At 02 Apr 2008 09:26:16 -0700 SMS wrote:

> T-Mobile has never tried to market themselves as a carrier for those
> that are concerned about coverage.

Because they don't have te coverage to back up such a claim.

It's not like they advertise lack of coverage either! Sprint never
pushed the coverage card in their ads either- they pushed call quality
("pin drop.")

> They offer a lot more peak minutes/$, they have a very low cost
> texting plan (400 texts for $5), and they market heavily to young
> people with some unique handsets. They're not a full service wireless
> provider either, eschewing the cost of building a 3G network because
> they didn't believe they could compete in that market.

Actually it was Because they didn't have the bandwidth to compete without
destroying call capacity. They'll be switching on 3G later this year,
whenever the current government users of 1700MHz finally vacate.

> Also, T-Mobile has historically low profit margins in the U.S., despite
> having a high ARPU.


> I think you're wrong about most customers. The problem with Sprint 3G
> is that you can't roam onto Verizon 3G. You can't use your device as a
> web access device when you're in a place with WiFi but no 3G coverage,
> including nearly everywhere outside the U.S.

3G, even Sprint's, is far more ubiquitous than WiFi. And the phone will
fall back on slower cellular data if outside 3G, so it's not useless.

You're correct that international travelers would be less interested, but
those folks that travel that often quite possibly aren't interested in a
phone service that only works domestically anyhow.


> Look at why the iPhone is being unlocked and sold in countries where
> it has no official carrier. It's because it's a web access device, as well
> as a phone and music player.


No, it's because it's an iPhone. There are plenty of good WiFi/3G phones
available, but only one "iPhone."


> Actually I'd love a cellular data plan. While I know where to go to get
> WiFi, it's not really ubiquitous in the sense that every place you visit
> has it, and lately it seems that more individuals are being smart enough
> to secure their personal networks.

True enough. Cell data for "dumbphones" is certainly cheap enough- $5-15
dependig on carrier.

> Everywhere isn't
> > the Bay Area, my friend! In the majority of the country, you either
need
> > to park in the suburbs like a soccer mom stalker, or develop a taste for
> > overpriced coffee to find any WiFi. Most of the time you'll be using
> > cellular data.
>
> Yes, that's why you need to sign up with a cellular data provider that
> has more coverage than Sprint.

Sprint has decent coverage, and a decent amount of 3G.

> Sprint is a non-player to me. They don't have coverage where I live
> in Northern California, and in all the independent surveys show that
> their California coverage, north and south, is much worse than other
> carriers, which has also been the experience of every Sprint customer
> in California that I know personally. Of course these customers didn't
> know enough to force their handsets to roam onto Verizon, assuming
> their handsets had the capability.

But you know better WRT the forced roaming, and know of the SERO plans, so
why is Sprint a "non-player" for you? For me it's the handset investment-
SERO would cost me roughly what I'm paying T-Mo now, but I would have to
ante up nearly $500 for handsets roughly equivalent to my current units.
In return I'd get faster data but fewer minutes.