Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 116
  1. #46
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    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.



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




  2. #47
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    Tinman wrote:

    > At $5 I very likely would have gone for that WiFi offer in Houston. ^_^


    Yes, that's the problem I have at airports. I'm not paying $10 for what
    will likely be less than one hour of use. But I might pay $10 for a
    whole day of cellular data use.



  3. #48
    SMS
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    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.



  4. #49
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:07:07 -0600, Todd Allcock
    <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

    > At 11 Apr 2007 17:01:33 +0000 John Navas wrote:
    >
    >> The problems I see are complexity and cost. My experience is that:
    >> * It has to be dead simple (like Wi-Fi hotspot login by account or
    >> credit card)

    >
    >Agreed- a simple to remember login page URL could handle that, with
    >authentication handled by the customer's existing account credentials .
    >(A "click-to-buy a day pass billed to your account" link.)


    No need for a URL -- like a Wi-Fi hotspot, the system could be
    configured to do that automatically for those without a data package.
    The problems are:
    1. Getting to that point (installing, configuring, and tethering).
    2. Lack of support in current infrastructure.

    >> + Even swapping a SIM card is an issue

    >
    >Which is why using your existing phone with a data cable would be the
    >ideal configuration.


    The advantage of a SIM card swap is selling data-only SIM cards, just
    like prepaid SIM cards sold overseas. The problem of not doing a swap
    is building the infrastructure to handle it, which because of roaming
    issues, is a non-trivial longer-term problem.

    >> + The multitude of cables and drivers would make SKUs a nightmare.

    >
    >You'd limit the number of SKUs to ubiquitous models or brands with fairly
    >standard connectors across models, (i.e. like the RAZR, Nokia pop-port,
    >etc.) and cheaper CD-only kits for smartphones that come with sync
    >cables, like Treos, Blackberries and xx25 WinMo phones. Five or six SKUs
    >Could target a good percentage of the customer base, at least for an
    >initial trial.


    Sure, but that's still a big hassle, and a source of resentment amoung
    those not covered. I think it's a big issue.

    >> What's needed is a universal mini-USB cable standard and universal
    >> USB modem driver.

    >
    >One CD could have modem drivers and configurations for all supported
    >models. Auto-detect if possible, or pick your phone from the picture.
    >Install drivers and the connection interfact wizard, plug in the data
    >cable, log into, say, www.cingularhotspot.com and click to buy.


    You're presupposing foolproof software that would be VERY difficult to
    write. Look at how many people already have problems with Motorola
    Phone Tools and Cingular Communication Manager.

    >> * $20 is pretty much the limit for one-shot impulse buys.

    >
    >> Require a (say) $40 "starter kit" and I think the potential market
    >> shrinks dramatically.

    >
    >Perhaps, but that's around what a data card typically costs with a 2-year
    >committment. This would be committment-free and could include any number
    >of free day-passes needed to give it the required perceived value.


    Passes make it unattractive to the carrier. I just don't see it as
    workable with current technology.

    >When Cingular launched TDMA data east of the Rockies in the late 90s,
    >that's basically how they sold it- a $30 data cable and CD set ($20 for
    >just the CD for IR-enabled phones like my Nokia 7160) and $4/month for
    >CSD access using plan minutes. Good times! If you asked a CSR how to
    >configure, for example, a DUN connection, they'd robotically walk you
    >through the steps of installing your DataConnect CD. If you wanted to
    >use unsupported OSes or DUN, you could, but you were on your own.


    And it was pretty much a flop, especially from the carrier point of
    view, due to high cost and low return, which is why carriers now focus
    on packages.

    The biggest issue with your low cost package idea is that support cost
    has to be essentially zero, that it has to be easy and foolproof and
    ubiquitous, which I don't think is possible with current technology.

    >> There's also the issue of billing data by clock time instead of by
    >> amount of data (or connect time), which isn't currently available in
    >> carrier infrastructure.

    >
    >That's a minor issue- they do it now, except by the month instead of
    >by the day. You'd need to add a one-day unlimited plan billing code,
    >and a systemic way for it to expire without a live CSR having to cancel
    >it- not that big of a deal.


    In concept, perhaps, but not in actuality -- because of necessary
    infrastructure (backend systems) and roaming, it's actually a big issue
    -- what's needed just doesn't exist in current infrastructure.

    >> What I think might have some hope of success would be a USB cellular
    >> data modem (that might emulate a USB Bluetooth dongle to piggyback on
    >> native OS driver support) if cost could be kept down to say $20-30 (with
    >> a modest amount of bundled data).

    >
    >That could certainly work if you could keep the hardware costs low
    >enough. I don't see it happening at $30 without a carrer subsidy


    I'm pretty sure it could be done for $30 even without a carrier subsidy
    given sufficient volume.

    >however, which wouldn't make much sense without a committment.


    I don't see that as a big issue -- it's roughly the same basic business
    model as cheap prepaid phones.

    >My
    >suggestion uses existing customer equipment and carrier resources, making
    >it easy to expand to include your concept later, if successful, and
    >(relatively) cheap to bail out of if not!


    What you propose is neither cheap nor easy -- you're dismissing some
    very big problems out of hand.

    >> Racks in local retailers? Again, the problem I see is support: "Hey!
    >> I bought this from you, and it doesn't work!"

    >
    >Wow! You have an even lower opinion of the average consumer than I do!
    > ;-)
    >
    >No, I envisioned this as something only the wireless provider's company
    >stores would offer just for those reasons.


    Then you wipe out a huge part of the market -- there are far from enough
    company stores -- you have to at least serve the mass retailers, if not
    local retail and kiosks.

    >Heck, the average big-box
    >retail customer can't buy the right car-charger for their phone unaided
    >50% of the time.


    Which is why accessories are so hard to find; i.e., retailers won't put
    up with the SKUs and hassles at those price points. Cingular sells data
    cables alone for $30 that it probably sources for less than $1 in China.

    >But if company store employees matched the right data
    >cable for the customer who then runs the included config CD on his
    >laptop, it wouldn't be any more complicated than installing a USB Wi-Fi
    >dongle.


    Sorry, but I don't think that either practical or sufficiently
    broad-based.

    >Limit the SKUs to a number of high-end data phones (who's owners
    >hopefully have some tech savvy) and ubiquitous models (i.e. the Razr)


    There aren't enough of those to solve the problem, not to mention the
    resentment of those not covered. "You just sold me this phone last
    week, and now you tell me it won't do Daytripper Data?!"

    >for
    >mass consumption,


    I think you've put on way too many limitations for mass consumption.

    >and you have a fairly workable model, IMHO.


    I don't think you're even close.

    >> If you really think it's that good an opportunity, form an MVNO and go
    >> for it yourself!

    >
    >I think it's a good opportunity for existing carriers to leverage assets
    >already in use for incremental revenue.


    They obviously disagree. Given current technology, I think they are
    right

    >As an MVNO model, it would need cheap equipment not currently available
    >(unsubsidized data cards/dongles are nowhere near the sub-$40 mark they'd
    >have to be,)


    Just takes capital/volume, as in the case of voice handsets. The real
    problem is lack of apparent demand/volume.

    >willing carriers (the big four carriers, particularly
    >Cingular, generally do not wholesale data to MVNOs in fear that it would
    >cannibalize their postpaid business,


    I don't think that's actually an issue. The real problem again is
    lack of apparent demand.

    >and no MVNO, even the few that
    >support non "walled-garden" data, like STI or Amp'd, supports prepaid
    >tethering) and a ton of advertising to get the word out to the potential
    >custmer base.


    Capital again. Then there's the problem of having your business model
    broken by heavy (ab)users, who are typical early adopters. It only
    works if you heavily penetrate the light use masses. Or you have to go
    with the additional negative of a Fair Usage cap.

    >My suggestion was targeting a carrier's existing customer base, using
    >their own existing equipment to keep startup costs low for both customer
    >and carrier (other than some minor backend billing changes and a few new
    >"try this out" links on the WAP deck homepage) and the customer
    >convenience of having almost everything they need to use it already,
    >including an account with the provider.


    I know that -- I just don't think it would work, as I've been trying to
    explain.

    >As a parallel, how popular would casual text messaging be if you had to
    >buy a separate device and a separate prepaid account to use it?


    Separate pagers were actually a big market that only went away when
    "free" cell phones took over.

    >The
    >attractiveness of my suggestion is largely in the impulse of reuse: you,
    >your laptop, and your Treo or Razr find themselves in a hotel without Wi-
    >Fi (or a resort hotel with $10-20/day Wi-Fi) and you can fire up the
    >DataConnection software already on the laptop and plug in the sync/charge
    >cable you're already carrying to charge the phone, and connect for $5.99
    >or whatever.


    It's attractive only because you're making lots of assumptions that just
    aren't valid in my opinion -- I think it's clearly a big money loser for
    the carrier at that price point with current technology. You have to do
    something much different to make it financially viable.

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



  5. #50
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:05:46 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >Todd Allcock wrote:
    >> At 11 Apr 2007 14:08:04 +0000 John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >>> I think they see tech support as the killer -- low price packages are
    >>> only viable with _zero_ support, and cellular data isn't (yet at least)
    >>> foolproof enough to make that work.

    >>
    >> Good point- I was actually going to address that issue but left it out
    >> for brevity!
    >>
    >> It seems to me that you could avoid (or at least recoup) support costs
    >> "upfront" with a good overpriced install CD/data cable kit

    >
    >The support issues largely go away when you use a CardBus or ExpressCard
    >wireless modem.


    Complete nonsense.

    >Sell those for $50, then charge $10 per day for access.


    Can't do it at that price point.

    >They won't do it because they think it would hurt sales of the monthly
    >data plans.


    They won't do it because it's too hard, and not financially attractive
    due to limited demand.

    >Just like they are trying to discourage text messaging
    >without a monthly texting plan.


    They are just trying to make it financially viable.

    >The few places where many people might even want the cellular data often
    >have pay as you go WiFi available.


    Ubiquitous cellular data has many advantages over Wi-Fi. The problem is
    that it currently has many disadvantages, especially cost and
    complexity.

    >Personally I'd pay $5 a day for wireless data on a pay per use basis,
    >even if I had to buy a modem. Maybe I'd find it indispensable and sign
    >up for a monthly plan, but it's unlikely/


    At that price point it's unattractive to the carrier.

    You might as well say you'd rent a BMW if the cost were $5 a day.

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



  6. #51
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:37:47 -0700, "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in
    <[email protected]>:

    >"SMS" wrote:


    >> The support issues largely go away when you use a CardBus or ExpressCard
    >> wireless modem. Sell those for $50, then charge $10 per day for access.

    >
    >This is exactly what I would like to see! I'd even pay more for the card, if
    >that $50 is subsidized. And it would be fantastic if an inactivated card
    >redirected Web browsing to an easy sign up page--like WiFi networks do.


    That's done by the access point, not the wireless adapter. That's why
    I'm saying the infrastructure would have to be upgraded to make that
    work, a non-trivial problem.

    >> Personally I'd pay $5 a day for wireless data on a pay per use basis, even
    >> if I had to buy a modem. Maybe I'd find it indispensable and sign up for a
    >> monthly plan, but it's unlikely/

    >
    >At $5 I very likely would have gone for that WiFi offer in Houston. ^_^


    At $5 I'd take the BMW over the Civic. And what you propose is about as
    likely.

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



  7. #52
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    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>



  8. #53
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

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

    a isn't (yet at
    > least) foolproof enough to make that work.
    >
    >>I thought (but could certainly be mistaken) that Sprint has promised
    >>to keep iDen up for certain large corporate/Govrnment customers.

    >
    > As part of the Nextel spectrum deal, Sprint _must_ free up that
    > spectrum.


    Almost true, but not really and very misleading. Sprint is getting
    replacement spectrum for the 800 mHz spectrum Nextel agreed to give up.
    The spectrum gained would be very attractive for wImAX USE.



    >
    >>> Then explain why Cingular says it is years away from having anything
    >>> even resembling 4G technology (their words, not mine).

    >>
    >>Because, IMHO, they'll look to incremental technologies as stopgaps
    >>(some form of "3.5G") Again, look at the DSL vs. cable example- if
    >>they sell it cheap enough, they can keep 3G as viable then as 1.5Mbs
    >>DSL is today. For example, Alltel still sells 1x today, and T-Mo still
    >>sells EDGE. Current-day 3G certainly puts them at a disadvantage, but
    >>it hasn't put them out of the data game. They compensate by selling
    >>it cheap, and/or focusing on a less-sophisticated lower-requirement
    >>market.

    >
    > HSDPA/HSUPA is the current cellular data technology leader, and more
    > than enough to put Cingular in the game IMHO.


    Absolutely untrue. It doesn't lead in any avaialable metric and many of
    the claims of higher potential are vaporware. HSDPA/HSUPA is simple
    pedestrian 3g technology, nothing more.


    >
    >>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.

    >
    > It remains to be seen if WiMAX will live up to the hype, and I know
    > some very good engineers that don't think it possibly can.



    Great- quote them by name or admit that you are lying. And for every
    engineer that you can make up, I'll post the opinion of a real engineer
    willing to stake their own reputation on their public opinion.



    > Challenges
    > include a general lack of uniform and suitable spectrum (as in India),


    Who gives a **** about India? Last time I checked, this was a US
    implementation we were discussing.

    > radio interference
    > <http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=107274> and cell-to-cell
    > suppression, lack of enthusiasm in Europe, and continued delays.



    >
    > "Did Clearwire Hurt WiMAX?"
    > <http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=21618

    &hed=Did+Clearwire+Hurt+
    > WiMAX%3F>
    >


    redherring.com? I'm glad you chose an unbiased view (sarcasm
    intended).



  9. #54
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > At 10 Apr 2007 23:09:10 -0500 Scott wrote:
    >
    >> If they screw
    >> this one up, they deserve everything coming to them.

    >
    > 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.
    >
    > I have every faith in Sprint from a technological standpoint- I just
    > shudder at the thought of how the rest of the company can screw it up!
    >
    >> Yep- just like cable broadband five years ago- the priciest option,
    >> far above DSL and dialup. But it had a differentiator that justified
    >> the high price- speed. DSL was certainly a viable option for many
    >> folks, but cable growth exploded, despite the price. With volume
    >> came competition and now pricing is very reasonable. My cable
    >> broadband costs me half of what it did five years ago with three
    >> times the speed.

    >
    >
    > True- my point is that your local telco can't match the speed, so
    > they're probably undercutting cable's price. Here in Denver, Qwest
    > can't match Comcast's 6-8Mbs speed, so they sell 1.5Mbs for $25- half
    > of Comcast's $50.


    Oh, I'm well aware of the pricing of both companies (Colorado Springs
    here) and I also know that depite the pricing difference, Comcast and
    crew (Adelphia and Time Warner) grew their high speed customer base at
    an incredible rate over the last five years in Colorado, in spite of the
    pricing difference. I would venture to guess that cable broadband
    market share in the metro Denver area is on a par with DSL service.

    >
    >
    > 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.
    >


    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.

    >
    >> But Sprint has already come out and said that they are not targeting

    > the
    >> wired market. In fact, they have announced their true target as
    >> small and mid-size businesses needing mobility with data. The wired
    >> market can price itself however it wants and have no effect on mobile
    >> data. The comparison is the same as trying to compare wireless and
    >> wireline phones- both have their uses and yet both work independent
    >> of each

    > other
    >> in the market.

    >
    >
    > 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. 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.

    >
    >> Another thing to keep in mind are the joint ventures Sprint has
    >> signed with the big cable companies (Time Warner, Comcast and Cox)
    >> where they are providing voice capabilities for these companies to
    >> bundle with their other services. The winning money is on Sprint
    >> being able to bundle WiMax as well.

    >
    > It would be a good synergy- the cable cos. could advertise the ability
    > to "take your broadband with you", while Sprint ensures a significant
    > number of clients have a wired broadband solution at home totake some
    > strain off of WiMax.


    Exactly.

    >
    >> > That leaves WiMax to the customers
    >> > willing to pay a premium for mobiity- essentially the same market
    >> > that exists today, (except the actual dollar amounts will be lower
    >> > than today

    >>
    >> Not true, because many of the strings attached to wireless data today
    >> won't be in play. The technology will be embedded in consumer

    > products,
    >> no multi-year service agreements will be needed, casual use will be
    >> in play and the consumer bases their needs on the full range of
    >> technology available in the market and not just those spoecific to a
    >> particular provider.

    >
    > That's a double-edged sword however. Cingular and Verizon could "cut
    > the strings" attached to traditional wireless data tomorrow if need be
    > to remain competitive.


    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.

    >
    > And a "no contract/no committment/casual use" model will only be
    > effective when they're the only (national) game in town. Evenually
    > it'll be a low-margin dog-eat-dog business just like cellular.


    Only if everybody is willing to spend more money than Sprint (spectrum
    will be an issue for everybody else) which will put even more strain on
    the bottom line if bargain price is the way they enter the market.

    >
    > (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. With the large number
    > of Treos, Blackberrys and WinMo phones out there now you could sell a
    > USB cable to customers to avoid the need for a data card and charge
    > $5/day or whatever to infrequent travellers and business people who
    > need occasional data but don't use enough to justify a $70/month plan
    > with two-year committment.)
    >
    >
    >> In short, the customer buys the toy they want and then
    >> subscibes to the service (much like an ISP). With Sprint aanouncing
    >> back in January that a price point of $40-50 was possible, making it
    >> comparable to unbundled cable broadband.

    >
    > But pricing it there will encourage it's use as a primary broadband
    > service for people who are willing to sacrifice higher speeds at home
    > to cut down on monthly bills. (Two of my relatives use cellular data
    > for both home and work. They put up with the lower speed cellular
    > data at home to avoid paying for a second internet provider.) If
    > Sprint has the bandwidth for that, great, if not, they'd better get
    > started working on those Terms of Service documents now! ;-)


    And I'm sure they are well aware of that sector of the potential
    customer base. Hell, I'd drop Comcast in a heartbeat for a viable
    wireless alternative, even at the expense of a little speed. One thing
    that many fail to recognize with calbe high speed is that the advertised
    speed is rarely (if ever) seen by customers. I have yet to see even
    half of the advertised 6mbps. That said, the speed that I do see is
    more than sufficient for anything I need to do (including VPN connection
    to the office to work at home). It's possible that WiMax could come
    close enough to what I have now to make the transition seamless.

    >
    >> WiMax makes much more efficient use of the spectrum in play than any
    >> of the cellular technologies in play today and will therefore handle
    >> much more traffic than a conventional cellular network. Another
    >> thing to keep in mind are all of the Nextel iDen licenses that the
    >> company owns.

    >
    >> If additional spectrum is needed, the inevitable sunsetting of the
    >> iDen network could free up that frequency band to use.

    >
    > I thought (but could certainly be mistaken) that Sprint has promised
    > to keep iDen up for certain large corporate/Govrnment customers.


    Sprint promised to keep it on until around 2010 (?). After that, all
    bets are off.


    >
    >> All they would have
    >> to do is provide dual frequency technology to their users, which
    >> would never know the difference.

    >
    > I assume you mean giving them CDMA/iDen handsets, not putting iDen
    > capacity at 1900MHz


    No- I was talking about dedicating two different spectrum bands to WiMax
    and developing dual mode technology to allow a greater availability of
    unused network.

    >
    >> You're still comparing apples to oranges- this is not a voice
    >> network.

    >
    > True, but they share much in common- while data networks don't have to
    > be as reliable on a second-by-second basis (a "dropped call" is much
    > more of a problem than a dropped packet or three) people will still
    > want reliable, ubiquitous service with a high uptime percentage.


    Agreed.

    >
    >> > Seriously, they can "propose" any business model they want- but
    >> > I'll believe it when I'm holding a Sprint WiMax card in my hand.

    >>
    >> The same could be said for the iPhone, true high speed GSM data and a
    >> myriad of other things that a number of companies are banking on as
    >> well. What are the effects on Cingular if the iPhone is junk right
    >> out of the box?

    >
    >
    > Frankly, minimal. It will have been a costly mistake, but not $10
    > billion worth! ;-)
    >
    > Plus the iPhone, for all of it's hype, is not a new technology, nor
    > will it make or break Cingular. If it tanks, they cut the price to
    > the $300 it should be selling for anyway and sell them out of their
    > lives, and it ends up on an "Apple's Greatest Mistakes" museum shelf
    > in 100 years next to Lisa and Newton!


    And over a million customers (I believe that's the number Cingular says
    are on the preorder list) walk away extremely unhappy. The public
    backlash could cause a mass exodus, a la their handling of the ATT
    network integration. The press gets a hold of it and all of a sudden
    they have a bigger problem.

    >
    > Equally importantly, however, if iPhone is a success, even a RAZR-like
    > one, the rewards won't be nearly as great as if WiMax is as success.
    > It's certainly a risk/reward thing.


    Agreed.

    >
    >
    >> > they just aren't talking about the future as much as Sprint is,
    >> > because right
    >> > now Sprint desperately needs to talk about the future to take Wall
    >> > Street's mind off the present.

    >>
    >> Then explain why Cingular says it is years away from having anything
    >> even resembling 4G technology (their words, not mine).

    >
    > Because, IMHO, they'll look to incremental technologies as stopgaps
    > (some form of "3.5G") Again, look at the DSL vs. cable example- if
    > they sell it cheap enough, they can keep 3G as viable then as 1.5Mbs
    > DSL is today. For example, Alltel still sells 1x today, and T-Mo still
    > sells EDGE. Current-day 3G certainly puts them at a disadvantage, but
    > it hasn't put them out of the data game. They compensate by selling
    > it cheap, and/or focusing on a less-sophisticated lower-requirement
    > market.


    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.

    >
    >> Verizon is
    >> putting all of its technology apples into mobile mini-TV. Neither
    >> company has introduced anything of merit in two years, unless you
    >> care to count the incredible PTT products they both introduced.

    >
    >:-)
    >
    >
    >> The reason Sprint is in the condition it is is because of that same
    >> mentality- they waited for the market to materialize before getting

    > into
    >> it (see the Razr as a prime example). Even with no technology
    >> changes, it will take almost two years of less than stellar
    >> financials before they recover form these decisions. Cingular took
    >> well over a year to recover from the merger financially, again with
    >> no change in

    > technology.
    >> Throw in a major technology change and ask yourself this question-
    >> how much additional time does that add to the recovery period of any

    > company
    >> left in the dust?

    >
    >
    > 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.


    Agreed, but it is the technology that gives benefit to the customer.
    They may not care about it, but they rely on it to grow and give the
    latest/greatest.

    >
    > (Excellent discussion, BTW, thank you for your insights!)
    >


    Yeah- nice to see that the true spirit of Usenet is still alive.



  10. #55
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

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

    > 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.
    >
    >>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%. ("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.



  11. #56
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    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.





  12. #57
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    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.




  13. #58
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    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.



  14. #59
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

    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.



  15. #60
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream

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

    > Oh, I'm well aware of the pricing of both companies (Colorado Springs
    > here) and I also know that depite the pricing difference, Comcast and
    > crew (Adelphia and Time Warner) grew their high speed customer base at
    > an incredible rate over the last five years in Colorado, in spite of

    the
    > pricing difference. I would venture to guess that cable broadband
    > market share in the metro Denver area is on a par with DSL service.


    Agreed. I'd probably be a Comcast broadband customer today (I was one in
    Kansas City) but when I moved here my neighborhood had DSL, but not
    Comcast. (They brought broadband here about a year later.) Apathy being
    what it is, I've stuck with Qwest, since I can get landline and DSL for
    the price of cable broadband, albeit with a slower (but "good enough")
    connection.

    > 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! ;-)


    > > 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?

    > 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.

    > > Evenually
    > > it'll be a low-margin dog-eat-dog business just like cellular.

    >
    > Only if everybody is willing to spend more money than Sprint (spectrum
    > will be an issue for everybody else) which will put even more strain on
    > the bottom line if bargain price is the way they enter the market.


    If WiMax is as successful as you seem to think it will be, competitors
    will spend what it takes.


    > I was talking about dedicating two different spectrum bands to WiMax
    > and developing dual mode technology to allow a greater availability of
    > unused network.


    Now you want your cake and ea it too! Sprint can't play the
    "interoperability" and "embedded technology" cards, then say "and if we
    oversell it, we'll just add a non-standard band." (Well they can do
    that, but then they can't move the "embedded" users to the new bands to
    free spectrum- just the ones they've sold proprietary cards to.)

    > And over a million customers (I believe that's the number Cingular says
    > are on the preorder list) walk away extremely unhappy.


    Over a million are on the "e-mail me when you get it so I can look at it
    and not buy it" list. IIRC, Apple predicts selling a couple hundred
    thousand in 2007. Just as a comparison data point, I believe over 55
    MILLION Razrs have sold to date.

    > The public
    > backlash could cause a mass exodus, a la their handling of the ATT
    > network integration. The press gets a hold of it and all of a sudden
    > they have a bigger problem.

    I don't think they'll run out of iPhones, I'm guessing they'll go over
    like lead balloons at $600, then sell at $300 or $400.

    Cingular will use the iPhone as bait. They'll hope to get a bunch of
    people in the store to drool all over it's clown fish wallpaper, then,
    after the customer says "sweet- but I'm not spending $600 for THAT," the
    salespeople will say "I know- but this $49 Sync also plays your music and
    can do Google Maps just like the iPhone, and this $99 Blackjack can do
    push e-mail as well as music and maps. Will that be cash or charge?"

    > 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! ;-)

    > Agreed, but it is the technology that gives benefit to the customer.



    Only if the consumer sees and values the benefit. If someone invented
    Star Trek's matter transporter tomorrow, business people wouldn't care
    how it worked- they'd just want to know if it can get them to New York
    faster than United, and how many carry-ons are they allowed to beam.

    > They may not care about it, but they rely on it to grow and give the
    > latest/greatest.


    Once the early adopters give it critical mass, anyway. You're a tech
    guy, that's your background. I'm from the sales/marketing side of the
    fence. There's an old saying in business- it's easy to identify the
    pioneers- they're the ones with the arrows in their backs. Other,
    larger, entities may be content to see if Sprint's $10B gamble pays off
    before swooping in and taking the business out from under them.

    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! ;-)







  • Similar Threads




  • Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast