"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:H8LSj.1877$3O7.1014@newssvr19.news.prodigy.ne t...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> I don't see how. You really can't have it both ways- on the one hand,
>> you blast everyone except Verizon for not covering every rural nook and
>> cranny and National or State Park in the wilderness, then on the other,
>> you suggest that the WiFi which is largely only available primarily
>> downtown/urban/shopping areas somehow could hurt sales of 3G.
>
> I never said that WiFi was only available in downtown/urban/shopping
> areas. In fact, it's widely available outside these areas.

Widely available?

> You're making up a story that's not true and then accusing me of trying to
> have it both ways, when in fact I never signed on to the story you made up
> in the first place.

Perhaps, but now you're offering a different "both ways" scenario below....

> But back to AT&T free wireless for DSL customers, and how it impacts 3G.
>
> The areas of the country covered by 3G will almost always have a Starbucks
> around.

People don't buy "3G," per se, they buy cellular data. Sure, 3G has a
smaller footprint than voice, but cellular data customers can fallback on
slower speeds outside 3G areas, so, while often slower, cellular data is
virtually available anywhere. Someone reliant on say, Exchange, or
Blackberry BES, isn't going to stop at the odd hotspot a dozen times a day
to check his e-mail- he expects it to be available wherever he or she is.

> For someone that just needs casual access while away from home, and isn't
> depending on ubiquitous access, having AT&T Wireless service included at
> no extra cost as part of their DSL service may in fact cause them to
> decide to not bother with getting 3G service at $60/month.

But you're comparing apples and oranges- the guy willing to spring for a
$60/month broadband air card is NOT the guy who needs "casual access." A
$60/month customer wants ubiquitous access- not access wherever fine lattes
and books are sold. Besides, in this Blackberry/iPhone/Smartphone world we
live in, it's not "$60/month" data the majority of customers are buying-
it's $20-30 data add-on plans to their business voice service, which will
not be impacted by AT&T's generous "free access" offer.

> In fact, I was considering signing up for Sprint 3G service on a SERO
> plan, but now I won't bother. I didn't even know about the included AT&T
> WiFi when I signed up for AT&T DSL. They just recently extended this down
> to all but the lowest tier of service.

If you're willing to put up with spotty WiFi coverage, you don't need
ubiquitous service either. I hardly believe access to 10,000 AT&T hotspots
nationwide tipped the scales away from a $50 SERO data plan. You've gone
this long with cellular data, so I suspect you find the current hit or miss
hodgepodge of WiFi access acceptable, which is fine. But claiming access to
AT&T's Hotspot network will cannibalize wireless broadband card sales is
like Hyundai claiming every Sonata sold is one less Lexus on the streets.
These are products with different markets. The cellular broadband customer
already has the same access to free WiFi as everyone else (save for,
perhaps, the AT&T Hotspots,) yet has already made the decision that
here-and-there access isn't good enough. A few thousand more heres and
theres across the country isn't going to change that.


> [alt.cellular.cingular re-removed, Cingular no longer exists, also AT&T
> DSL doesn't allow posting to both groups at the same time! Apparently
> they are on different servers]

So it's not really a political statement as much as a technological
limitation of your service...