quite sufficient for my own
>>needs, and probably those of most of the average users -- the battle
>>between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
>>to most users.
>
> I was under the impression that the battle between cable and DSL had
> come down overwhelmingly in favor of cable, indicating that most
> people are swayed by the higher speed, even though most of those same
> people probably only use/need a fraction of that speed.
>

And only get a fraction of the speed. You are right- the telcos got caught
with their pants down while cable soared past them in terms of subscribers.

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


> <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-147036176.html>
>

Wow- was this the second or third link that came up in Google? higbeam.com
is always at the top of my reading list.

Scott wrote:

> Verizon is not the be-
> all, end-all carrier. The fact is that nobody is. The quicker you accept
> this fact, the easier it is to see the world in real terms.

I have never stated that Verizon was the be-all, end-all, etc.

However there is a reason why they are consistently rated as having the
best coverage and quality by every major independent survey--surveys
with huge sample sizes, with methodology beyond question. If you look at
the carrier maps for the metro areas that these surveys cover, you'll
find that they show coverage that is about equal among all the carriers,
yet clearly the carriers are not equal in coverage, as the survey
results show. Surely you're not going to pull a Navas and start making
ridiculous statements about the surveys from CR, JDP, YG, etc.!

> Verizon has coverage holes. Stones in glass houses, Steve.

You said for every Sprint hole that there was a corresponding Verizon
hole. If that were true, and the holes were of equal size, then Sprint
would not be rated so poorly in comparison.

I can't use Sprint. There are large gaps in coverage in the city I live
in, as well as surrounding cities, gaps that don't exist for Verizon.
The reasons are PCS versus Cellular bands, as well as fewer cell sites.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:55:21 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> Verizon is not the be-
>> all, end-all carrier. The fact is that nobody is. The quicker you accept
>> this fact, the easier it is to see the world in real terms.
>
>I have never stated that Verizon was the be-all, end-all, etc.

Now that's funny! LOL

>You said for every Sprint hole that there was a corresponding Verizon
>hole. If that were true, and the holes were of equal size, then Sprint
>would not be rated so poorly in comparison.

Differences in ratings are actually relatively small, on the order of
the sampling error, in addition to being based on badly flawed
methodology (e.g., lumping together of iDEN and CDMA2000, making the
result not meaningful for either).

>I can't use Sprint. There are large gaps in coverage in the city I live
>in, as well as surrounding cities, gaps that don't exist for Verizon.

You've made it clear that you only like Verizon. Fair enough. No
reason to constantly dis other carriers the way you do.

>The reasons are PCS versus Cellular bands, as well as fewer cell sites.

Those aren't real reasons.

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

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.