On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:14:33 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <evk883$6lb$1@aioe.org>:

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

>> Other things are going to force their hands as well. The more data they
>> try to push through their voice networks is going to cause a capacity
>> problem that Sprint won't have to deal with by running seperate voice
>> and data networks. They won't last long if customers are leaving in
>> droves because the network is overloaded.
>
>True, but the wireless networks give priority to voice, so those who
>notice congestion will be the data users whose connections will slow and
>stutter. They'll need to decide whether it's "good enough" for the
>price! ;-)

Actually not, because (a) it doesn't work that way [it's not that
dynamic], and (b) there's ample 3G spectrum [thanks to technical
efficiency that's been increasing faster than demand].

Sprint OTOH faces major technical risks -- even assuming WiMAX lives up
to the hype, it's by no means clear that Sprint can successfully
integrate cellular with WiMAX -- efforts to integrate cellular with
Wi-Fi have been notably unsuccessful thus far.

>> > some folks will want to ditch
>> > wired broadband to avoid two bills as well, even if the speed isn't as
>> > fast as wired. This might put Sprint in the awkward position of
>> > metering/capping usage, or enforcing a restrictive TOS.
>>
>> They have ample spectrum and backbone to prevent this from happening.
>> If it fails, it won't be due to the lack of technical resources
>> available.
>
>Then why not target fixed broadband as a market as well?

The economics aren't there -- wired broadband is cheaper, and going
toe-to-toe with DSL and cable would probably be a disaster.

>> I don't see that happening. The advantage Sprint has is that the
>> technology will be embedded in consumer technology, which will be hard
>> for VZW and ATT to overcome.
>
>Perhaps. Frankly, I've never found plugging in a PCMCIA card much of a
>technological barrier personally... ;-) Having a "cable-ready" TV
>didn't stop me from subscribing to cheaper satellite TV. I go where the
>deals are.

There's actually no advantage there -- it's just as easy to bundle 3G
(as is already happening) as it is to bundle WiMAX.

>> Limited by network, spectrum and technology, there's not much further
>> they can go without sacrificing something. It could be riskier to
>> sacrifice their current networks than it is for Sprint to build a new
>> and untested one.
>
>You're assuming that the networks ar running near capacity. The
>ridiculous rates and draconian TOS's prevent that. Heck, Verizon has so
>much leftover bandwidth they're showing TV on the excess! ;-)

Correct. There is no capacity crunch. Sprint faces far greater risks.

>After WiMax launches, Verizon will throw up a bunch of TV ads with maps
>showing that their 3G has more coverage than "any other wireless data
>company," remind you that you save x dollars off the regular price by
>adding it to your voice plan, and show that little dork in the jacket in
>the middle of an Arizona desert tapping out on his laptop "Can you e-
>mail me now?" and Sprint will have a hard, hard, sell, even with the
>better product- because, frankly, we're all stupid, and we seem to
>believe that Verizon actually sends people to swamps with phones to test
>reception for us! ;-)

Not to mention AT&T/Cingular. And that's assuming WiMAX works for
Sprint without major issues, a very risky assumption.

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