|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > April 2007 > Sprint's Big Pipe Dream
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 |
Sprint's Big Pipe Dream
|
|
| John Navas 2007-04-09, 3:33 pm |
| <http://www.thestreet.com/_htmlbtb/s...h/10348860.html>
Sprint's condition looks so dismal that an all-or-nothing bet on an
unproven wireless technology is actually shaping up as a bright spot.
Tuning out the static surrounding its repeated stumbles, Sprint late
last month announced a major expansion of its wireless broadband
project. After originally targeting Chicago and Baltimore, Sprint now
says it will launch the so-called 4G service in 17 additional cities
by the end of 2008.
Sprint has budgeted about $2.75 billion for the effort, effectively
doubling down on a not-yet-standardized wireless format known as
mobile Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access, or WiMax.
Theoretically, the new network will soon deliver the sort of speedy
mobile Internet connections that people now enjoy at their desktops.
....
"WiMax is our future," says one Sprint insider who is involved with
the decision. "There's no margin for error. It's not like we can say
'we gave it our best effort' and then move on."
[MORE]
Sprint loses out on major contract
<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...dlines-business>
Dealing a significant blow to Sprint Nextel Corp., the government
Thursday awarded the largest-ever federal telecommunications contract
-- a 10-year deal worth as much as $48 billion -- to Sprint rivals
AT&T, Qwest Communications and Verizon.
....
The GSA announcement was a serious loss for Sprint Nextel, analysts
said, because the Reston, Va.-based company has been providing
telecom services to the federal government for nearly 20 years.
This year, Sprint announced thousands of job cuts amid service
troubles, a dwindling customer base and difficulty assimilating
Nextel Communications, which it acquired in 2004. Sprint shares are
down about 20% from a year ago and the company is forecasting
near-flat operating revenue and earnings this year.
"It's terrible for Sprint," said technology consultant Warren Suss of
Jenkintown, Pa. "The federal government was Sprint's first major
customer since the company started."
GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out.
[MORE]
Sprint Runs Out of Appeal
<http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rmct/rm...g/10331568.html>
Sprint was a pure takeover target. That's why people owned it. No
other reason. There was no earnings potential, none as the company
pretty much telegraphed. You could bank on a disappointment, but
people couldn't resist it. They believed that no matter how bad it
was, they could withstand the pain because of the buyout potential.
Of course, as with the Gap, as with Home Depot, when you speculate on
this nonsense you have a really terrible risk/reward. Sure, Sprint
could get a takeover bid, but it won't come from $20. It might not
even come from $17.
Fifteen feels more like it.
Nobody can resist speculating on crummy companies. I just have to
warn you that any potential buyers of this company know that things
are crummy there and they aren't interested, either.
The fundamentals of any company must be good enough that you will
want to buy more if there is a disappointment. It's pretty clear
today that Sprint owners want out. That's what you get when you make
a bet on unsound merchandise.
Caveat emptor.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2007-04-09, 3:33 pm |
| What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
information? Navas, do you know anything?
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:oduk1318s5d372a
oduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@
4ax.com...
> <http://www.thestreet.com/_htmlbtb/s...h/10348860.html>
>
> Sprint's condition looks so dismal that an all-or-nothing bet on an
> unproven wireless technology is actually shaping up as a bright spot.
>
> Tuning out the static surrounding its repeated stumbles, Sprint late
> last month announced a major expansion of its wireless broadband
> project. After originally targeting Chicago and Baltimore, Sprint now
> says it will launch the so-called 4G service in 17 additional cities
> by the end of 2008.
>
> Sprint has budgeted about $2.75 billion for the effort, effectively
> doubling down on a not-yet-standardized wireless format known as
> mobile Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access, or WiMax.
> Theoretically, the new network will soon deliver the sort of speedy
> mobile Internet connections that people now enjoy at their desktops.
> ...
> "WiMax is our future," says one Sprint insider who is involved with
> the decision. "There's no margin for error. It's not like we can say
> 'we gave it our best effort' and then move on."
>
> [MORE]
>
> Sprint loses out on major contract
> <http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...dlines-business>
>
> Dealing a significant blow to Sprint Nextel Corp., the government
> Thursday awarded the largest-ever federal telecommunications contract
> -- a 10-year deal worth as much as $48 billion -- to Sprint rivals
> AT&T, Qwest Communications and Verizon.
> ...
> The GSA announcement was a serious loss for Sprint Nextel, analysts
> said, because the Reston, Va.-based company has been providing
> telecom services to the federal government for nearly 20 years.
>
> This year, Sprint announced thousands of job cuts amid service
> troubles, a dwindling customer base and difficulty assimilating
> Nextel Communications, which it acquired in 2004. Sprint shares are
> down about 20% from a year ago and the company is forecasting
> near-flat operating revenue and earnings this year.
>
> "It's terrible for Sprint," said technology consultant Warren Suss of
> Jenkintown, Pa. "The federal government was Sprint's first major
> customer since the company started."
>
> GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out.
>
> [MORE]
>
> Sprint Runs Out of Appeal
> <http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rmct/rm...g/10331568.html>
>
> Sprint was a pure takeover target. That's why people owned it. No
> other reason. There was no earnings potential, none as the company
> pretty much telegraphed. You could bank on a disappointment, but
> people couldn't resist it. They believed that no matter how bad it
> was, they could withstand the pain because of the buyout potential.
>
> Of course, as with the Gap, as with Home Depot, when you speculate on
> this nonsense you have a really terrible risk/reward. Sure, Sprint
> could get a takeover bid, but it won't come from $20. It might not
> even come from $17.
>
> Fifteen feels more like it.
>
> Nobody can resist speculating on crummy companies. I just have to
> warn you that any potential buyers of this company know that things
> are crummy there and they aren't interested, either.
>
> The fundamentals of any company must be good enough that you will
> want to buy more if there is a disappointment. It's pretty clear
> today that Sprint owners want out. That's what you get when you make
> a bet on unsound merchandise.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-09, 3:33 pm |
| <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...logy/techpolicy>
Although the contract is a big win for AT&T, Qwest and Verizon,
industry analysts said, it is a devastating blow for Sprint, which
has provided services under the government's previous two major
telecom contracts, spanning two decades.
"This doesn't just mean a loss of federal business -- this will
marginalize Sprint and really narrow their scope to a niche wireless
contractor versus a broad carrier," said Warren Suss, a telecom
analyst for Suss Consulting in Jenkintown, Pa. "The fact that they
didn't make the cut here means that from a pricing and technological
point of view, they had a hard time providing services across the
board."
Other analysts speculated that the government was wary of doing
business with Sprint, which has been losing subscribers and whose
stock has lost about 20 percent of its value, adjusted for dividends
and splits, since its 2005 merger with Nextel. William E. Kennard,
former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, was brought
on to Sprint's board of directors after the merger, in part to help
bolster the company's federal presence. He resigned from his post
three weeks ago -- an early sign, some say, that Sprint was facing
defeat.
[MORE]
<http://go.sosd.com/adapt/servlet/nr...&cat=Technology>
While current GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out, Bob
Woods, a former official at the agency who now works as a consultant,
surmised that Sprint could not meet the low prices of its
competitors. Woods estimated that Sprint could lose roughly $200
million to $250 million annually in existing government business.
Executives from Sprint plan to meet with GSA officials next week to
discuss why their contract proposal fell short, and the company will
decide afterwards whether to file a protest, spokeswoman Sukhi Sahni
said in an e-mail.
[MORE]
Sprint Nextel will not protest contract
<http://www.kansascity.com/438/story/62087.html>
Sprint Nextel Corp., the only losing bidder among four companies
vying for a government telecommunications contract worth up to $48
billion, said Friday it has decided not to protest last week's
decision.
The company met with the General Service Administration on Wednesday
for a "debriefing" on why they weren't chosen for the 10-year
"Networx Universal" contract.
....
Sprint, which has been supplying telecom services to the government
for the last 18 years, lost out to Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T
Inc. and Qwest Communications International Inc. for the Universal
contract. As a result, Sprint will not be able to compete for
individual agency business for the next decade.
[MORE]
<http://svextra.com/blogs/gmsv/2007/...n_the_mail.html>
The blow to Sprint, which had participated in providing telecom
services to the federal government for nearly 20 years, was a
crusher. The company has been leaking customers and jobs since
acquiring Nextel in 2005, and it had already announced plans to lay
off 5,000 workers this year as sales lagged. Asked why Sprint was
sent home, John Johnson of the GPA would say only, "The three
awardees best meet our needs." Sprint officials said they would press
the feds for a more detailed explanation next week before deciding
whether to protest its exclusion. [MORE]
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:32:22 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com>
wrote in <WEvSh.158200$p17.128201@newsfe11.phx>:
>What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
>information? Navas, do you know anything?
>
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:oduk1318s5d372a
oduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@
4ax.com...
>
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2007-04-09, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:oduk1318s5d372a
oduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@
4ax.com:
> <http://www.thestreet.com/_htmlbtb/s...llbusinesstech/
> 10348860.html>
>
Great article at face value but a few things stand out- I spotted at least
three major inaccuracies and no comparative mention of Cingular's merger
woes.
| |
| Scott 2007-04-09, 10:33 pm |
| "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote in
news:WEvSh.158200$p17.128201@newsfe11.phx:
> What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
> information? Navas, do you know anything?
>
>
Navas doesn't know anything if it's not contained in a Google link.
One thought on the street is that Sprint might have half-assed the whole
thing because while the dollars sound great, margin on those types of
accounts are horrible. Between huge equipment subsidies (including
contracted cell towers and private networks), huge pricing discounts,
special billing requirements, budget shortfalls (which stop payment in a
heartbeat) and the necessity to go through the GSA for payment puts net
revenue far below any other tier of customer in the industry. The money
looks good coming in, but id of no value if most of it goes right back out.
The budget piece is of particular importance- the contract was advertised
as being worth "up to $48B" over ten years. The real value won't be
determined by the carriers- it will be determined by Congress.
There is a secondary contract being offered later in the year with fewer
requirements and worth $20B. Sprint may be focusing their energies there.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2007-04-10, 4:33 am |
| Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when Sprint is
the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I think that it is
time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to you later...
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:CJOdnXKAra0yT4f
bnZ2dnUVZ_tKjnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote in
> news:WEvSh.158200$p17.128201@newsfe11.phx:
>
> Navas doesn't know anything if it's not contained in a Google link.
>
> One thought on the street is that Sprint might have half-assed the whole
> thing because while the dollars sound great, margin on those types of
> accounts are horrible. Between huge equipment subsidies (including
> contracted cell towers and private networks), huge pricing discounts,
> special billing requirements, budget shortfalls (which stop payment in a
> heartbeat) and the necessity to go through the GSA for payment puts net
> revenue far below any other tier of customer in the industry. The money
> looks good coming in, but id of no value if most of it goes right back
> out.
>
> The budget piece is of particular importance- the contract was advertised
> as being worth "up to $48B" over ten years. The real value won't be
> determined by the carriers- it will be determined by Congress.
>
> There is a secondary contract being offered later in the year with fewer
> requirements and worth $20B. Sprint may be focusing their energies there.
| |
| Tinman 2007-04-10, 4:33 am |
| "Mij Adyaw" wrote:
>
> Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when Sprint is
> the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I think that it
> is time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to you later...
>
This must be painful for you, being both a Navas and Sprint supporter and
all.
--
Mike
| |
| xPosTech 2007-04-10, 10:33 am |
| On 4/10/2007 12:44 AM, Tinman wrote:
> "Mij Adyaw" wrote:
>
> This must be painful for you, being both a Navas and Sprint supporter and
> all.
>
>
BFG
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
A metal's temper doesn't mean it is angry.
| |
|
| Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when Sprint is
> the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I think that it is
> time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to you later...
What we haven't seen is something similar to what happened when the
RBOCs and RVOCs decided that they'd be better off selling DSL service to
the masses, at a lower price, rather than selling it to a relatively few
number of users at a high price. Of course seeding the market for FIOS
and U-Verse was one of the other reasons to go after market share for DSL.
Which wireless carrier will be the first to decide to drop their pants
on data pricing and try to sell it to the masses? And if they drop the
price, will the masses even be interested unless it can replace their
DSL or broadband connection? Unfortunately, despite the hundreds of
millions of dollars that the carriers have spent on 3G and 4G, they
don't have the capacity to sell data to the masses.
Personally, every client I have has wireless available for visitors.
Nearly every hotel I stay at (at least where 3G or 4G is available) also
has free wireless. Free wireless is widely available in coffee houses,
restaurants, libraries, and sometimes whole cities. I might pay
$10/month for unlimited 3G or 4G, unless it also replaces DSL, in which
case I'd pay $30 or so per month.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-10, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:36:54 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 461baf17$0$27175$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
>What we haven't seen is something similar to what happened when the
>RBOCs and RVOCs decided that they'd be better off selling DSL service to
>the masses, at a lower price, rather than selling it to a relatively few
>number of users at a high price. Of course seeding the market for FIOS
>and U-Verse was one of the other reasons to go after market share for DSL.
>
>Which wireless carrier will be the first to decide to drop their pants
>on data pricing and try to sell it to the masses?
They (AT&T and T-Mobile) already have.
>And if they drop the
>price, will the masses even be interested unless it can replace their
>DSL or broadband connection? Unfortunately, despite the hundreds of
>millions of dollars that the carriers have spent on 3G and 4G, they
>don't have the capacity to sell data to the masses.
They, following the lead of NTT DoCoMo, are actually already well along
in what the masses want, not replacement of wired broadband connections
(something of interest only to a few of us geeks), but broadband content
appropriate to wireless: music, video, radio, etc. CNN News video on my
new V3xx is quite good -- I'm surprised at how often I watch it.
>Personally, every client I have has wireless available for visitors.
>Nearly every hotel I stay at (at least where 3G or 4G is available) also
>has free wireless. Free wireless is widely available in coffee houses,
>restaurants, libraries, and sometimes whole cities. I might pay
>$10/month for unlimited 3G or 4G, unless it also replaces DSL, in which
>case I'd pay $30 or so per month.
The price point for handset (not tethered) data seems to be $10-20 per
month. Tethered data seems likely to stay at a premium over wired
broadband, $40-80 per month.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Tinman 2007-04-10, 12:33 pm |
| "John Navas" wrote:
>
> The price point for handset (not tethered) data seems to be $10-20 per
> month. Tethered data seems likely to stay at a premium over wired
> broadband, $40-80 per month.
>
That's a rather big range. At $80 it will remain a niche market--a shrinking
market if WiFi coverage gets larger.
In addition, the "must have a plan" thing is getting old. Like Stephan
wrote, I also encounter WiFi, or wired Ethernet, in most of my business
traveling. There is no way I'll be willing to pay $80 a month for the few
times WiFi isn't available--not even $40 per month.
I would be willing to pay a fair price for occasional use, but not at the
per-megabyte rate (last I checked rates, anyway). Actually, I recently
turned down paying $9.95 for a day of WiFi usage at IAH airport (Houston).
Considering I was only there for a few hours, had just flown in from (and
was headed to) an airport that had free WiFi, and would have had to supply
CC and other info over the apparently unsecured WLAN I didn't think it was
worth it. Ironically Sprint ran that WiFi service--and it was slower than
heck (there was some non-subscription access).
--
Mike
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-10, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:03:15 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<581qvbF2evo31U1@mid.individual.net>:
>"John Navas" wrote:
>
>That's a rather big range. At $80 it will remain a niche market--a shrinking
>market if WiFi coverage gets larger.
Those price ranges cover ranges of speed and capability, just as pricing
varies in the wired market. I could easily see full HSDPA/EV-DO speed
only at the high end of the price range, with capped speed at the low
end of the price range, and even $80 as a viable option with that kind
of speed. Wi-Fi is too balkanized to really compete with the
flexibility and ubiquitousness of fast 3+G data. WiMAX might be a
different story, especially given all the money Sprint is throwing at
it, but mobile WiMAX is still a long way off (at best).
>In addition, the "must have a plan" thing is getting old. Like Stephan
>wrote, I also encounter WiFi, or wired Ethernet, in most of my business
>traveling. There is no way I'll be willing to pay $80 a month for the few
>times WiFi isn't available--not even $40 per month.
Different strokes I guess -- like most of the people I know, I too often
find I can't get Wi-Fi or wired Internet, and don't see the need to have
a data package as much of an issue (especially if business picks up the
tab), which is why I'm now happily using HSDPA for much (most?) of my
Internet access.
>I would be willing to pay a fair price for occasional use, but not at the
>per-megabyte rate (last I checked rates, anyway). Actually, I recently
>turned down paying $9.95 for a day of WiFi usage at IAH airport (Houston).
>Considering I was only there for a few hours, had just flown in from (and
>was headed to) an airport that had free WiFi, and would have had to supply
>CC and other info over the apparently unsecured WLAN I didn't think it was
>worth it. ...
That's my point, why I think a 3+G data package is better than relying
on finding Wi-Fi or wired Internet. I've got wireless data pretty much
wherever I am at a flat price per month. I think that's pretty
compelling.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Tinman 2007-04-10, 3:33 pm |
| "John Navas" wrote:
>
> That's my point, why I think a 3+G data package is better than relying
> on finding Wi-Fi or wired Internet. I've got wireless data pretty much
> wherever I am at a flat price per month. I think that's pretty
> compelling.
>
I can't argue that when I was stuck in the airport with no connectivity, I
wasn't looking enviously at those with data connect cards/adapters. <g>
The other thing with WiFi is being careful about connecting to unknown
networks. Too many "Free WiFi!!!" SSIDs out there for my comfort level.
That said I'd probably pay around $20 per month or so for wireless access
(carrier based). This could be on top of my plan, via tethering, or with a
connection card/adapter. I wouldn't expect any subsidies on the card or
adapter, naturally.
If no one is willing to sell that to me, I suppose I'll do without. Even $20
a month is tough to justify when I only need it a few times a year. And I
really don't want another "don't ask, don't tell" policy, nor a per-megabyte
option that could bury me with a few hours of usage. If they can't or don't
want to sell it to me at that price I will do without. I personally think
I'm in the majority on this, but time will tell.
--
Mike
Even with $20 on top of my regular plan's handset 'Net, assuming handset
tethering here, that still seems more money than most people would pay. And
$20
| |
| BGhouse 2007-04-10, 3:33 pm |
| "Tinman" <ask@for.it> sed:
> "Mij Adyaw" wrote:
>
> This must be painful for you, being both a Navas and Sprint supporter
> and all.
>
>
Bad Pony Boy!
--
BG - aka Chilly elswhere
| |
| George 2007-04-10, 3:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Personally, every client I have has wireless available for visitors.
> Nearly every hotel I stay at (at least where 3G or 4G is available) also
> has free wireless. Free wireless is widely available in coffee houses,
> restaurants, libraries, and sometimes whole cities. I might pay
> $10/month for unlimited 3G or 4G, unless it also replaces DSL, in which
> case I'd pay $30 or so per month.
A lot depends on where you are located. I am not in the sticks but
everything you described is unusual in the areas where I typically
work/travel. If you want mobile connectivity here you buy an aircard.
| |
| Scott 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:reen13ljq5uav13
e29d72647lq5f0f1u05@
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:03:15 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
> <581qvbF2evo31U1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>
> Those price ranges cover ranges of speed and capability, just as
> pricing varies in the wired market. I could easily see full
> HSDPA/EV-DO speed only at the high end of the price range, with capped
> speed at the low end of the price range, and even $80 as a viable
> option with that kind of speed. Wi-Fi is too balkanized to really
> compete with the flexibility and ubiquitousness of fast 3+G data.
> WiMAX might be a different story, especially given all the money
> Sprint is throwing at it, but mobile WiMAX is still a long way off (at
> best).
And you base this on what? Sprint is specifically markrting WiMax as a
mobile solution and not initially intending it as a replacement for
hardwired broadband. HSDPA does not show the performance of EVDO rev.2 in
terms of performance, and therefore would be hard pressed to command a
premium price when EVDO and WiMax buildouts are completed. Cingular has
come out and said that they are "a few years" from having a truly high
speed broadband offering or anything approaching a 4G product.
>
>
> Different strokes I guess -- like most of the people I know, I too
> often find I can't get Wi-Fi or wired Internet, and don't see the need
> to have a data package as much of an issue (especially if business
> picks up the tab), which is why I'm now happily using HSDPA for much
> (most?) of my Internet access.
And yet Sprint is talking about treating WiMax as a subscription based
offering, much like current ISP's. They have publicly stated that WiMAx
will not be subject to the same rules as current wireless technology. Of
course, this means the probable end to equipment subsidies, but the ability
to come and go as you please will be hard to ignore.Cingular ends up
looking very archaic and pedestrian by comparison.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:30:28 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<5823jcF2ec3jtU1@mid.individual.net>:
>That said I'd probably pay around $20 per month or so for wireless access
>(carrier based). This could be on top of my plan, via tethering, or with a
>connection card/adapter. I wouldn't expect any subsidies on the card or
>adapter, naturally.
My own comfort point is about that for handset access, and at least
double that for tethering.
>If no one is willing to sell that to me, I suppose I'll do without. Even $20
>a month is tough to justify when I only need it a few times a year. And I
>really don't want another "don't ask, don't tell" policy, nor a per-megabyte
>option that could bury me with a few hours of usage. If they can't or don't
>want to sell it to me at that price I will do without. I personally think
>I'm in the majority on this, but time will tell.
I think the real majority for tethering are business users that are
comfortable at a much higher price point than that.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Larry 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:oduk1318s5d372a
oduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@
4ax.com:
> Sprint has budgeted about $2.75 billion for the effort, effectively
> doubling down on a not-yet-standardized wireless format known as
> mobile Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access, or WiMax.
> Theoretically, the new network will soon deliver the sort of speedy
> mobile Internet connections that people now enjoy at their desktops.
> ...
>
So, John, do you think the archaic audio cellphone systems, like CDMA,
will continue, even though the planet is being dragged, kicking and
screaming if necessary, into a new data age?
The key to WiMax is the "Worldwide Interoperability" part. Everyone on
the SAME system across the planet. Your WiMax VoIP phone and WiMax
computer will work in ANY country on ANY system. That's the aim, much,
I'm sure, to the dismay of the maze of wireless phone carriers in the
USA/Canada.
No, I believe Sprint is simply placing themselves at the head of the line
in the WiMax transition. Instead of this multiple, half-assed, parallel
system of cellular/PCS phone nonsense America is today of non-cooperating
competitors, who only briefly coordinate their inadequacies with other
carriers on their particular data scheme, then refuse to cooperate,
dispite their customers having all these holes. WiMax carriers will all
be resellers of the SAME system, each a part of the whole, as cellular
should have been by force of law from its inception.
Those lagging behind, trying to hold onto their little archaic fiefdoms,
as now, will find themselves losing revenues, as the worldwide WiMax
becomes a reality. The sooner the better for all of us...er,
ah...customers, that is....(c;
Larry
--
| |
| Larry 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:o1cn13p3ioe7k75
grsep07eiorbk914fm1@
4ax.com:
> They (AT&T and T-Mobile) already have.
>
We don't have T-mobile native coverage in Charleston, SC.
But, all over town as I'm scanning the wifi band with Network Stumbler on
the laptop in the car, I'm bombarded with POPs from T-mobile wifi in all
kinds of crazy places. Some places in town, there are EIGHT different T-
mobile hotspots at once! They have great range, even on the little, low
powered wifi band.
Go, WiMax, GO!
Larry
--
| |
| Larry 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in news:581qvbF2evo31U1
@mid.individual.net:
> would have had to supply
> CC and other info over the apparently unsecured WLAN
The signup webpage wasn't 128-bit encrypted?
Larry
--
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Apr 2007 18:17:20 -0500 Scott wrote:
> And yet Sprint is talking about treating WiMax as a subscription based
> offering, much like current ISP's. They have publicly stated that
WiMAx
> will not be subject to the same rules as current wireless technology.
Of
> course, this means the probable end to equipment subsidies, but the
ability
> to come and go as you please will be hard to ignore.Cingular ends up
> looking very archaic and pedestrian by comparison.
So? When WiMax becomes a factor, they (and other wireless carriers) will
react accordingly. Upgrade if feasable, or adjust their pricing to be
competitive.
It's a wee bit early to knock current 3G offerings because Sprint will
have 4G out in the next 18-24 months.
Hell, I'm still using EDGE because T-Mo offers a $6/month unlimited data
plan. $6 hits my "sweet spot" price point because I use it primarily for
mobile e-mail on my PPC phone.
| |
| Scott 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:evhg4m$776$1
@aioe.org:
> At 10 Apr 2007 18:17:20 -0500 Scott wrote:
>
> WiMAx
> Of
> ability
>
> So? When WiMax becomes a factor, they (and other wireless carriers) will
> react accordingly. Upgrade if feasable, or adjust their pricing to be
> competitive.
>
WiMax is not an upgrade- it is an entirely different technology requiring
it's own bandwidth and seperate infrastructure. It's not as simple as
tweaking the current towers. Sprint is currently the only carrier with
available spectrum to dedicate to the technology and by the time anyone
else is able to overlay their own network with the technology, Sprint will
have name recognition and market share along the lines of AOL back in their
heyday. They will also have paid for the network by that time which will
allow them to competitively price against the new competition. Because of
the proposed structure of the new technology (no contracts, no carrier
specific consumer hardware, no equipment subsidies), the only
differentiation between providers will be speed, price and coverage. All
of the other things we use to compare wireless carriers go away. If this
is truly the wave of the future, Sprint holds a huge advantage over any
competition in all three areas. If the gamble pays off, Sprint easily
becomes the technology monster of the wireless world.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| At 10 Apr 2007 21:35:06 -0500 Scott wrote:
> Sprint is currently the only carrier with
> available spectrum to dedicate to the technology and by the time anyone
> else is able to overlay their own network with the technology, Sprint
> will
> have name recognition and market share along the lines of AOL back in
> their heyday.
Been reading the brochures again? ;-)
WiMax might be all that, but don't quickly discount the nature of
competition, and the ability of ANY company, particularly Sprint, to
screw up a good thing!
Ubiquitous wireless will certainly be a good thing, but frankly cellular
data hasn't been widely adopted because of price. Not because it's "too
high" but because it's highER than other options. Whatever "giveaway"
price and high-speed service Sprint comes up with, can be beat by wired
alternatives, even as "loss leaders" to sell, or protect, their other
services (landline, wireless, cable TV, whatever.). If sprint sells it
for $50, wireline will sell for $20 or $30. If they sell it for $30, the
wired guys will go $10 or $15. 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
and speeds will be higher, but mobility will still carry a premium, just
as it does today.)
Wireless will never have the available bandwidth wire has (just ask the
satellite internet companies or today's cellular companies!) so there's a
limit to how low they can price themselves without overselling it (then
your comparisons to AOL will really make sence!)
> They will also have paid for the network by that time which will
> allow them to competitively price against the new competition.
If they don't go broke first! ;-) It'll cost x amount to build 4G,
whether you spend it out of today's profits or tomorrow's.
> Because of
> the proposed structure of the new technology (no contracts, no carrier
> specific consumer hardware, no equipment subsidies), the only
> differentiation between providers will be speed, price and coverage.
There was a wireless telephone company once that tried selling
unsubsidized phones with no contracts on the idea that their network
quality would take care of the rest.
Who was that...? ;-)
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.
> All
> of the other things we use to compare wireless carriers go away. If
> this
> is truly the wave of the future, Sprint holds a huge advantage over any
> competition in all three areas. If the gamble pays off, Sprint easily
> becomes the technology monster of the wireless world.
I've heard that before too- the awesome might of a leading long-distance
company launching an all-digital wireless PCS phone network... it's
enough to give you goosebumps... in 1998, that is.
Hey, it might happen- who knows. But let's just say I'm not ready to
dump my AT&T or Deusche Telcom stock quite yet...
Just as slower DSL can hold it's own against faster cable internet by
creative bundling and discount pricing, 3G carriers can hold their own
against WiMax, (at least long enough to build a competitive technology)
by cutting prices, subsidizing equipment, and creatively bundling.
And, don't forget, the other carrers aren't sitting on their hands- 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.
BTW, I like Sprint- I'm not bashing. I hope they make a good go of it.
If it goes off as planned it'll be great for consumers.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:13:44 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <evhjpk$e7g$1@aioe.org>:
>[SNIP]
Very well put.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-10, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:47:36 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
< Xns990EDDFAC8BA2noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
> news:oduk1318s5d372a
oduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@
4ax.com:
>
[color=darkred]
>So, John, do you think the archaic audio cellphone systems, like CDMA,
CDMA2000.
>will continue, even though the planet is being dragged, kicking and
>screaming if necessary, into a new data age?
Yes.
>The key to WiMax is the "Worldwide Interoperability" part. Everyone on
>the SAME system across the planet. Your WiMax VoIP phone and WiMax
>computer will work in ANY country on ANY system. That's the aim, much,
>I'm sure, to the dismay of the maze of wireless phone carriers in the
>USA/Canada.
Unfortunately, that's not what's actually happening.
>No, I believe Sprint is simply placing themselves at the head of the line
>in the WiMax transition.
I think Sprint is making a very big and very risky bet.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in news:evhjpk$e7g$1
@aioe.org:
> At 10 Apr 2007 21:35:06 -0500 Scott wrote:
>
anyone[color=darkred
]
>
> Been reading the brochures again? ;-)
Actually, I've probably done as much (if not more) independent research
on the subject as anyone posting to these groups- it's my job :-)
>
> WiMax might be all that, but don't quickly discount the nature of
> competition, and the ability of ANY company, particularly Sprint, to
> screw up a good thing!
Duly noted and agreed to. However, Sprint has a lot going in its favor.
Nextel did a number of high speed wireless consumer testing in the
southeast (pre-merger) and the results were actually quite positive.
The customer base ended up being much larger than anticipated (not just
the geeks) and customer feedback was overwhemingly positive. The
braintrust of these test are in charge of the WiMax conversion and the
knowledge base going into this is actually quite large. If they screw
this one up, they deserve everything coming to them.
>
> Ubiquitous wireless will certainly be a good thing, but frankly
cellular
> data hasn't been widely adopted because of price. Not because it's
"too
> high" but because it's highER than other options.
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.
> Whatever "giveaway"
> price and high-speed service Sprint comes up with, can be beat by
wired
> alternatives, even as "loss leaders" to sell, or protect, their other
> services (landline, wireless, cable TV, whatever.).
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.
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.
> If sprint sells it
> for $50, wireline will sell for $20 or $30. If they sell it for $30,
> the
> wired guys will go $10 or $15. 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. 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.
> and speeds will be higher, but mobility will still carry a premium,
just
> as it does today.)
>
> Wireless will never have the available bandwidth wire has (just ask
the
> satellite internet companies or today's cellular companies!) so
there's a
> limit to how low they can price themselves without overselling it
(then
> your comparisons to AOL will really make sence!)
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. All they would have
to do is provide dual frequency technology to their users, which would
never know the difference.
>
>
> If they don't go broke first! ;-) It'll cost x amount to build 4G,
> whether you spend it out of today's profits or tomorrow's.
>
They're spending $10B to build a nationwide network- most of the
carriers are currently spending in excess of $1B a year just to maintain
and marginally expand their current networks. $10B is actually a
bargain.
carrier[color=darkre
d]
>
> There was a wireless telephone company once that tried selling
> unsubsidized phones with no contracts on the idea that their network
> quality would take care of the rest.
>
> Who was that...? ;-)
You're still comparing apples to oranges- this is not a voice network.
>
> 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?
>
any[color=darkred]
easily[color=darkred
]
>
> I've heard that before too- the awesome might of a leading long-
distance
> company launching an all-digital wireless PCS phone network... it's
> enough to give you goosebumps... in 1998, that is.
>
> Hey, it might happen- who knows. But let's just say I'm not ready to
> dump my AT&T or Deusche Telcom stock quite yet...
>
> Just as slower DSL can hold it's own against faster cable internet by
> creative bundling and discount pricing, 3G carriers can hold their own
> against WiMax, (at least long enough to build a competitive
technology)
> by cutting prices, subsidizing equipment, and creatively bundling.
>
> And, don't forget, the other carrers aren't sitting on their hands-
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). 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?
>
> BTW, I like Sprint- I'm not bashing. I hope they make a good go of
it.
> If it goes off as planned it'll be great for consumers.
>
>
| |
|
| John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in
news:e6lo13dg07gf5sr
dn2orfnlq64tlmvi9i3@
4ax.com:
>
>
> Unfortunately, that's not what's actually happening.
Actually that is exactly what is happening, which you would know if you had
a clue about the subject.
>
>
> I think Sprint is making a very big and very risky bet.
>
I think you don't understand anything about cellular, at least not more
than the average consumer.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-11, 4:33 am |
| 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
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.
(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! ;-)
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
>
> 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!
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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
(Excellent discussion, BTW, thank you for your insights!)
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2007-04-11, 7:33 am |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:hieo13phso7v67n
ccoeuu0oa262ns4g3uk@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:30:28 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
> <5823jcF2ec3jtU1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>
> My own comfort point is about that for handset access, and at least
> double that for tethering.
>
>
> I think the real majority for tethering are business users that are
> comfortable at a much higher price point than that.
And they expense it and therefore may not be quite as price sensitive.
Don
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:26:45 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <evi2vv$8ls$1@aioe.org>:
>(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.)
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.
>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.
>
>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.
>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. Challenges
include a general lack of uniform and suitable spectrum (as in India),
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.a... />
rt+WiMAX%3F>
The WiMAX hype machine is sputtering in the wake of Clearwire’s
post-IPO doldrums, and one technology analyst believes this may
dampen the prospects of other startups hoping to wow Wall Street.
"Clearwire has brought into focus questions that should always have
been asked about WiMAX, but now market reality has spoken," said Phil
Sayer, a senior analyst with Forrester Research.
And reality has spoken loudly. Since it debuted at $25 last week,
Clearwire’s shares have fallen to as low as $19.52 in only three days
of trading (see Clearwire Raises $600M). Shares of the company rose
$0.58 to $21.97 in recent trading on Tuesday, however.
In its three years of existence, Clearwire, which was founded by
wireless icon Craig McCaw, has never turned a profit.
The Kirkland, Washington-based company posted a net loss of $284.2
million in 2006 on sales of $100 million.
And while the founder’s Midas touch may have factored in to the
company’s IPO, investors apparently were able to see past the WiMAX
hype.
"A big piece of the value of WiMAX was in its mobility, but spectrum
issues and differences have conspired to make it more valuable as a
fixed wireless service," said Joe Nordgaard, director of the wireless
consulting firm Spectral Advantage.
[MORE]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 10:33 am |
| A look at WiMax, problems and pluses
<http://www.computerworld.com.au/ind...2;fp
id;3>
But the version of WiMax that is capturing everyone's attention is
mobile WiMax. The spec for this technology doesn't yet exist, but it
will be based on the very new IEEE 802.16e-2005 standard. The idea
here is simple: a metro-scale, broadband, all-IP service with full
support for time-bounded traffic like VoIP.
Mobile systems are much tougher to engineer than fixed systems for a
number of reasons. First, while we'd like to keep the number of base
stations to a minimum because they're expensive, the nature of a
given radio connection changes as the mobile end moves. Specifically,
fading comes into play, and at times the signal may fade so much that
a connection can't be maintained.
We may also have problems with capacity as lots of users attempt to
access the relatively limited number of channels available. The
solution here is simple in one respect -- just add more base
stations. Cellular carriers have to deal with this problem on a daily
basis, but, again, the expense involved is one of the reasons that
cellular systems still feature dropped calls, occasional gaps in
service and (often) slow data throughput.
In fact, comparisons with cellular are quite appropriate here, since
the challenges faced by cellular and mobile WiMax are almost
identical. And therein lies the biggest challenge -- can mobile WiMax
really compete with cellular? Cellular-based wireless broadband
services like 1xEV-DO, available from Sprint and Verizon, and HSDPA
(High-Speed Downlink Packet Access), available from Cingular, will
eventually offer multimegabit data services -- exactly the territory
mobile WiMax is targeting. While it's been theorized that the cost of
mobile WiMax base stations will be less than that of corresponding
cellular equipment, the real costs in operating any wireless network
are in spectrum (it's auctioned to the highest bidder), real estate
and customer-related functions like marketing, sales and support.
WiMax won't have any advantage in these.
[MORE]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| In-Reply-To: <evikbr01e47@enews4.newsguy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000733-0, 04/11/2007), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 12
Message-ID: < 461ceec1$0$27176$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
Organization: Sonic.Net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Apr 2007 14:20:50 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 28c3937c.news.sonic.net
X-Trace: DXC=lMj;dJLX?PU:GPg& #91;CXEOAZm4K\QM1CV^
P1OYf0H`? ;XQ=Z2MBV4WG;\GTZ^Sj
VP7D[0n]o3X?m9DZ
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:78200
Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
> And they expense it and therefore may not be quite as price sensitive.
In order to utilize the 3G/4G infrastructure that the carriers have
spent billions of dollars (collectively) deploying, they are going to
have to expand the user base beyond business.
The challenge is finding a way to offer lower-priced plans without
having business users take advantage of those plans. They could do data
plans with unlimited off-peak/limited peak, they could do data plans
that didn't include roaming, they could do lower-speed plans, etc.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:20:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 461ceec1$0$27176$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Don Udel (ETC) wrote:
>
>
>In order to utilize the 3G/4G infrastructure that the carriers have
>spent billions of dollars (collectively) deploying, they are going to
>have to expand the user base beyond business.
Based on what? While carriers do need to increase ARPU in order to
appease Wall Street, business data demand far outstrips consumer
opportunities, the majority of which is messaging.
>The challenge is finding a way to offer lower-priced plans without
>having business users take advantage of those plans. They could do data
>plans with unlimited off-peak/limited peak, they could do data plans
>that didn't include roaming, they could do lower-speed plans, etc.
That challenge has already been addressed in current data packages.
The real challenge is finding something compelling enough for consumers
to be willing to pay for it.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> 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.
Two points here....McCaw's Clearwire and DSL's new limitations.
As previously mentioned, WiMax may not be targeting the existing hardwired
network such as cable and DSL...but McCaw's Clearwire seems to be doing
just that. http://www.clearwire.com
Personally I think that's a failed model as Clearwire is offering only 1.5
Mbps comparable speeds for $50 where telcos offer that speed for half that
price. Then to make is harder for Clearwire, telcos also offer 5 Mbps for
around $50.
----
Then you have the new limitations on how far DSL will reach. Straight from
AT&T's sales department here are the latest deployment distances:
6 Mbps up to 6,500 ft.
3 Mbps up to 9,500 ft.
1.5 Mbps up to 14,000 ft.
If their outside plant cable maps show you over 14,000...you don't get DSL.
Period. A telco installer was telling me of a customer that had working DSL
out to about 18,000 ft, but had her service disconnected for non-payment.
When she tried to reestablish (set up a whole new account), she couldn't
get DSL.
For these customers, wireless broadband might be an alternative. But with
the telcos aggressively deploying DSLAMs in pedestals along the roadsides
instead of only at the central office as in the past, we're seeing DSL
being offered out in the country side.
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote in <Np7Th.21636$tD2.13140@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>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.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-11, 12:33 pm |
| 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 (like Cingular
always did with their DataConnect kits- when you get $30-40 for a $2-
wholesale cable and a connection setup wizard on a self-pressed CD you
can afford a few support phone calls!)
You could even make the kit "required" (i.e. support would only provide
instructions for connecting with the enclosed software, not with setting
up a manual DUN connection on your Linux box with an eBay-purchased data
cable), or at least make the kit more attractive- perhaps include a few
"free one-day pass" coupons so the kit essentially also becomes a
"prepaid starter kit."
Plus, I assume (perhaps wrongly) than someone using such a service would
be likely to use it again as needed (and already be configured,
mitigating support) plus might get "addicted" enough to use it as a
gateway to a monthly access plan.
Despite the lucrative business arket, I can't help but feel the wireless
carriers are leaving revenue on the table by missing some untapped
markets between the $5-15 data-on-phone and $60-80 data card customer.
Following the "hot-spot" model might make sense. T-Mobile offers their
(fairly pathetic) Wi-Fi Hot-Spot service to both their customers (at a
discount) as well as to the public at large for anything from an hour to
daily, or monthly. Who has a bigger potential "hot-spot" network than
Cingular, Sprint or Verizon?
Just food for thought, as they say...
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:45:29 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <evj1p2$kui$1@aioe.org>:
>At 11 Apr 2007 14:08:04 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
>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 (like Cingular
>always did with their DataConnect kits- when you get $30-40 for a $2-
>wholesale cable and a connection setup wizard on a self-pressed CD you
>can afford a few support phone calls!)
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)
+ Even swapping a SIM card is an issue
+ The multitude of cables and drivers would make SKUs a nightmare.
What's needed is a universal mini-USB cable standard and universal
USB modem driver.
* $20 is pretty much the limit for one-shot impulse buys.
>You could even make the kit "required" (i.e. support would only provide
>instructions for connecting with the enclosed software, not with setting
>up a manual DUN connection on your Linux box with an eBay-purchased data
>cable), or at least make the kit more attractive- perhaps include a few
>"free one-day pass" coupons so the kit essentially also becomes a
>"prepaid starter kit."
Require a (say) $40 "starter kit" and I think the potential market
shrinks dramatically.
>Plus, I assume (perhaps wrongly) than someone using such a service would
>be likely to use it again as needed (and already be configured,
>mitigating support) plus might get "addicted" enough to use it as a
>gateway to a monthly access plan.
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.
>Despite the lucrative business arket, I can't help but feel the wireless
>carriers are leaving revenue on the table by missing some untapped
>markets between the $5-15 data-on-phone and $60-80 data card customer.
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).
>Following the "hot-spot" model might make sense. T-Mobile offers their
>(fairly pathetic) Wi-Fi Hot-Spot service to both their customers (at a
>discount) as well as to the public at large for anything from an hour to
>daily, or monthly. Who has a bigger potential "hot-spot" network than
>Cingular, Sprint or Verizon?
Racks in local retailers? Again, the problem I see is support: "Hey!
I bought this from you, and it doesn't work!"
>Just food for thought, as they say...
If you really think it's that good an opportunity, form an MVNO and go
for it yourself! :)
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-11, 12:33 pm |
| At 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 +0000 DTC wrote:
> As previously mentioned, WiMax may not be targeting the existing
> hardwired network such as cable and DSL...but McCaw's Clearwire seems
> to be doing just that. http://www.clearwire.com
>
> Personally I think that's a failed model as Clearwire is offering
> only 1.5 Mbps comparable speeds for $50 where telcos offer that speed
> for half that price. Then to make is harder for Clearwire, telcos
> also offer 5 Mbps for around $50.
Spoken like a city slicker! ;-)
The appeal of $50 1.5Mbps service will be in the "sticks" where the only
viable broadband options are currently satellite ($300-600 for equipment,
and $50-80/month for 512k-1.5m.)
> For these customers, wireless broadband might be an alternative. But
> with the telcos aggressively deploying DSLAMs in pedestals along the
> roadsides instead of only at the central office as in the past, we're
> seeing DSL being offered out in the country side.
There's country and then there's country! Rural DSL deployment isn't
happening fast enough that Clearwire won't have a solid opportunity for a
few years if they can deploy their service before that happens. (Look at
the third world countries that have leapfrogged past wireline telephony
right in to wireless, because the per customer cost of deploying wireless
is much cheaper.) Many rural areas in the US will likely be better
served by wireless or satellite internet for quite some time.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> Agreed, and I hope they don't. I'd love to see this happen as planned.
> Sprint's track record, however, is against them. IMHO, Sprint already
> offers the best wireless data option today in terms of coverage, speed
> and value, yet their marketing department can't sem to wrestle that
> business away from Verizon.
Verizon seems to have the high-end business market locked up, not
because of data, but because of the combination of voice coverage that
Sprint can't duplicate, data coverage that is almost as good as Sprint's
but far superior to Cingular's, and value-added services that Cingular
can't offer because their network doesn't support them.
I don't see any way for Sprint to overcome the issue of coverage.
> Similarly, if Sprint comes out of the gate at $50/month, Verizon or
> Cingular can just go to $30. They won't like it any more than Qwest
> likes their $25 price point, but the reality of the situation will force
> their hand.
Verizon hasn't participated in a lot of the price wars, or come up with
stuff like Sprint's short-lived "Fair and Flexible," Cingular's
rollover, or T-Mobile's and Alltel's calling circles.
> Yes and no- just as many folks have ditched their home phones rather than
> pay for both wireless and wireline, some folks will want to ditch wired
> broadband to avoid two bills as well, even if the speed isn't as fast as
> wired.
I would ditch the landline if not for DSL. I wouldn't mind 1.5MB/s
service for home use.
> (Quasi-off-topic, but related, I've often wondered why no wireless
> carrier has ever offered a pay-per-day cellular data option to go after
> the airport/hotel wi-fi hotspot market.
For the same reason that they aren't really interested in pay-per-use
text messaging. If they priced it reasonably, the believe that it would
affect sales of their data plans.
> Consumers care about the benefits, not the underlying technology. In a
> world where it took nearly a decade for the public to learn TiVo was more
> than a tapeless VCR, I suspect Cingular and Verizon will still be selling
> 3G data long after WiMax finally launches.
Hmm, you mean Tivo isn't just a DVR?
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:27:26 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 461d1a7f$0$27172$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
>Verizon seems to have the high-end business market locked up, not
>because of data, but because of the combination of voice coverage that
>Sprint can't duplicate, data coverage that is almost as good as Sprint's
>but far superior to Cingular's, and value-added services that Cingular
>can't offer because their network doesn't support them.
AT&T/Cingular is actually quite strong in the business market thanks to
the strength of ATTWS in that market and current business offerings from
AT&T/Cingular that are easily as strong as Verizon.
>I don't see any way for Sprint to overcome the issue of coverage.
As the recent devastating loss of government business clearly shows,
Sprint is still struggling to realize the Nextel merger, and faces
further challenges in its big all-or-nothing bet on WiMAX.
>
>I would ditch the landline if not for DSL. I wouldn't mind 1.5MB/s
>service for home use.
I've long since ditched landline. HSDPA is quite sufficient for my own
needs, and probably those of most of the average users -- the battle
between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
to most users.
>
>For the same reason that they aren't really interested in pay-per-use
>text messaging. If they priced it reasonably, the believe that it would
>affect sales of their data plans.
That makes no sense. In fact, just the opposite is probably true, that
pay-per-day customers have the potential to become regular subscribers.
The obvious real problems are complexity and cost.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:29:41 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in <evj4r0$s1i$1@aioe.org>:
>At 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 +0000 DTC wrote:
>
>
>Spoken like a city slicker! ;-)
>
>The appeal of $50 1.5Mbps service will be in the "sticks" where the only
>viable broadband options are currently satellite ($300-600 for equipment,
>and $50-80/month for 512k-1.5m.)
Sure, but the problems there are low density and small size of market,
which make that market unattractive to major players. I think that will
mostly appeal to small niche players, and probably at a higher price
point.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Tinman 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| X-Trace: individual.net 2sCQA6wfjywxR5GeTm+R
0AdHMaYOtQc6ESkN4Jz0
rJG/wWW7YJ
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:78216
"Don Udel (ETC)" wrote:
>
> "John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>
> And they expense it and therefore may not be quite as price sensitive.
>
Then there is little market for it, because very few people are using it,
comparatively speaking. And I *could* expense it. I just happen to value
others' money as I do my own (can't see wasting money on something that will
only be used a few times a year--and that's assuming the times I would have
needed it I would have had coverage).
--
Mike
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:43:32 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<584l7fF2er58qU1@mid.individual.net>:
>"Don Udel (ETC)" wrote:
>
>Then there is little market for it, because very few people are using it,
>comparatively speaking. ...
According to what I'm seeing, business is actually the source of the
majority of the growth in data (as distinct from messaging) ARPU, and is
expanding at a healthy pace.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 11 Apr 2007 14:08:04 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>
> 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. Sell those for $50, then charge $10 per day for access.
They won't do it because they think it would hurt sales of the monthly
data plans. Just like they are trying to discourage text messaging
without a monthly texting plan.
The few places where many people might even want the cellular data often
have pay as you go WiFi available.
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/
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| 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.)
> + 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 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.
> 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.
> * $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.
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.
> 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.
> 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
however, which wouldn't make much sense without a committment. 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!
> 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. Heck, the average big-box
retail customer can't buy the right car-charger for their phone unaided
50% of the time. 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. 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) for
mass consumption, and you have a fairly workable model, IMHO.
> 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.
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,) willing carriers (the big four carriers, particularly
Cingular, generally do not wholesale data to MVNOs in fear that it would
cannibalize their postpaid business, 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.
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.
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? 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.
| |
| Paul Miner 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:40:32 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> 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.
--
Paul Miner
| |
| Tinman 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| "SMS" wrote:
> Todd Allcock 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.
>
> The few places where many people might even want the cellular data often
> have pay as you go WiFi available.
Very true about this. But one benefit of cellular is that you could use it
anywhere there was coverage. When I was stuck in Houston IAH airport last
week, with only a $10-per-day WiFi offering, I didn't go for. But the
primary reason was because I would be leaving the airport soon anyway. Had
that $10-per-day for a day of EV-DO, anywhere there's coverage, I would have
jumped on it.
>
> 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. ^_^
--
Mike
| |
| John Navas 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:11:25 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
wrote in < 5hcq13psmsjvrpm10fog
403hcst66ji711@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:40:32 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> 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.
Cable grabbed market share early, but DSL has been taking market share
lately, largely with lower pricing. See " DSL Is America's Choice for
Broadband" (June 2006) <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-147036176.html>
More Than Half of New Broadband Subscribers Now Choose DSL Over
Cable
As Many as One in Seven New Verizon Online DSL Customers Have
Switched From Cable
U.S. Broadband Penetration to Hit 60% in 2007, Led by DSL Growth
<http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...BDFDBDC87B95%7D>
January 2007
About 60 percent of all U.S. homes will subscribe to broadband
service by the end of the year, but cable operators will come
precariously close to losing their majority market share, Pike &
Fischer concludes in a new report published by its Broadband Advisory
Services unit.
Cable operators will see their share of the high-speed Internet
market fall to slightly more than 50 percent as adoption of standard
DSL and, to an increasing extent, fiber to the home or node (FTTx),
continues to help the major telephone companies net the largest
number of new broadband customers, Pike & Fischer forecasts in its
"Broadband Business Outlook 2007."
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| At 11 Apr 2007 17:43:40 +0000 John Navas wrote:
> Sure, but the problems there are low density and small size of market,
> which make that market unattractive to major players. I think that will
> mostly appeal to small niche players, and probably at a higher price
> point.
Which describes the current situation, of course, where their only option
is (comparitively) overpriced satellite broadband.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-04-11, 3:33 pm |
| At 11 Apr 2007 10:27:26 -0700 SMS wrote:
> I don't see any way for Sprint to overcome | | |