Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report
Page 2 - Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report. Discuss Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report, on Wireless Forums.
"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
> "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.
>
>
> 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.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:reen13ljq5uav13e29d72647lq5f0f1u05@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:03:15 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
> <581qvbF2evo31U1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>"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.
>
> 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.
>
>>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.
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.
> 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.
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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
newsduk1318s5d372aoduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@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;
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news1cn13p3ioe7k75grsep07eiorbk914fm1@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.
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:evhg4m$776$1
@aioe.org:
> 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.
>
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.
> 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.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:47:36 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns990EDDFAC8BA2noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>newsduk1318s5d372aoduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@4ax.com :
>
>> Sprint has budgeted about $2.75 billion for the effort, effectively
>> doubling down on a not-yet-standardized wireless format known as
>> mobile Worldwide Interoperability of Microwave Access, or WiMax.
>> Theoretically, the new network will soon deliver the sort of speedy
>> mobile Internet connections that people now enjoy at their desktops.
>> ...
>So, John, do you think the archaic audio cellphone systems, like CDMA,
CDMA2000.
>will continue, even though the planet is being dragged, kicking and
>screaming if necessary, into a new data age?
Yes.
>The key to WiMax is the "Worldwide Interoperability" part. Everyone on
>the SAME system across the planet. Your WiMax VoIP phone and WiMax
>computer will work in ANY country on ANY system. That's the aim, much,
>I'm sure, to the dismay of the maze of wireless phone carriers in the
>USA/Canada.
Unfortunately, that's not what's actually happening.
>No, I believe Sprint is simply placing themselves at the head of the line
>in the WiMax transition.
I think Sprint is making a very big and very risky bet.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:evhjpk$e7g$1
@aioe.org:
> 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? ;-)
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.
>
>> 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.
>
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.
>> 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...? ;-)
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?
>
>> 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.
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@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:e6lo13dg07gf5srdn2orfnlq64tlmvi9i3@4ax.com:
>
>>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.
Actually that is exactly what is happening, which you would know if you had
a clue about the subject.
>
>>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.
>
I think you don't understand anything about cellular, at least not more
than the average consumer.
> 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.
> > 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.
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.
> > 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?
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.
> > 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).
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!)
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:hieo13phso7v67nccoeuu0oa262ns4g3uk@4ax.com...
> 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.
And they expense it and therefore may not be quite as price sensitive.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:26:45 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.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.
>> 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.
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.
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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
A look at WiMax, problems and pluses
<http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;748240611;fp;2;fpid;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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
> 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.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:20:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461ceec1$0$27176$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>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.
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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
> 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?
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 $50.
----
Then you have the new limitations on how far DSL will reach. Straight from
AT&T's sales department here are the latest deployment distances:
6 Mbps up to 6,500 ft.
3 Mbps up to 9,500 ft.
1.5 Mbps up to 14,000 ft.
If their outside plant cable maps show you over 14,000...you don't get DSL.
Period. A telco installer was telling me of a customer that had working DSL
out to about 18,000 ft, but had her service disconnected for non-payment.
When she tried to reestablish (set up a whole new account), she couldn't
get DSL.
For these customers, wireless broadband might be an alternative. But with
the telcos aggressively deploying DSLAMs in pedestals along the roadsides
instead of only at the central office as in the past, we're seeing DSL
being offered out in the country side.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <Np7Th.21636$tD2.13140@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
> 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 $50-80/month for 512k-1.5m.)
> For these customers, wireless broadband might be an alternative. But
> with the telcos aggressively deploying DSLAMs in pedestals along the
> roadsides instead of only at the central office as in the past, we're
> seeing DSL being offered out in the country side.
There's country and then there's country! Rural DSL deployment isn't
happening fast enough that Clearwire won't have a solid opportunity for a
few years if they can deploy their service before that happens. (Look at
the third world countries that have leapfrogged past wireline telephony
right in to wireless, because the per customer cost of deploying wireless
is much cheaper.) Many rural areas in the US will likely be better
served by wireless or satellite internet for quite some time.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:45:29 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <evj1p2$kui$1@aioe.org>:
>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!)
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.
Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream 
duk1318s5d372aoduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@4ax.com: