John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:b59r13dgglat4b8nnvhluehvuopvpe3p05@4ax.com:

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

>>
>>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].

Rubbish- ca[acity issues have been resolvewd by going back in beefing up
the network bottlenecks. That does not qualify as technocal efficiency.

>
> 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.

OK, John- read this next part real slowly- it contains important public
information that runs contrary to your your consumer opinion.

Sprint has no plans to combine CDMA and Wimax or to integrate the two
products. The current offering of voice and data services will continue
to run on the CDMA network. New data options will be run on the WiMax
network. The two networks will run exclusive to the other and
technology offered on each network will be exclusive to that network. A
very clean business plans that eliminates all of messy isues trying to
integrate products.


>
>>> > 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.

The correct answer here is that they don't need to. Hisory indicates
that consumers will make the decsion to drop wireline broadband, much as
they did with cellular. And it might take as long as it did for
wireless voice- dropping the landline became a popular option only in
the last couple of years after many years of carrying both products.
When wireless data becomesfast and cheap enough, we'll see the same kind
of movement with broadband.

>