|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > March 2006 > "Mobile users diss premium content"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
"Mobile users diss premium content"
|
|
| John Navas 2006-03-21, 5:48 pm |
| <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/...conte
nt/>:
We'll have it - as long as it's free
Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.
Operators should view mobile content as a way to reduce churn rather
than as a new revenue stream, according to a worldwide survey from
accountants KPMG. Forty per cent of those questioned said they would
not pay a premium for mobile content.
[MORE]
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-21, 5:48 pm |
| KUDOs to John for keeping his ear to the ground for wireless
communications trends and articles.
A trade magazine discussed "mobile TV" last summer and presented two
very opposite views.
One side observed that watching TV is a "sit down experience" not very
adaptable to walking down the sidewalk, much less while driving. And
could you really enjoy watching a 1"x1½" screen?
The other side touted it as the next killer app for cellular and as the
article mentioned, with the same fevor that you heard in the time before
the intenet bubble burst. It was obvious the guy pitching this new
concept was using "talking points" and "power terms" similar to a snake
oil salesman.
I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials.
In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far
less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing
structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents
a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays"
illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.
| |
|
| DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials.
> In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far
> less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing
> structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents
> a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays"
> illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.
The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we
pay in the U.S..
It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S..
It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that
mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think
that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs.
The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes
the first time.
| |
| Mark W. Oots 2006-03-21, 5:48 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44205ee8$0$9595
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
>
> The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we pay
> in the U.S..
>
> It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S..
>
> It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that mobile
> users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think that the
> carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs. The premium
> content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes the first
> time.
IMO, in this country, people always want "something for nothing". We have
"free" long distance, "free" nights and weekends, "free" roaming, "free"
mobile to mobile and "free" phones. Now we tell the customer that he needs
to pay as much for the extras as he's already paying for his voice
plan..."It costs what!?"
Cingular's mantra these days (with their dealers) is "sell features." Does
anybody want to watch a 10 minute trailer of their favorite television show
on a 2" diagonal screen? I know the technology works, but does the mass
market want it, or more to the point, are they willing to pay for it?
Mark
| |
|
| Mark W. Oots wrote:
> Cingular's mantra these days (with their dealers) is "sell features." Does
> anybody want to watch a 10 minute trailer of their favorite television show
> on a 2" diagonal screen? I know the technology works, but does the mass
> market want it, or more to the point, are they willing to pay for it?
All the carriers do that. I was in a Verizon store last week, and the
manager was training the sales people on selling Mobile Web. It was
amusing to listen to.
Funny thing is, if they priced the services more reasonably, I think a
lot of people would use them on occasion, rather than never using them
at all.
| |
| Kevin K 2006-03-21, 11:48 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:15:43 UTC, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
>
> The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we
> pay in the U.S..
>
> It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S..
>
> It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that
> mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think
> that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs.
> The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes
> the first time.
The only premium I pay for is for Mediaworks, and that is for PDA
tethering, and very occasionally laptop usage when Wi-Fi is not
available. But never over 40MB/month so far.
--
| |
| Dr. Anton T. Squeegee 2006-03-22, 2:48 am |
| In article <DlXTf.600333$qk4.88178@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/...conte
nt/>:
>
> We'll have it - as long as it's free
>
> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.
<snippety>
Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at
being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I
want mobile "content."
Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
Outside of that, I couldn't care less about what else might be
offered.
Keep the peace(es).
--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-22, 2:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <MPG. 1e8a76c2dfdabacf9896
ca@192.168.42.131> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:47:32
-0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee < SpammersShouldImplod
e@dev.null> wrote:
>In article <DlXTf.600333$qk4.88178@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
>
>
> <snippety>
>
> Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at
>being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I
>want mobile "content."
>
> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
>point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
>I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
>
> Outside of that, I couldn't care less about what else might be
>offered.
While I likewise prefer my laptop (notebook) computer for many things, my
phone is better for other things, particularly since I don't always have my
computer with me. Things which work well on my phone include:
* Google Mobile personalized (email, weather, news, movies)
* Google Local for Mobile (maps, businesses, and directions)
* Froogle Mobile (shopping)
* Weather
* Movies (reviews and showtimes)
* Phone directories
* Flight schedules
* eBay
* FedEx tracking
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-03-22, 5:48 pm |
| Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
> In article <DlXTf.600333$qk4.88178@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
>
>
> <snippety>
>
> Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at
> being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I
> want mobile "content."
Well, I'd really like my phone to replace my Palm. I don't want "content"
but I really want to keep my calendar and address book on it - and be able
to sync with a PC (which some phones will do, but not mine). I certainly
don't want any media content from the phone company, though.
--
derek
| |
| Wolf Kirchmeir 2006-03-22, 5:48 pm |
| Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
[...]
> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
> point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
> I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.
[...]
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-22, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <aWdUf.7835$ji6.369101@news20.bellglobal.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:22:34
-0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolfekir@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
>[...]
>
>You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.
Just the opposite. VPN can create a very secure connection, and can work over
a secure wireless connection.
The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to
secure your connection.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Wolf Kirchmeir 2006-03-22, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <aWdUf.7835$ji6.369101@news20.bellglobal.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:22:34
> -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolfekir@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Just the opposite. VPN can create a very secure connection, and can work over
> a secure wireless connection.
>
> The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to
> secure your connection.
OK, didn't think of that. I understood Squeegee's "restrictions" to
include security measures that would block access to his own LAN. If I
misunderstood, well, it's not the first time. And won't be the last. :-)
| |
| Jeff Liebermann 2006-03-22, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> hath wroth:
><http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/...conte
nt/>:
>
> We'll have it - as long as it's free
Someone out there has to pay retail.
> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.
This is the automobile that includes a snow plow and trailer as
standard. Very useful, but might get in the way. I found that out
the hard way when I plugged a 512MByte SD card into a Sony Clie PDA
and played a rather long video clip over and over until the battery
died. 15 minutes and it was dead. I suspect cell phones will be
similar (or worse).
Translation: Anyone that actually pays for mobile video will need to
solve some technical problems.
> Operators should view mobile content as a way to reduce churn rather
> than as a new revenue stream, according to a worldwide survey from
> accountants KPMG. Forty per cent of those questioned said they would
> not pay a premium for mobile content.
Yep. It's the traditional battle between selling bandwidth and
selling content. The TV and CATV content providers have always
considered it more profitable to force feed packaged content to the
users than to allow them to choose their own entertainment. With
packaged content, one can add commercials and guarantee that the user
is force to slog through them to get to whatever they are watching.
It's not internet access. It's "interactive video". Sigh.
In my never humble opinion, the cell phone is just a communications
device. It can talk audio or data and communicate with other devices
with Bluetooth or 802.11. My ideal cell phone is NOT a conglomerated
monstrosity that does iTunes, video, GPS, PDA functions, camera, and
game console. It can do all those, but the results are invariably a
compromise. The benifits of conglomeration are often negated by the
compromises necessary just to make everything work in one package and
on one small screen.
Methinks integrated video is such a compromise. Small screen, short
battery life, limited memory, DRM, slow delivery, and price of
necessary air time, will make video a wasted effort. Maybe for short
video clips from the built in camera turned video recorder, but
nothing that will justify advertising content and revenue.
The right answer (for me) is a modular system that includes the cell
phone. My oversized PDA would have a keyboard that I can actually use
to type instead of peck at the screen. The screen would be big enough
to see the subtitles. I would also have a screen and keyboard
imbedded in my vehicle dashboard. My cell phone would be just a
handset. Everything would communicate with UWB (wireless USB),
802.11, Bluegoof, or whatever is in fashion at the time. Transfer of
data would be extensible making this wearable network part of my home
or office network automatically. Replication of the address book is
seamless. If the phone can't find someones number, it checks the PDA,
which then checks the vehicle server, which then checks the cellular
directory, which then checks the internet directory servers. One
lookup for everything.
Video would be an easy fit into this puzzle as a cellular video phone.
Transmission would not be full motion video but animated avatars and
characters where the only data being transfered are the motions and
talking head instructions. Etc (I'm late...)
Science fiction? Nope. All it would require is a concerted
initiative by the various players to decide how it all should work.
Chances of that happening are slim. Cellular nervana will have to
wait.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-22, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < cr032251c25k56m302n9
36uistib1dr12p@4ax.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:27:07
-0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> hath wroth:
>
>
>Someone out there has to pay retail.
Not necessarily -- ads underwrite much of the Internet, and might well
underwrite mobile content as well.
>
>This is the automobile that includes a snow plow and trailer as
>standard. Very useful, but might get in the way. I found that out
>the hard way when I plugged a 512MByte SD card into a Sony Clie PDA
>and played a rather long video clip over and over until the battery
>died. 15 minutes and it was dead. I suspect cell phones will be
>similar (or worse).
My Motorola V551 does quite a bit better than that -- even with steady use of
multimedia I still get a few hours of battery life.
>The right answer (for me) is a modular system that includes the cell
>phone. My oversized PDA would have a keyboard that I can actually use
>to type instead of peck at the screen. The screen would be big enough
>to see the subtitles. I would also have a screen and keyboard
>imbedded in my vehicle dashboard. My cell phone would be just a
>handset. Everything would communicate with UWB (wireless USB),
>802.11, Bluegoof, or whatever is in fashion at the time. Transfer of
>data would be extensible making this wearable network part of my home
>or office network automatically. Replication of the address book is
>seamless. If the phone can't find someones number, it checks the PDA,
>which then checks the vehicle server, which then checks the cellular
>directory, which then checks the internet directory servers. One
>lookup for everything.
That's more bulk and complexity than I'm prepared to deal with. I prefer to
just carry a high-end cell phone that can do all the essential tasks. (If and
when I need more, I'll tether a full notebook computer.) The current Motorola
V360 does that pretty well now. An HSDPA version, or something like the
Motorola V1150/V3X, would be even better.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> hath wroth:
>
>
> Someone out there has to pay retail.
The carriers have to decide whether to go after the mass market, or just
sell a lot less at higher prices.
SBC decided to move DSL into the mass market, and accept a falling ARPU.
At some point, the wireless carriers may decide that it's more
profitable to sell higher volumes of premium content at lower margins.
Everytime someone signs up for inclusive premium content at the high
price, it helps to delay when the carriers decide to drop their pants on
price.
Some restaurants have tried selling wine for non-gouge prices in the
hopes of increasing their volume enough to make up for the customers
that would buy wine regardless of the price. I don't know how these
restaurants did with this experiment. The thought was to sell wine at 2x
the retail price, rather than 3x to 5x.
| |
| Jeff Liebermann 2006-03-22, 11:48 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:57:20 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Not necessarily -- ads underwrite much of the Internet, and might well
>underwrite mobile content as well.
Yep. If I were paying for measured rate bandwidth (i.e. airtime),
then having my content delivered with advertisements might be
perceived that the user was paying for delivering the advertising. A
solution might be to give the users the option of getting advertising
at a lower rate, or paying more for advertising free content.
As for paying for the internet, judging by the predominance of file
sharing programs occupying much of the bandwidth, the internet is
being paid for by stolen content, copyright violations, and
pornography. Whether the cell phone market can handle such mainstream
internet content is questionable.
>
>My Motorola V551 does quite a bit better than that -- even with steady use of
>multimedia I still get a few hours of battery life.
I'm not familiar with the V551. (I'm on Verizon, not Cingular). Note
that the Sony Clie has a much larger screen than the V551 and is
several years older technology. I don't recall if the file was AVI or
MOV but I recall that the Clie was getting noticeably warm after about
5 minutes of playing. I'll conceed that it can be done on modern
phones without killing the battery. However, it would be interesting
to run a test of how many minutes of video can be played before
killing the battery.
I found no numbers in any of the reviews or on the official data
sheet:
http://www.motorola.com/motoinfo/pr...f/0,,72,00.html
>That's more bulk and complexity than I'm prepared to deal with.
There's no bulk. You only carry the phone. Think of it like a TV
remote control for the other gadgets. When you wanna watch your
multimedia content, just drag out the viewer and watch the show. When
done, stuff it back where it hides.
Disigning a user interface that is both handles all the possible modes
and functions, while at the same time is useful, is a major challenge.
I have some experience doing that for mobile radios and have a few
ideas about how it may be done. A minor problem will be managing the
storage and controlling the movie display. The phone might end up
looking like a Tivo remote control with a mic and earphone. Not a
great idea and probably useless. Yet, all the functions need to be
there. I think the complexity can be reduced sufficiently, but there
will be some oddities. For example, want buttons on both sides of
your cell phone?
>I prefer to
>just carry a high-end cell phone that can do all the essential tasks. (If and
>when I need more, I'll tether a full notebook computer.) The current Motorola
>V360 does that pretty well now. An HSDPA version, or something like the
>Motorola V1150/V3X, would be even better.
I agree and that's also my vision of my current cell phone
requirements. However, the discussion was about multimedia content
delivered to a cell phone. If this is going to be the next big thing,
some thought should go into how the multimedia cell phone of the
future will look and act. Perhaps you might not like my vision of
such a phone, but there may be some potential customers that are
willing to pay for such a service.
Incidentally, my only use of the internet from my cell phone is at
14Kbits/sec for a WAP browser doing directory lookups. If I want
access, I'll do it via Wi-Fi (because it's cheaper).
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
| |
| GomJabbar 2006-03-22, 11:48 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that
> mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think
> that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs.
> The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes
> the first time.
That's me.
I think it's ridiculous that I have Laptop Connect Unlimited (with a
Sony Ericcson PC card) which I use frequently to download a fairly
large amount of data, yet I have to pay extra if I want to use the WAP
browser in my cell phone to download a limited amount of data. I used
to be with Nextel and I was using their Packetstream Gold unlimited
data plan while tethering my cell phone. In the beginning I had to pay
an extra $10/month to use the WAP browser on the cell phone. Several
months later Nextel changed the requirements so that Packetstream Gold
users had unlimited WAP browser use as well for no additional charge.
This made a lot more sense to me.
I think that as a Laptop Connect Unlimited user, I should be able to
use my WAP browser in my cell phone for no additional charge. AFAIK,
since this is not the case, I do not use the WAP browser in my cell
phone except for extremely limited use. The same goes for SMS
messages. I would use this feature if I did not have to pay the
current rate. As it is, I have only used it a couple of times in the
past year. Again my point is, I do not want to pay extra for data
services on my cell phone when I already have an unlimited data plan
with the PC card. I'll take the inconvenience instead.
If anyone is wondering why I pay for Laptop Connect unlimited - it's
because I work for weeks at a time on the water. If I want internet
service, an unlimited data plan is my only practical choice. I do like
my internet, so I am willing to pay for it. I use the internet for
personal business, news, and information, as well as for entertainment.
| |
| Dr. Anton T. Squeegee 2006-03-22, 11:48 pm |
| In article <aWdUf.7835$ji6.369101@news20.bellglobal.com>,
wolfekir@sympatico.ca (known to some as Wolf Kirchmeir) scribed...
> Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
> [...]
>
> You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.
Only in the sense that the basic connection to ANY open WiFi access
point is insecure by its very nature.
Read my post again. I'm using VPN over wireless while on the road.
VPN traffic is heavily encrypted by its very nature. In my case, the
client software I use is provided to work specifically with our hardware
firewall/router. It implements IPSec with 3DES encryption, though PPTP
is another popular protocol.
Properly-implemented VPN makes it nearly as safe to use as if you
were still hardwired to your office network. If you're curious about it,
here's a handy link.
http://vpn.shmoo.com/vpn/FAQ.html
Keep the peace(es).
--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."
| |
| Dr. Anton T. Squeegee 2006-03-22, 11:48 pm |
| In article <OjeUf.605601$qk4.100828@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <aWdUf.7835$ji6.369101@news20.bellglobal.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:22:34
> -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <wolfekir@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Just the opposite. VPN can create a very secure connection, and can work over
> a secure wireless connection.
>
> The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to
> secure your connection.
Quite true. Some open networks, for whatever reason, do not permit
VPN traffic to go through. In most cases I've found of such, it was
simply misconfiguration of the access point involved, in that the owners
of it were unaware that they needed to actually tell the thing 'allow
traffic on port x to go through.'
No evil plots, no conspiracy to extract a premium for allowing VPN
to go through. Just plain ignorance.
--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."
| |
| Wolf Kirchmeir 2006-03-23, 2:48 am |
| Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
> In article <aWdUf.7835$ji6.369101@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> wolfekir@sympatico.ca (known to some as Wolf Kirchmeir) scribed...
>
>
> Only in the sense that the basic connection to ANY open WiFi access
> point is insecure by its very nature.
>
> Read my post again. [...]
I misunderstood.
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 2:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < tvl32212n2tjha7thk3i
v20jhh24ua471f@4ax.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:27:34
GMT, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:57:20 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Yep. If I were paying for measured rate bandwidth (i.e. airtime),
>then having my content delivered with advertisements might be
>perceived that the user was paying for delivering the advertising.
You mean like with cable TV? ;) While it's not metered, I think the
principle is pretty similar.
>A
>solution might be to give the users the option of getting advertising
>at a lower rate, or paying more for advertising free content.
Attempts to do that in other areas haven't been very successful -- given a
choice, consumers have usually voted overwhelmingly for "free" ad-supported
content.
>As for paying for the internet, judging by the predominance of file
>sharing programs occupying much of the bandwidth, the internet is
>being paid for by stolen content, copyright violations, and
>pornography.
Pornography is indeed a big factor, but I think ads are now king in terms of
revenue, witness the revenues of Google, Doubleclick, Yahoo, et al. As for
file sharing, there's no incremental revenue -- you'd have to argue that it's
driving broadband. While it's almost certainly a factor, I don't think it's
the dominant factor.
>Whether the cell phone market can handle such mainstream
>internet content is questionable.
Porn is already a significant factor overseas.
>
>There's no bulk. You only carry the phone. Think of it like a TV
>remote control for the other gadgets. When you wanna watch your
>multimedia content, just drag out the viewer and watch the show. When
>done, stuff it back where it hides.
Hides? Where? In a backpack? No thanks. :) This afternoon I was wandering
around with just my cell phone in a belt holster, and that's usually all that
I want to be carrying.
>... For example, want buttons on both sides of
>your cell phone?
I have buttons on both edges of my cell phone, in addition to the keyboard.
Methinks you need a slider form factor.
>
>I agree and that's also my vision of my current cell phone
>requirements. However, the discussion was about multimedia content
>delivered to a cell phone. If this is going to be the next big thing,
>some thought should go into how the multimedia cell phone of the
>future will look and act. Perhaps you might not like my vision of
>such a phone, but there may be some potential customers that are
>willing to pay for such a service.
You may be right. My own vision is high resolution heads up display and
speakers on my glasses, driven from the phone over your short range wireless.
>Incidentally, my only use of the internet from my cell phone is at
>14Kbits/sec for a WAP browser doing directory lookups. If I want
>access, I'll do it via Wi-Fi (because it's cheaper).
I'm guessing that's driven by your carrier. On Cingular I have an unlimited
data package for only $20/month. That enables heavy use of such useful tools
as:
* Google Mobile personalized (email, weather, news, movies)
* Google Local for Mobile (maps, businesses, and directions)
* Opera Mini for full Web browsing
* Froogle Mobile (shopping)
* Weather
* Movies (reviews and showtimes)
* Phone directories
* Flight schedules
* eBay
* FedEx tracking
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 2:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <MPG. 1e8babfe731ee3e69896
cc@192.168.42.131> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:47:01
-0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee < SpammersShouldImplod
e@dev.null> wrote:
>In article <OjeUf.605601$qk4.100828@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
>
>
> Quite true. Some open networks, for whatever reason, do not permit
>VPN traffic to go through. In most cases I've found of such, it was
>simply misconfiguration of the access point involved, in that the owners
>of it were unaware that they needed to actually tell the thing 'allow
>traffic on port x to go through.'
>
> No evil plots, no conspiracy to extract a premium for allowing VPN
>to go through. Just plain ignorance.
In other cases it's based on being able to monitor all traffic, as I've found
in some public libraries.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 2:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <MPG. 1e8bab7c894225849896
cb@192.168.42.131> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:44:49
-0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee < SpammersShouldImplod
e@dev.null> wrote:
> Properly-implemented VPN makes it nearly as safe to use as if you
>were still hardwired to your office network. ...
Arguably safer, since a wired network may well be subject to physical
compromise, exposing all unencrypted traffic.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 2:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <1143074582.535595.148360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> on 22 Mar 2006
16:43:02 -0800, "GomJabbar" <dkbatson@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I think it's ridiculous that I have Laptop Connect Unlimited (with a
>Sony Ericcson PC card) which I use frequently to download a fairly
>large amount of data, yet I have to pay extra if I want to use the WAP
>browser in my cell phone to download a limited amount of data.
Why? Just move the PC card SIM to the phone.
>I used
>to be with Nextel and I was using their Packetstream Gold unlimited
>data plan while tethering my cell phone. In the beginning I had to pay
>an extra $10/month to use the WAP browser on the cell phone. Several
>months later Nextel changed the requirements so that Packetstream Gold
>users had unlimited WAP browser use as well for no additional charge.
>This made a lot more sense to me.
Sure, but giving network resources away for free doesn't make sense for the
carrier, unless the carrier has to give it away to make up for how
uncompetitive it is, as in the case of Nextel.
>... The same goes for SMS
>messages. I would use this feature if I did not have to pay the
>current rate. ...
Why not use messaging over an Internet connection instead of SMS?
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:c6qUf.608908$qk4.282623@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Sure, but giving network resources away for free doesn't make sense for
> the
> carrier, unless the carrier has to give it away to make up for how
> uncompetitive it is, as in the case of Nextel.
>
So, the highest ARPU carrier in the industry is "giving" resources away?
Are you really that stupid?
| |
|
| John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <MPG. 1e8babfe731ee3e69896
cc@192.168.42.131> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:47:01
> -0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee < SpammersShouldImplod
e@dev.null> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> In other cases it's based on being able to monitor all traffic, as I've found
> in some public libraries.
>
They can monitor me all they want - but watching my VPN payload is like
watching paint dry.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| Jeff Liebermann 2006-03-23, 2:48 am |
| On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:45:31 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In < tvl32212n2tjha7thk3i
v20jhh24ua471f@4ax.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:27:34
>GMT, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>You mean like with cable TV? ;) While it's not metered, I think the
>principle is pretty similar.
Yep, almost exactly, but for a different reason. With CATV, the
"streaming" content is continuous and uninterrupted. The cable
content bundlers assemble a package of entertainment, advertisements,
announcements, and previews, that are streamed at the user
continuously and without interruption. Hopefully, that won't happen
with streaming content to a cell phone. However, it is possible that
some brilliant cellular marketeer may decide that some of the data
bandwidth be dedicated to some form of broadcasting. It wouldn't be
bad if it were traffic reports, weather reports, terrorist alerts,
sports scores, stockmarket numbers, AMBER alerts, and other useful
items (similar to what the pager people have been broadcasting for
many years). However, it could easily also be advertising, promos,
and manure. It's the more like the wireless version of the "last
mile", where vendors fight to own the "last mile" to the customer so
they can act as a funnel for all the garbage that various groups want
to shovel at the customer. Yep, just like CATV.
>
>Attempts to do that in other areas haven't been very successful -- given a
>choice, consumers have usually voted overwhelmingly for "free" ad-supported
>content.
That's fine. Then the advertisers shouldn't complain if people are
willing to tolerate the ads. A few might find it sufficiently
obnoxious to pay for a clean feed. For things I use often, I would
probably pay.
My vision (or nightmare) of the internet of the future is a virtual
reality headset, where users navigate their way through a virtual
shopping mall, make purchases, negotiate deals, ask for information,
and generally use current reality as a paradigm for navigation. Of
course, it will all be paid for by advertisers, who lurk in the
shadows, and accost the users with sales pitches. I don't see a VR
headset option for a cell phone, but given sufficient memory and
bandwidth, it's possible.
>Pornography is indeed a big factor, but I think ads are now king in terms of
>revenue, witness the revenues of Google, Doubleclick, Yahoo, et al.
Certainly. But if you add up the alleged revenue lost to file
sharing, methinks the numbers may be considerably larger than
advertising revenue. The internet doesn't generate this revenue, but
it certainly defrays the expenses for many of the file sharing users.
I also forgot to mention the spammers. I keep reading erratic reports
of substantial revenue from spamming. I don't know if they're true.
>As for
>file sharing, there's no incremental revenue -- you'd have to argue that it's
>driving broadband. While it's almost certainly a factor, I don't think it's
>the dominant factor.
Yep. Personally, I think Windoze Updates are driving broadband, but
file sharing is certainly number one. One of my less astute customers
had Limewire running on his laptop over a Verizon EV-DO link and was
bugging me to figure out why his connection was so slow. Duh.
I'm not sure which came first. The chicken or egg, or file sharing or
broadband. Each one drives the other. Give them more bandwidth and
they'll share more content, er... copyright violations. Does
bandwidth increase to meet the needs, or are new needs invented to use
the bandwidth. In the case of wireless internet, the needs will by
necessity be limited by the bandwidth and never approach those of
wired carriers. That just might drive the technology. Who know, we
may just have wireless file sharing. Sigh.
>
>Porn is already a significant factor overseas.
One of my friends just returned from Europe. I got to play with his
new cell phone. The porno collection in memory was truly impressive.
Never mind ring tones, lets bring on the multimedia pornography.
Hmmm... maybe the VR headset wouldn't be a bad idea if it can play 3D
porno video clips. Premium services perhaps?
[color=darkred]
>Hides? Where? In a backpack? No thanks. :) This afternoon I was wandering
>around with just my cell phone in a belt holster, and that's usually all that
>I want to be carrying.
Ok, so you're not a real geek. I have my PDA cell phone, flashlight,
and tape measure on my belt. On the dash of my gas guzzler, I have a
Panasonic Toughbook CF-M34 laptop that acts as a file server. It
could just as easily be a multimedia movie viewer. In my scenario,
either the vehicle server or the phone downloads the video files, and
play them to the display via UWB (wireless USB). No need to play them
on the tiny cell phone display. However, if you're going into a
restraunt, hotel, or airport, and you wanna watch your own movies,
bring your own viewer. It's not that big.
>I have buttons on both edges of my cell phone, in addition to the keyboard.
>Methinks you need a slider form factor.
Think voice recognition and control. The major functions remain on
the keyboard. User defined buttons for creative applications. Voice
control does the rest. Ideally, it should recognize and parse phrases
and offer options. There's only so much that can be done with
buttons.
>You may be right. My own vision is high resolution heads up display and
>speakers on my glasses, driven from the phone over your short range wireless.
Yep. Take a giant step backwards and look at the cell phone from the
standpoint of a user interface to the digital (and analog POTS) world.
Is it a good interface? Does it do its job efficiently? Can it be
done better? In my never humble opinion, the operation and cybernetic
features of a cell phone are terrible. Only the basics like dialing a
number are handled gracefully. For example, my vision of programming
a phone is to use two shaft encoders (dials). One dial selects the
function to be set, the other selects the value. Punch enter and it's
saved. Total no-brainer to learn and no maze of sub menus to
navigate. I once designed a marine radio that worked like that.
Everyone loved it except the dealers. They claimed that customers
judged the "value" of a radio by the number of knobs and buttons. The
more the better. So, we added knobs and buttons all over the place.
Bluetooth hang it on your ear headsets is another kludge. It would be
so easy to make one that folds flat and fits in my pocket instead of
being a big, lumpy, fragile, and light weight ear hanger. Mine would
unfold, expand to something like a normal headset, and get put away
when not in use.
However, the real problem with Bluetooth is pairing. Bluetooth
headsets can only pair with one device at a time. This makes it
useless for fast switching between a cell phone and a computer. 4000
companies in the Bluetooth Sig and nobody thought a headset might be
used with more than one device.
Add a VR display (or something similar) will only solve the output
problem. The device still needs to be controlled and that's where
methinks the problems hide. Think wearable computers where one of the
wearable boxes is a cell phone.
>
>I'm guessing that's driven by your carrier. On Cingular I have an unlimited
>data package for only $20/month. That enables heavy use of such useful tools
>as:
>* Google Mobile personalized (email, weather, news, movies)
>* Google Local for Mobile (maps, businesses, and directions)
>* Opera Mini for full Web browsing
>* Froogle Mobile (shopping)
>* Weather
>* Movies (reviews and showtimes)
>* Phone directories
>* Flight schedules
>* eBay
>* FedEx tracking
True. Verizon offers two levels of service. 14.4 for $5/month and
EV-DO for about $60/month. At $20/month, I would probably subscribe
for the data service. At $60/month, I can live without it. Actually,
the 14Kbit/sec is quite adequate for what I need (directory service).
The catch is that it eats minutes of connect time and my use is very
close to my maximum minutes.
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/...ction=miniStart
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-23, 2:48 am |
| Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Ok, so you're not a real geek. I have my PDA cell phone, flashlight,
> and tape measure on my belt. On the dash of my gas guzzler, I have a
> Panasonic Toughbook CF-M34 laptop that acts as a file server.
I'll raise the geek bar with my Hughes satellite dish in the bed of my
truck. Might win me the best camp belt buckle at the next rodeo if I
throw up a WiFi hotspot.
| |
| Jeff Liebermann 2006-03-23, 5:48 am |
| On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:20:37 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy
<forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
[color=darkred]
>I'll raise the geek bar with my Hughes satellite dish in the bed of my
>truck. Might win me the best camp belt buckle at the next rodeo if I
>throw up a WiFi hotspot.
I'll raise your pizza dish and add my ham radio geek paraphenalia to
my sagging waist belt. I sometimes have a Yeasu 2-meter radio on my
belt. For special ocassions, I substitute one of perhaps 20 assorted
radios in my collection (most with half dead batteries). If I'm
trying to impress other geeks, I'll wear one of my commercial Motorola
status symbol radios, which demonstrates to everyone that I overpaid
for the radio.
| http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/of...radio-mess.html
That was about a year ago. The pile is 3 times larger now.
Of course, high fashion has it's designer cell phones:
| http://www.pcworld.com/news/article.asp?aid=33322
That was 6 years ago and I haven't seen any such phones. Oh well.
I think this is what John is worried about happening to cell phones:
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...mpevolution.jpg
No, I don't think we're ready for the cell phone cyborg.
Drivel: When I was much younger (in the 1960's) I thought that when
technology was finally able to deliver a working Dick Tracy wrist
radio, everyone would rush out and buy one. I tried to build several
during my past life in designing radios. Nobody wanted them. So much
for my abilities to predict the future of technology.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:c6qUf.608908$qk4.282623@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> So, the highest ARPU carrier in the industry is "giving" resources away?
>
> Are you really that stupid?
>
>
LOL.
Nextel is rather unique in that is offers a useful premium service that
customers actually want, actually use, and are willing to pay a premium
for. They also have a great barrier to entry of other competitors, at
least for now.
| |
| GomJabbar 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Why? Just move the PC card SIM to the phone.
Yes that is possible, but it is not something I would consider
convenient; swapping SIM cards back and forth. Besides, I could not
receive any voice calls while the PC card SIM was in the phone. No
thanks.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> My Motorola V551 does quite a bit better than that -- even with steady use
> of multimedia I still get a few hours of battery life.
I've just been considering a V551. Can you sync the phonebook and calendar
to any PIM via bluetooth? I can ditch my Palm if I can do that. The manual
says you can send individual calendar or contact entries to another device,
but nothing about a full sync.
--
derek
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> If I'm
> trying to impress other geeks, I'll wear one of my commercial Motorola
> status symbol radios, which demonstrates to everyone that I overpaid
> for the radio.
Tell me it was a Moto HT-220 and I will surely be impressed.
| |
| Jeff Liebermann 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> hath wroth:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Tell me it was a Moto HT-220 and I will surely be impressed.
That was the status symbol in the 1960's. Absolute rats nest of wires
inside. I had both the slim line versions and piggy back 12 channel
board version, with my life savings in xtals inside. I designed some
signaling accessories that fit inside (around the speaker). I used a
few of those through the mid 1970's but donated them to someone that
was willing to spend their spare time keeping them alive and on
frequency.
My current Motorola status symbols are various GP-300, GP-350, and
HT-1000. These are big and heavy enough to be useful for pounding
nails.
http://www.batlabs.com/pgallery.html
Please note that the true geek carries it all with him. Mounting your
satellite dish in the truck bed is a step in the right direction, but
unless you spend your life in the truck bed, you won't be recognized
as a geek. Perhaps if you wore the remote control or a GPS on your
belt.
To be a true Cingular cell phone geek, you need to have on your belt,
at least one cell phone, an attached PDA for tethered internet access,
an 802.11b/g access point to allow others to share your unlimited
internet connection, a GPS for posting your location on a internet,
and a web cam that posts pictures of your surroundings for all to see.
Anything less is just a wannabe cellular geek.
Don't forget the pocket protector full of pens, screwdriver, hemostat,
and spare flash drives. For historical accuracy, white socks, horn
rim glasses held together with a band-aid, and the remains of last
nights pizza on the t-shirt, are also helpful.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 1224cvvg6e1pu1a@corp
.supernews.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:37:09 -0600,
Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>They can monitor me all they want - but watching my VPN payload is like
>watching paint dry.
VPN is blocked. Next time take the time to read the entire context. ;)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < Hr6dnVs4efbXrb_ZnZ2d
nUVZ_t-dnZ2d@adelphia.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006
22:21:05 -0700, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:c6qUf.608908$qk4.282623@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>So, the highest ARPU carrier in the industry is "giving" resources away?
Yes. Nextel ARPU is based on premium voice services, not data.
>Are you really that stupid?
No. And you?
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 44227a5b$0$95977$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:37:23
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Nextel is rather unique in that is offers a useful premium service that
>customers actually want, actually use, and are willing to pay a premium
>for. They also have a great barrier to entry of other competitors, at
>least for now.
In fact Kodiak PTT now available from Cingular is competitive with iDEN
(Nextel) PTT.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < pma422959tg8u0qf47tj
0s4ttd475a6ccv@4ax.com> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:45:33
GMT, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:45:31 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Yep, almost exactly, but for a different reason. With CATV, the
>"streaming" content is continuous and uninterrupted. The cable
>content bundlers assemble a package of entertainment, advertisements,
>announcements, and previews, that are streamed at the user
>continuously and without interruption. Hopefully, that won't happen
>with streaming content to a cell phone. However, it is possible that
>some brilliant cellular marketeer may decide that some of the data
>bandwidth be dedicated to some form of broadcasting. It wouldn't be
>bad if it were traffic reports, weather reports, terrorist alerts,
>sports scores, stockmarket numbers, AMBER alerts, and other useful
>items (similar to what the pager people have been broadcasting for
>many years).
It's already happening -- see Motorola SCREEN3, now being deployed by
Cingular.
>
>That's fine. Then the advertisers shouldn't complain if people are
>willing to tolerate the ads. A few might find it sufficiently
>obnoxious to pay for a clean feed. For things I use often, I would
>probably pay.
The latest wild card is DVR like TiVO, which make it easy for customers to
whiz past commercials. Along with DVD, the old advertising model is being
seriously threatened.
>
>Ok, so you're not a real geek.
That's a relief! Can I show that to my girlfriend? :)
>I have my PDA cell phone, flashlight,
>and tape measure on my belt.
I only load up when sailboat racing: wrist GPS, handheld GPS and sometimes a
hand-bearing compass in my pocket, PFD-mounted safety strobe and multi-tool,
and looking to add PLB (essentially personal EPIRB) and/or laser rangefinder.
>On the dash of my gas guzzler, I have a
>Panasonic Toughbook CF-M34 laptop that acts as a file server. It
>could just as easily be a multimedia movie viewer.
My IBM/Lenovo ThinkPad T30 is usually in my car, and often on the boat.
>In my scenario,
>either the vehicle server or the phone downloads the video files, and
>play them to the display via UWB (wireless USB). No need to play them
>on the tiny cell phone display. However, if you're going into a
>restraunt, hotel, or airport, and you wanna watch your own movies,
>bring your own viewer. It's not that big.
When traveling, I use my ThinkPad with headset (wired or Bluetooth) for
multimedia.
>
>Think voice recognition and control. The major functions remain on
>the keyboard. User defined buttons for creative applications. Voice
>control does the rest. Ideally, it should recognize and parse phrases
>and offer options. There's only so much that can be done with
>buttons.
I personally dislike voice recognition -- too many times when I can't talk,
and I find it more clumsy than keyboard control in any event.
>
>Yep. Take a giant step backwards and look at the cell phone from the
>standpoint of a user interface to the digital (and analog POTS) world.
>Is it a good interface? Does it do its job efficiently? Can it be
>done better? In my never humble opinion, the operation and cybernetic
>features of a cell phone are terrible. Only the basics like dialing a
>number are handled gracefully.
That depends on how flexible the phone is. One of the things that I like
about current Motorola phones is how easy they are to customize to my taste.
For example, I've reprogrammed the side "smart button" to launch Google Local
for Mobile, one "soft key" to bring up WAP shortcuts (bookmarks, which I've
customized to my tastes and needs), and the other "soft key" to bring up phone
shortcuts (likewise customized to my tastes and needs). There are dedicated
keys for the camera, my Cingular on-line account page, and voice recording.
I can't think of much that could be done to improve on that interface.
>For example, my vision of programming
>a phone is to use two shaft encoders (dials). One dial selects the
>function to be set, the other selects the value. Punch enter and it's
>saved. Total no-brainer to learn and no maze of sub menus to
>navigate. I once designed a marine radio that worked like that.
>Everyone loved it except the dealers. They claimed that customers
>judged the "value" of a radio by the number of knobs and buttons. The
>more the better. So, we added knobs and buttons all over the place.
I liked the jog wheel on my old Sony Ericsson smartphone, where you rotate to
scroll and press to select, but I didn't find it all that much better than the
customized Motorola interface.
>Bluetooth hang it on your ear headsets is another kludge. It would be
>so easy to make one that folds flat and fits in my pocket instead of
>being a big, lumpy, fragile, and light weight ear hanger. Mine would
>unfold, expand to something like a normal headset, and get put away
>when not in use.
YMMV -- I'm pretty happy with my Sony Ericsson Bluetooth headset.
>However, the real problem with Bluetooth is pairing. Bluetooth
>headsets can only pair with one device at a time. This makes it
>useless for fast switching between a cell phone and a computer. 4000
>companies in the Bluetooth Sig and nobody thought a headset might be
>used with more than one device.
I see these as different devices. My single ear cell phone headset is
optimized for voice quality (send and receive) in difficult conditions.
(Noise canceling is so good that I can use it on the boat in the wind.) In a
computer headset I'm interested in good stereo music.
>Add a VR display (or something similar) will only solve the output
>problem. The device still needs to be controlled and that's where
>methinks the problems hide. Think wearable computers where one of the
>wearable boxes is a cell phone.
Perhaps, but I've been impressed with "nod" interfaces on some VR headsets.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <somaf3-sgd.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:09:00 -0400,
Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>I've just been considering a V551. Can you sync the phonebook and calendar
>to any PIM via bluetooth? I can ditch my Palm if I can do that. The manual
>says you can send individual calendar or contact entries to another device,
>but nothing about a full sync.
I sync with Outlook using Motorola Phone Tools. TrueSync supports Lotus Notes
and Palm Desktop.
BTW, the current version of the V551 is the V557.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < fek522dalmad49f13rle
akg2cmbp502bbq@4ax.com> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:11:21
-0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>Don't forget the pocket protector full of pens, screwdriver, hemostat,
>and spare flash drives. For historical accuracy, white socks, horn
>rim glasses held together with a band-aid, and the remains of last
>nights pizza on the t-shirt, are also helpful.
I'd say black socks in white sneakers, and a tie printed on the t-shirt.
A Jolt cola is also helpful. :)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Perhaps if you wore the remote control or a GPS on your belt.
Nah, GPS too inaccurate for me. I use my topo maps on laptop.
> an attached PDA for tethered internet access,
Haven't figured out yet how to tether my iPaq to my phone.
> an 802.11b/g access point to allow others to share your unlimited
> internet connection,
Already have a mobile AP with extendable 30' mast.
> a GPS for posting your location on a internet,
That would get me into trouble.
> and a web cam that posts pictures of your surroundings for all to see.
Already have a saddle mount for my web cam when I go trail riding in the
grasslands. (Makes note to get a metal case for laptop, horses like to
rub against trees)
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> I'd say black socks in white sneakers, and a tie printed on the t-shirt.
> A Jolt cola is also helpful. :)
Please don't tell me you did that. :)
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <6EDUf.41428$_S7.6385@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006
20:35:14 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>Nah, GPS too inaccurate for me. I use my topo maps on laptop.
My GPS is accurate/repeatable to about 15 feet.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> My GPS is accurate/repeatable to about 15 feet.
Of course it is.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| >
> I sync with Outlook using Motorola Phone Tools. TrueSync supports Lotus
> Notes and Palm Desktop.
>
Yeah, but do you need the USB cable, or can you do it with the Bluetooth?
I'll get the cable if I must, but I'd prefer not.
> BTW, the current version of the V551 is the V557.
>
No surprise. My cell company hasn't had a state of the art phone in the 10
years I've been using them...
--
derek
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <5unbf3-duq.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:35:01 -0400,
Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>Yeah, but do you need the USB cable, or can you do it with the Bluetooth?
>I'll get the cable if I must, but I'd prefer not.
I use Bluetooth.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <5unbf3-duq.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:35:01
> -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> I use Bluetooth.
>
Excellent, thanks.
--
derek
| |
| George 2006-03-24, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <6EDUf.41428$_S7.6385@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006
> 20:35:14 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> My GPS is accurate/repeatable to about 15 feet.
>
And my hummer gets 38 MPG
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-03-24, 5:48 pm |
| On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:01:39 -0500, in alt.internet.wireless , George
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>And my hummer gets 38 MPG
For what its worth, _my_ GPS (Garmin eMap) /is/ accurate to 15 feet,
less sometimes. How do I know? I've stood on a trig point and compared
to where the emap thinks I am.
The only way a hummer gets 38MPG is if the M stands for metres.
Mark McIntyre
--
| |
| clifto 2006-03-24, 11:48 pm |
| Mark McIntyre wrote:
> For what its worth, _my_ GPS (Garmin eMap) /is/ accurate to 15 feet,
> less sometimes. How do I know? I've stood on a trig point and compared
> to where the emap thinks I am.
I posted in 2001 about the trip my apartment building took. Two
nights in a row, my apartment building took off from my Chicago
suburb and flew into Indiana (according to my GPS). Readings stopped
when the building hit 100,000 feet at 650 MPH somewhere southwest
of Lafayette, Indiana. I also had one other occurrance where the
apartment building went up like an elevator from its ground level
(just under 700 feet AMSL) to 1100 feet, then way down to about
60 feet below sea level, then returned.
USUALLY my GPS is accurate to 15 feet or less. If you believe yours
is *always* that accurate, go try your story in sci.geo.satellite-nav.
--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb
| |
| George 2006-03-24, 11:48 pm |
| Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:01:39 -0500, in alt.internet.wireless , George
> <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> For what its worth, _my_ GPS (Garmin eMap) /is/ accurate to 15 feet,
> less sometimes. How do I know? I've stood on a trig point and compared
> to where the emap thinks I am.
Sorry, just because you obtained that accuracy at a location does not
indicate in any way that it is accurate to 15 feet *all* of the time as
you state.
>
> The only way a hummer gets 38MPG is if the M stands for metres.
>
> Mark McIntyre
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:_UAUf.611994$qk4.416230@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < Hr6dnVs4efbXrb_ZnZ2d
nUVZ_t-dnZ2d@adelphia.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006
> 22:21:05 -0700, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> Yes. Nextel ARPU is based on premium voice services, not data.
And SprintNextel reported data ARPU for the 4th quarter that 50% (?) higher
than Cingular. Wanna try again, genius?
>
>
> No. And you?
>
Obviously at least three rungs higher than you- your ignorance in this
thread proves that.
| |
| Jeff Liebermann 2006-03-25, 5:48 am |
| "Scott" <how.do@you.do> hath wroth:
>And SprintNextel reported data ARPU for the 4th quarter that 50% (?) higher
>than Cingular. Wanna try again, genius?
http://www.networkworld.com/news/20...int-nextel.html
Nextel has been able to nab a nearly $20 premium per user vs.
Cingular primarily because of its high ratio of business to
consumer customers (80% vs. 20%). Business users tend to spend
more for features, applications and reliability.
The article and accompanying numbers are a bit dated but the effect of
the large number of business customers is still the same.
Sprint/Nextel:
http://www.kensei-news.com/bizdev/p...cle_43647.shtml
4th quarter ARPU = $63 per user.
Cingular:
http://www.kensei-news.com/bizdev/p...cle_42884.shtml
4th quarter ARPU = $49 per user.
Difference = (63 - 49) / 49 = 29%
Not anywhere near 50%.
The difference again is mostly due to the different business/consumer
mix.
For sake of completeness, Verizon = $49 per user, same as Cingular.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
| |
| Jeff Liebermann 2006-03-25, 5:48 am |
| clifto <clifto@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>Mark McIntyre wrote:
[color=darkred]
>I posted in 2001 about the trip my apartment building took. Two
>nights in a row, my apartment building took off from my Chicago
>suburb and flew into Indiana (according to my GPS). Readings stopped
>when the building hit 100,000 feet at 650 MPH somewhere southwest
>of Lafayette, Indiana. I also had one other occurrance where the
>apartment building went up like an elevator from its ground level
>(just under 700 feet AMSL) to 1100 feet, then way down to about
>60 feet below sea level, then returned.
Reflections and crappy processing. I drive through a small canyone
every day. The moving map display is truely artistic when the signals
have to go through trees, bounce off hillsides, and fade in and out.
>USUALLY my GPS is accurate to 15 feet or less. If you believe yours
>is *always* that accurate, go try your story in sci.geo.satellite-nav.
I suggest downloading and running:
http://www.visualgps.net/VisualGPS/
and see for yourself. One version is free. I sometimes have it
running for hours when my car is parked somewhere. One standard
deviation is about 20ft for my ancient Magellan map 410.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
| |
| Scott 2006-03-25, 11:48 pm |
|
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:jep9221dhbel6jq
6dqas6sn1dtg67m43u2@
4ax.com...
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> hath wroth:
>
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/20...int-nextel.html
> Nextel has been able to nab a nearly $20 premium per user vs.
> Cingular primarily because of its high ratio of business to
> consumer customers (80% vs. 20%). Business users tend to spend
> more for features, applications and reliability.
>
> The article and accompanying numbers are a bit dated but the effect of
> the large number of business customers is still the same.
>
> Sprint/Nextel:
> http://www.kensei-news.com/bizdev/p...cle_43647.shtml
> 4th quarter ARPU = $63 per user.
>
> Cingular:
> http://www.kensei-news.com/bizdev/p...cle_42884.shtml
> 4th quarter ARPU = $49 per user.
>
> Difference = (63 - 49) / 49 = 29%
> Not anywhere near 50%.
The numbers I referred to were data (premium service) APRU numbers
specifically reported by each carrier- I believe I was quite clear about
that.
Cingular reported data ARPU in excess of $4.50 while SprintNextel came in at
over $6.00, which was the highest in the industry. You'll notice that the
50% is followed by question marks, indicating that I was unsure of the
actual number- unlike Navas, I actually have a life and the actuial numbers
had slipped my mind. The estimates were posted to invalidate the claim that
Nextel "has to give it away to make up for how uncompetitive it is" (a
direct quote from John Navas). And while my numbers are not accurate to the
penny or percentage point, they are much more accurate than anything Navas
has posted in this thread.
You'll also notice that Navas will never respond to these numbers, as he
knows that he was caught in a lie yet again. SprintNextel is not giving
away services as he claimed- the numbers don't lie.
> The difference again is mostly due to the different business/consumer
> mix.
>
A non-factor- money is money no matter where it comes from.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> A non-factor- money is money no matter where it comes from.
Well it does show that Sprint's purchase of Nextel may have been a good
idea, but time will tell if they get a positive ROI out of the deal. So
far no one else's PTT is as good as Nextel's. If the iDEN network is
shutdown, suddenly you'll have three carriers competing for PTT
customers with poorer quality PTT, both in service and equipment, but
with much better coverage overall. No incentive to stay with Sprint if
that happens, though Sprint will try to retain them, and just the effort
to change carriers will help them retain most of the Nextel users.
| |
| Jeff Liebermann 2006-03-25, 11:48 pm |
| "Scott" <how.do@you.do> hath wroth:
>The numbers I referred to were data (premium service) APRU numbers
>specifically reported by each carrier- I believe I was quite clear about
>that.
Sorry. I missed the word "data" in your statement below. I was
thinking overall revenue.
"And SprintNextel reported data ARPU for the 4th quarter
that 50% (?) higher than Cingular. Wanna try again, genius?"
>Cingular reported data ARPU in excess of $4.50 while SprintNextel came in at
>over $6.00, which was the highest in the industry.
From:
| http://www.sbc.com/Investor/Financi...i
ngs.pdf
I find Cingular ARPU from data at $4.71 for 4th quarter 2005. Close
enough.
I couldn't find anything specific for Sprint/Nextel with some sources
mentioning "about $6" for wireless data ARPU.
Interesting article on the subject of wireless data revenues.
| http://www.chetansharma.com/66.pdf
>You'll notice that the
>50% is followed by question marks, indicating that I was unsure of the
>actual number- unlike Navas, I actually have a life and the actuial numbers
>had slipped my mind. The estimates were posted to invalidate the claim that
>Nextel "has to give it away to make up for how uncompetitive it is" (a
>direct quote from John Navas). And while my numbers are not accurate to the
>penny or percentage point, they are much more accurate than anything Navas
>has posted in this thread.
>
>You'll also notice that Navas will never respond to these numbers, as he
>knows that he was caught in a lie yet again. SprintNextel is not giving
>away services as he claimed- the numbers don't lie.
I'm not so sure he's totally wrong. Nextel is selling GPS location
and navigation services which is a big seller among public safety
organizations using Nextel in place of conventional 2-way radio.
Cingular has nothing that's even close. Nextel gets $20/month per
phone for "mobile location" which methinks is rather expensive and
will certainly skew the wireless data derived ARPU numbers.
http://www.nextel.com/en/services/gps/gps.shtml
It's become almost a requirement for the local security services and
delivery agents that use Nextel.
[color=darkred]
>A non-factor- money is money no matter where it comes from.
I beg to differ slightly. If the data services are subsidized by
equipment and 3rd party vendors, it's not money spent by the customer.
The real issue (from my warped perspective) is how much does Joe
Sixpack pay for the service. However, I see no evidence of a Nextel
giveaway or subsidies for data services at this time.
If the numbers were broken down seperating the various data components
such as:
1. Internet access
2. SMS messaging
3. photo distribution
4. GPS services
5. mapping and direction services.
6. etc.
it would probably be much easier to see where the giveaways and
subsidies are hiding. For example, it seems that Nextel charges
$0.15/SMS message while Cingular charges $0.10 (based on overage
charges). If the number of messages were equal and fairly
substantial, that would skew the ARPU numbers.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
| |
| Scott 2006-03-25, 11:48 pm |
|
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:voua22hlk0fiu4v
hqrsq8e78342t5edr35@
4ax.com...
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> hath wroth:
>
>
> I'm not so sure he's totally wrong. Nextel is selling GPS location
> and navigation services which is a big seller among public safety
> organizations using Nextel in place of conventional 2-way radio.
> Cingular has nothing that's even close. Nextel gets $20/month per
> phone for "mobile location" which methinks is rather expensive and
> will certainly skew the wireless data derived ARPU numbers.
It doesn't skew- it increases the number, which is the whole point of
measuring it. That is why it is measured as an average (and is essentailly
measured identically by all carriers).
> http://www.nextel.com/en/services/gps/gps.shtml
> It's become almost a requirement for the local security services and
> delivery agents that use Nextel.
>
>
>
> I beg to differ slightly. If the data services are subsidized by
> equipment and 3rd party vendors, it's not money spent by the customer.
But they are not in that sense. Any subsidy would come as a decrease in
licensing or development cost or a service discount, not as a service
subsidy.
> The real issue (from my warped perspective) is how much does Joe
> Sixpack pay for the service. However, I see no evidence of a Nextel
> giveaway or subsidies for data services at this time.
>
> If the numbers were broken down seperating the various data components
> such as:
> 1. Internet access
> 2. SMS messaging
> 3. photo distribution
> 4. GPS services
> 5. mapping and direction services.
> 6. etc.
> it would probably be much easier to see where the giveaways and
> subsidies are hiding. For example, it seems that Nextel charges
> $0.15/SMS message while Cingular charges $0.10 (based on overage
> charges). If the number of messages were equal and fairly
> substantial, that would skew the ARPU numbers.
Again, it doesn't skew. In your example, Nextel would simply have a higher
ARPU.
| |
| Scott 2006-03-25, 11:48 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:442564ee$0$9600
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> Well it does show that Sprint's purchase of Nextel may have been a good
> idea, but time will tell if they get a positive ROI out of the deal. So
> far no one else's PTT is as good as Nextel's. If the iDEN network is
> shutdown, suddenly you'll have three carriers competing for PTT customers
> with poorer quality PTT, both in service and equipment, but with much
> better coverage overall. No incentive to stay with Sprint if that happens,
> though Sprint will try to retain them, and just the effort to change
> carriers will help them retain most of the Nextel users.
And if the assumption that any non-iDen PTT alternative is the same as the
VZW or Cingular crap, you are correct. However, the company has technology
licensed that (at least on paper) appears to be far superior and does not
rely on a bastardization of normal telephony (like Cingular). They are in
no hurry to get something out there- they have a working product that will
soon be available on cross-platform phones. By the time they get ready to
shed the iDen network (still years away), most of their voice and data
traffic will be CDMA and a viable CDMA PTT solution will also exist.
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-03-25, 11:48 pm |
| On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:33:46 -0600, in alt.internet.wireless , clifto
<clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>
>USUALLY my GPS is accurate to 15 feet or less. If you believe yours
>is *always* that accurate, go try your story in sci.geo.satellite-nav.
FWIW I don't recollect ever having said any such thing. I recall a
trip from Wales to Oxford which was recorded ok, but which on closer
examination had one stray point on Rockall...
The point is, its perfectly capable of being accurate to 15ft, or
indeed better.
Mark McIntyre
--
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-03-25, 11:48 pm |
| On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:04:56 -0500, in alt.internet.wireless , George
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>
>Sorry, just because you obtained that accuracy at a location does not
>indicate in any way that it is accurate to 15 feet *all* of the time as
>you state.
Where in the above post did I say it was accurate all of the time? You
misread what I wrote.
Mark McIntyre
--
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-25, 11:48 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Well it does show that Sprint's purchase of Nextel may have been a good
> idea, but time will tell if they get a positive ROI out of the deal.
Some trade magazines are pointing out the possibility that the U.S.
government myy buy out the Nextel infrastructure for unified communications.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-25, 11:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> My GPS is accurate/repeatable to about 15 feet.
That accuracy is so last Millennium...
With you living on the coastline, I would expect that you should be
getting at least +/- 2' to 3' accuracy if you held you position for at
least a few minutes, which I realize would be impossible on a sailboat.
You get what you pay for, the more expensive units using augmented GPS
have better than 3 ft accuracy. The most expensive units like we had at
the farm co-op for our tractors was good for 1" to 3" accuracy.
| |
| Jeff Liebermann 2006-03-26, 2:48 am |
| DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> hath wroth:
>You get what you pay for, the more expensive units using augmented GPS
>have better than 3 ft accuracy. The most expensive units like we had at
>the farm co-op for our tractors was good for 1" to 3" accuracy.
Those are differential GPS corrected units such as AutoFarm/Novariant.
http://www.novariant.com/agriculture/
They claim 4" accuracy with their own local DGPS transmitter. The
corrections can be obtained via radio from a variety of sources as
well as downloaded from the internet. However, I think we were
talking about the commonly available consumer GPS with possibly WAAS
corrections. Accuracy is 3 to 10ft with WAAS:
http://www.gpsinformation.net/waas/vista-waas.html
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/dgps.htm
depending on unit tested.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-26, 5:48 pm |
| In-Reply-To: < 8m7c22hd36rdki4ob4c4
pg3umktae0ik2s@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <DUyVf.5499$4L1.4782@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.173.98.150
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 1143388835 ST000 166.173.98.150 (Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:00:35 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:00:35 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: SCSYASBEWJTGRTLY@BCB
NWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO
^ZUDUWYAKVUOPCW& #91;ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBM
SFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW& #91;X\THOPXZRVOCJTUT
PC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVM
ZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXI
NH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E& #91;A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPL
DFNVUQ_VM
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:00:35 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:64451 alt.internet.wireless:120647
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> However, I think we were
> talking about the commonly available consumer GPS with possibly WAAS
> corrections.
Well, You know...its the "I got a bigger belt buckle thing" :)
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-27, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 442564ee$0$96007$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:42:51
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>Well it does show that Sprint's purchase of Nextel may have been a good
>idea, but time will tell if they get a positive ROI out of the deal. So
>far no one else's PTT is as good as Nextel's.
Kodiak technology (used by Cingular) is actually better.
>If the iDEN network is
>shutdown,
As it almost certainly will be.
>suddenly you'll have three carriers competing for PTT
>customers with poorer quality PTT, both in service and equipment, but
>with much better coverage overall.
Actually better in the case of Cingular.
>No incentive to stay with Sprint if
>that happens, though Sprint will try to retain them, and just the effort
>to change carriers will help them retain most of the Nextel users.
Sprint hopes that EV-DO Rev A, expected to be deployed later this year, will
measure up to iDEN and Kodiak in PTT. It looks promising in field trials thus
but. But if not, Sprint could go with Kodiak as well.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-27, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <bn8ef3-2s8.ln1@remote.clifto.com> on Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:33:46 -0600,
clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mark McIntyre wrote:
>
>I posted in 2001 about the trip my apartment building took. Two
>nights in a row, my apartment building took off from my Chicago
>suburb and flew into Indiana (according to my GPS). Readings stopped
>when the building hit 100,000 feet at 650 MPH somewhere southwest
>of Lafayette, Indiana. I also had one other occurrance where the
>apartment building went up like an elevator from its ground level
>(just under 700 feet AMSL) to 1100 feet, then way down to about
>60 feet below sea level, then returned.
>
>USUALLY my GPS is accurate to 15 feet or less. If you believe yours
>is *always* that accurate, go try your story in sci.geo.satellite-nav.
I've been a regular and frequent user of GPS for years, and I've never had
that kind of problem. As I'm usually using and able to compare at least two
different good brands (currently Magellan and Garmin), I'm quite confident of
*always* having had and continuing to have that level of accuracy.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| |