Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report
Page 3 - 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.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:43:32 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<584l7fF2er58qU1@mid.individual.net>:
>"Don Udel (ETC)" wrote:
>>
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>> 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.
>
>Then there is little market for it, because very few people are using it,
>comparatively speaking. ...
According to what I'm seeing, business is actually the source of the
majority of the growth in data (as distinct from messaging) ARPU, and is
expanding at a healthy pace.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Todd Allcock wrote:
> 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
The support issues largely go away when you use a CardBus or ExpressCard
wireless modem. Sell those for $50, then charge $10 per day for access.
They won't do it because they think it would hurt sales of the monthly
data plans. Just like they are trying to discourage text messaging
without a monthly texting plan.
The few places where many people might even want the cellular data often
have pay as you go WiFi available.
Personally I'd pay $5 a day for wireless data on a pay per use basis,
even if I had to buy a modem. Maybe I'd find it indispensable and sign
up for a monthly plan, but it's unlikely/
> 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)
Agreed- a simple to remember login page URL could handle that, with
authentication handled by the customer's existing account credentials .
(A "click-to-buy a day pass billed to your account" link.)
> + Even swapping a SIM card is an issue
Which is why using your existing phone with a data cable would be the
ideal configuration.
> + The multitude of cables and drivers would make SKUs a nightmare.
You'd limit the number of SKUs to ubiquitous models or brands with fairly
standard connectors across models, (i.e. like the RAZR, Nokia pop-port,
etc.) and cheaper CD-only kits for smartphones that come with sync
cables, like Treos, Blackberries and xx25 WinMo phones. Five or six SKUs
Could target a good percentage of the customer base, at least for an
initial trial.
> What's needed is a universal mini-USB cable standard and universal
> USB modem driver.
One CD could have modem drivers and configurations for all supported
models. Auto-detect if possible, or pick your phone from the picture.
Install drivers and the connection interfact wizard, plug in the data
cable, log into, say, www.cingularhotspot.com and click to buy.
> * $20 is pretty much the limit for one-shot impulse buys.
> Require a (say) $40 "starter kit" and I think the potential market
> shrinks dramatically.
Perhaps, but that's around what a data card typically costs with a 2-year
committment. This would be committment-free and could include any number
of free day-passes needed to give it the required perceived value.
When Cingular launched TDMA data east of the Rockies in the late 90s,
that's basically how they sold it- a $30 data cable and CD set ($20 for
just the CD for IR-enabled phones like my Nokia 7160) and $4/month for
CSD access using plan minutes. Good times! If you asked a CSR how to
configure, for example, a DUN connection, they'd robotically walk you
through the steps of installing your DataConnect CD. If you wanted to
use unsupported OSes or DUN, you could, but you were on your own.
> There's also the issue of billing data by clock time instead of by
> amount of data (or connect time), which isn't currently available in
> carrier infrastructure.
That's a minor issue- they do it now, except by the month instead of
by the day. You'd need to add a one-day unlimited plan billing code,
and a systemic way for it to expire without a live CSR having to cancel
it- not that big of a deal.
> What I think might have some hope of success would be a USB cellular
> data modem (that might emulate a USB Bluetooth dongle to piggyback on
> native OS driver support) if cost could be kept down to say $20-30 (with
> a modest amount of bundled data).
That could certainly work if you could keep the hardware costs low
enough. I don't see it happening at $30 without a carrer subsidy
however, which wouldn't make much sense without a committment. My
suggestion uses existing customer equipment and carrier resources, making
it easy to expand to include your concept later, if successful, and
(relatively) cheap to bail out of if not!
> Racks in local retailers? Again, the problem I see is support: "Hey!
> I bought this from you, and it doesn't work!"
Wow! You have an even lower opinion of the average consumer than I do!
;-)
No, I envisioned this as something only the wireless provider's company
stores would offer just for those reasons. Heck, the average big-box
retail customer can't buy the right car-charger for their phone unaided
50% of the time. But if company store employees matched the right data
cable for the customer who then runs the included config CD on his
laptop, it wouldn't be any more complicated than installing a USB Wi-Fi
dongle. Limit the SKUs to a number of high-end data phones (who's owners
hopefully have some tech savvy) and ubiquitous models (i.e. the Razr) for
mass consumption, and you have a fairly workable model, IMHO.
> If you really think it's that good an opportunity, form an MVNO and go
> for it yourself!
I think it's a good opportunity for existing carriers to leverage assets
already in use for incremental revenue.
As an MVNO model, it would need cheap equipment not currently available
(unsubsidized data cards/dongles are nowhere near the sub-$40 mark they'd
have to be,) willing carriers (the big four carriers, particularly
Cingular, generally do not wholesale data to MVNOs in fear that it would
cannibalize their postpaid business, and no MVNO, even the few that
support non "walled-garden" data, like STI or Amp'd, supports prepaid
tethering) and a ton of advertising to get the word out to the potential
custmer base.
My suggestion was targeting a carrier's existing customer base, using
their own existing equipment to keep startup costs low for both customer
and carrier (other than some minor backend billing changes and a few new
"try this out" links on the WAP deck homepage) and the customer
convenience of having almost everything they need to use it already,
including an account with the provider.
As a parallel, how popular would casual text messaging be if you had to
buy a separate device and a separate prepaid account to use it? The
attractiveness of my suggestion is largely in the impulse of reuse: you,
your laptop, and your Treo or Razr find themselves in a hotel without Wi-
Fi (or a resort hotel with $10-20/day Wi-Fi) and you can fire up the
DataConnection software already on the laptop and plug in the sync/charge
cable you're already carrying to charge the phone, and connect for $5.99
or whatever.
"SMS" wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> 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
>
> The support issues largely go away when you use a CardBus or ExpressCard
> wireless modem. Sell those for $50, then charge $10 per day for access.
This is exactly what I would like to see! I'd even pay more for the card, if
that $50 is subsidized. And it would be fantastic if an inactivated card
redirected Web browsing to an easy sign up page--like WiFi networks do.
>
> The few places where many people might even want the cellular data often
> have pay as you go WiFi available.
Very true about this. But one benefit of cellular is that you could use it
anywhere there was coverage. When I was stuck in Houston IAH airport last
week, with only a $10-per-day WiFi offering, I didn't go for. But the
primary reason was because I would be leaving the airport soon anyway. Had
that $10-per-day for a day of EV-DO, anywhere there's coverage, I would have
jumped on it.
>
> Personally I'd pay $5 a day for wireless data on a pay per use basis, even
> if I had to buy a modem. Maybe I'd find it indispensable and sign up for a
> monthly plan, but it's unlikely/
At $5 I very likely would have gone for that WiFi offer in Houston.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:11:25 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
wrote in <5hcq13psmsjvrpm10fog403hcst66ji711@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:40:32 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>I've long since ditched landline. HSDPA is quite sufficient for my own
>>needs, and probably those of most of the average users -- the battle
>>between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
>>to most users.
>
>I was under the impression that the battle between cable and DSL had
>come down overwhelmingly in favor of cable, indicating that most
>people are swayed by the higher speed, even though most of those same
>people probably only use/need a fraction of that speed.
Cable grabbed market share early, but DSL has been taking market share
lately, largely with lower pricing. See " DSL Is America's Choice for
Broadband" (June 2006) <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-147036176.html>
More Than Half of New Broadband Subscribers Now Choose DSL Over
Cable
As Many as One in Seven New Verizon Online DSL Customers Have
Switched From Cable
U.S. Broadband Penetration to Hit 60% in 2007, Led by DSL Growth
<http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-broadband-penetration-hit-60/story.aspx?guid=%7B81E650BB-CF55-4648-B960-BDFDBDC87B95%7D>
January 2007
About 60 percent of all U.S. homes will subscribe to broadband
service by the end of the year, but cable operators will come
precariously close to losing their majority market share, Pike &
Fischer concludes in a new report published by its Broadband Advisory
Services unit.
Cable operators will see their share of the high-speed Internet
market fall to slightly more than 50 percent as adoption of standard
DSL and, to an increasing extent, fiber to the home or node (FTTx),
continues to help the major telephone companies net the largest
number of new broadband customers, Pike & Fischer forecasts in its
"Broadband Business Outlook 2007."
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
> Sure, but the problems there are low density and small size of market,
> which make that market unattractive to major players. I think that will
> mostly appeal to small niche players, and probably at a higher price
> point.
Which describes the current situation, of course, where their only option
is (comparitively) overpriced satellite broadband.
> I don't see any way for Sprint to overcome the issue of coverage.
Nationwide, Sprint's coverage tends to be better, IMHO, because they
allow roaming on Verizon and smaller CDMA/AMPS carriers where necessary,
while a Verizon customer's roaming abilities on currently-offered plans
is more limited.
> Verizon hasn't participated in a lot of the price wars, or come up
> with stuff like Sprint's short-lived "Fair and Flexible," Cingular's
> rollover, or T-Mobile's and Alltel's calling circles.
Because they sell on the strength (real or perceived) of "the Network."
If a new ubiquitous technology challenged that, they'd compete with it if
forced to.
> > (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.
>
> For the same reason that they aren't really interested in pay-per-use
> text messaging. If they priced it reasonably, the believe that it would
> affect sales of their data plans.
True, but the solution there would be to price it "unreasonably"- $10/day
vs. $70/month. Wireless carriers certainly don't mind charging you
$0.15/text if you insist on pay-per-use- they just hope it will convince
you to buy a bundle. A $10/day data access charge would similarly
encourage some to buy the "bundle" (a monthly plan) and allow the carrier
to still milk those customers who refuse to invest in a monthly plan.
> > it took nearly a decade for the public to learn TiVo was more
> > than a tapeless VCR...
> Hmm, you mean Tivo isn't just a DVR?
It IS a DVR- what I said was it's more than just a tapeless _VCR_. The
major difference they had to communicate to the consumer was a DVR's
ability to manipulate live televison (pause for a potty break, replay the
dialog you missed when the actor mumbled, make your own instant-replay or
slo-mo in the big game, etc.) rather than sell it as a fancy tapeless VCR
with easy-to-use menus and a difficult-to-justify monthly fee.
> I was under the impression that the battle between cable and DSL had
> come down overwhelmingly in favor of cable, indicating that most
> people are swayed by the higher speed, even though most of those same
> people probably only use/need a fraction of that speed.
No, according to industry reports, DSL has been the big winner, due to
price. In terms of market share, cable led, barely, at the end of 2006
(50% to 47%) but DSL is signing up a lot more new subscribers, so by now
it may be about equal.
> At $5 I very likely would have gone for that WiFi offer in Houston.
Yes, that's the problem I have at airports. I'm not paying $10 for what
will likely be less than one hour of use. But I might pay $10 for a
whole day of cellular data use.
> Nationwide, Sprint's coverage tends to be better, IMHO, because they
> allow roaming on Verizon and smaller CDMA/AMPS carriers where necessary,
> while a Verizon customer's roaming abilities on currently-offered plans
> is more limited.
But Sprint doesn't allow roaming onto Verizon in Sprint dead spots, only
in markets where Sprint doesn't have a network, unless things have
changed recently.
I live in one of those markets with poor Sprint coverage. Sprint (and
T-Mobile) are constantly showing up at planning commission meetings
asking for permission for new towers, and most of their requests are
turned down. They try to explain that due to their later entry into the
market that they have a different system than Verizon and Cingular, one
that requires more towers, but the neighbors always prevail. There is no
upside to these planning commissioners, most of whom want to run for
higher office, upsetting potential voters. Most of these planning
commissioners are real estate people or developers, and they don't
understand the difference in range between 1900 MHz PCS, and 800 MHz
cellular.
> you to buy a bundle. A $10/day data access charge would similarly
> encourage some to buy the "bundle" (a monthly plan) and allow the carrier
> to still milk those customers who refuse to invest in a monthly plan.
That's what I would like to believe. Maybe they could offer pay per use
only to their cellular voice customers to at least try to gain some
market share out of the deal.
> It IS a DVR- what I said was it's more than just a tapeless _VCR_. The
> major difference they had to communicate to the consumer was a DVR's
> ability to manipulate live televison (pause for a potty break, replay the
> dialog you missed when the actor mumbled, make your own instant-replay or
> slo-mo in the big game, etc.) rather than sell it as a fancy tapeless VCR
> with easy-to-use menus and a difficult-to-justify monthly fee.
It still has a difficult to justify monthly fee, considering Myth TV's
lack of a monthly charge, plus its superior capabilities.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:07:07 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <evjbm3$bg7$1@aioe.org>:
> At 11 Apr 2007 17:01:33 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> 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)
>
>Agreed- a simple to remember login page URL could handle that, with
>authentication handled by the customer's existing account credentials .
>(A "click-to-buy a day pass billed to your account" link.)
No need for a URL -- like a Wi-Fi hotspot, the system could be
configured to do that automatically for those without a data package.
The problems are:
1. Getting to that point (installing, configuring, and tethering).
2. Lack of support in current infrastructure.
>> + Even swapping a SIM card is an issue
>
>Which is why using your existing phone with a data cable would be the
>ideal configuration.
The advantage of a SIM card swap is selling data-only SIM cards, just
like prepaid SIM cards sold overseas. The problem of not doing a swap
is building the infrastructure to handle it, which because of roaming
issues, is a non-trivial longer-term problem.
>> + The multitude of cables and drivers would make SKUs a nightmare.
>
>You'd limit the number of SKUs to ubiquitous models or brands with fairly
>standard connectors across models, (i.e. like the RAZR, Nokia pop-port,
>etc.) and cheaper CD-only kits for smartphones that come with sync
>cables, like Treos, Blackberries and xx25 WinMo phones. Five or six SKUs
>Could target a good percentage of the customer base, at least for an
>initial trial.
Sure, but that's still a big hassle, and a source of resentment amoung
those not covered. I think it's a big issue.
>> What's needed is a universal mini-USB cable standard and universal
>> USB modem driver.
>
>One CD could have modem drivers and configurations for all supported
>models. Auto-detect if possible, or pick your phone from the picture.
>Install drivers and the connection interfact wizard, plug in the data
>cable, log into, say, www.cingularhotspot.com and click to buy.
You're presupposing foolproof software that would be VERY difficult to
write. Look at how many people already have problems with Motorola
Phone Tools and Cingular Communication Manager.
>> * $20 is pretty much the limit for one-shot impulse buys.
>
>> Require a (say) $40 "starter kit" and I think the potential market
>> shrinks dramatically.
>
>Perhaps, but that's around what a data card typically costs with a 2-year
>committment. This would be committment-free and could include any number
>of free day-passes needed to give it the required perceived value.
Passes make it unattractive to the carrier. I just don't see it as
workable with current technology.
>When Cingular launched TDMA data east of the Rockies in the late 90s,
>that's basically how they sold it- a $30 data cable and CD set ($20 for
>just the CD for IR-enabled phones like my Nokia 7160) and $4/month for
>CSD access using plan minutes. Good times! If you asked a CSR how to
>configure, for example, a DUN connection, they'd robotically walk you
>through the steps of installing your DataConnect CD. If you wanted to
>use unsupported OSes or DUN, you could, but you were on your own.
And it was pretty much a flop, especially from the carrier point of
view, due to high cost and low return, which is why carriers now focus
on packages.
The biggest issue with your low cost package idea is that support cost
has to be essentially zero, that it has to be easy and foolproof and
ubiquitous, which I don't think is possible with current technology.
>> There's also the issue of billing data by clock time instead of by
>> amount of data (or connect time), which isn't currently available in
>> carrier infrastructure.
>
>That's a minor issue- they do it now, except by the month instead of
>by the day. You'd need to add a one-day unlimited plan billing code,
>and a systemic way for it to expire without a live CSR having to cancel
>it- not that big of a deal.
In concept, perhaps, but not in actuality -- because of necessary
infrastructure (backend systems) and roaming, it's actually a big issue
-- what's needed just doesn't exist in current infrastructure.
>> What I think might have some hope of success would be a USB cellular
>> data modem (that might emulate a USB Bluetooth dongle to piggyback on
>> native OS driver support) if cost could be kept down to say $20-30 (with
>> a modest amount of bundled data).
>
>That could certainly work if you could keep the hardware costs low
>enough. I don't see it happening at $30 without a carrer subsidy
I'm pretty sure it could be done for $30 even without a carrier subsidy
given sufficient volume.
>however, which wouldn't make much sense without a committment.
I don't see that as a big issue -- it's roughly the same basic business
model as cheap prepaid phones.
>My
>suggestion uses existing customer equipment and carrier resources, making
>it easy to expand to include your concept later, if successful, and
>(relatively) cheap to bail out of if not!
What you propose is neither cheap nor easy -- you're dismissing some
very big problems out of hand.
>> Racks in local retailers? Again, the problem I see is support: "Hey!
>> I bought this from you, and it doesn't work!"
>
>Wow! You have an even lower opinion of the average consumer than I do!
> ;-)
>
>No, I envisioned this as something only the wireless provider's company
>stores would offer just for those reasons.
Then you wipe out a huge part of the market -- there are far from enough
company stores -- you have to at least serve the mass retailers, if not
local retail and kiosks.
>Heck, the average big-box
>retail customer can't buy the right car-charger for their phone unaided
>50% of the time.
Which is why accessories are so hard to find; i.e., retailers won't put
up with the SKUs and hassles at those price points. Cingular sells data
cables alone for $30 that it probably sources for less than $1 in China.
>But if company store employees matched the right data
>cable for the customer who then runs the included config CD on his
>laptop, it wouldn't be any more complicated than installing a USB Wi-Fi
>dongle.
Sorry, but I don't think that either practical or sufficiently
broad-based.
>Limit the SKUs to a number of high-end data phones (who's owners
>hopefully have some tech savvy) and ubiquitous models (i.e. the Razr)
There aren't enough of those to solve the problem, not to mention the
resentment of those not covered. "You just sold me this phone last
week, and now you tell me it won't do Daytripper Data?!"
>for
>mass consumption,
I think you've put on way too many limitations for mass consumption.
>and you have a fairly workable model, IMHO.
I don't think you're even close.
>> If you really think it's that good an opportunity, form an MVNO and go
>> for it yourself!
>
>I think it's a good opportunity for existing carriers to leverage assets
>already in use for incremental revenue.
They obviously disagree. Given current technology, I think they are
right
>As an MVNO model, it would need cheap equipment not currently available
>(unsubsidized data cards/dongles are nowhere near the sub-$40 mark they'd
>have to be,)
Just takes capital/volume, as in the case of voice handsets. The real
problem is lack of apparent demand/volume.
>willing carriers (the big four carriers, particularly
>Cingular, generally do not wholesale data to MVNOs in fear that it would
>cannibalize their postpaid business,
I don't think that's actually an issue. The real problem again is
lack of apparent demand.
>and no MVNO, even the few that
>support non "walled-garden" data, like STI or Amp'd, supports prepaid
>tethering) and a ton of advertising to get the word out to the potential
>custmer base.
Capital again. Then there's the problem of having your business model
broken by heavy (ab)users, who are typical early adopters. It only
works if you heavily penetrate the light use masses. Or you have to go
with the additional negative of a Fair Usage cap.
>My suggestion was targeting a carrier's existing customer base, using
>their own existing equipment to keep startup costs low for both customer
>and carrier (other than some minor backend billing changes and a few new
>"try this out" links on the WAP deck homepage) and the customer
>convenience of having almost everything they need to use it already,
>including an account with the provider.
I know that -- I just don't think it would work, as I've been trying to
explain.
>As a parallel, how popular would casual text messaging be if you had to
>buy a separate device and a separate prepaid account to use it?
Separate pagers were actually a big market that only went away when
"free" cell phones took over.
>The
>attractiveness of my suggestion is largely in the impulse of reuse: you,
>your laptop, and your Treo or Razr find themselves in a hotel without Wi-
>Fi (or a resort hotel with $10-20/day Wi-Fi) and you can fire up the
>DataConnection software already on the laptop and plug in the sync/charge
>cable you're already carrying to charge the phone, and connect for $5.99
>or whatever.
It's attractive only because you're making lots of assumptions that just
aren't valid in my opinion -- I think it's clearly a big money loser for
the carrier at that price point with current technology. You have to do
something much different to make it financially viable.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:05:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461d318b$0$27175$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>> 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
>
>The support issues largely go away when you use a CardBus or ExpressCard
>wireless modem.
Complete nonsense.
>Sell those for $50, then charge $10 per day for access.
Can't do it at that price point.
>They won't do it because they think it would hurt sales of the monthly
>data plans.
They won't do it because it's too hard, and not financially attractive
due to limited demand.
>Just like they are trying to discourage text messaging
>without a monthly texting plan.
They are just trying to make it financially viable.
>The few places where many people might even want the cellular data often
>have pay as you go WiFi available.
Ubiquitous cellular data has many advantages over Wi-Fi. The problem is
that it currently has many disadvantages, especially cost and
complexity.
>Personally I'd pay $5 a day for wireless data on a pay per use basis,
>even if I had to buy a modem. Maybe I'd find it indispensable and sign
>up for a monthly plan, but it's unlikely/
At that price point it's unattractive to the carrier.
You might as well say you'd rent a BMW if the cost were $5 a day.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:37:47 -0700, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in
<584rtnF2ffe68U1@mid.individual.net>:
>"SMS" wrote:
>> The support issues largely go away when you use a CardBus or ExpressCard
>> wireless modem. Sell those for $50, then charge $10 per day for access.
>
>This is exactly what I would like to see! I'd even pay more for the card, if
>that $50 is subsidized. And it would be fantastic if an inactivated card
>redirected Web browsing to an easy sign up page--like WiFi networks do.
That's done by the access point, not the wireless adapter. That's why
I'm saying the infrastructure would have to be upgraded to make that
work, a non-trivial problem.
>> Personally I'd pay $5 a day for wireless data on a pay per use basis, even
>> if I had to buy a modem. Maybe I'd find it indispensable and sign up for a
>> monthly plan, but it's unlikely/
>
>At $5 I very likely would have gone for that WiFi offer in Houston.
At $5 I'd take the BMW over the Civic. And what you propose is about as
likely.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:32:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461d53df$0$14144$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>I live in one of those markets with poor Sprint coverage. Sprint (and
>T-Mobile) are constantly showing up at planning commission meetings
>asking for permission for new towers, and most of their requests are
>turned down. They try to explain that due to their later entry into the
>market that they have a different system than Verizon and Cingular, one
>that requires more towers, but the neighbors always prevail. There is no
>upside to these planning commissioners, most of whom want to run for
>higher office, upsetting potential voters.
The law actually doesn't work that way -- it's actually hard to block
towers. I'm guessing you haven't actually been to many if any such
meetings in the past several years.
>Most of these planning
>commissioners are real estate people or developers, and they don't
>understand the difference in range between 1900 MHz PCS, and 800 MHz
>cellular.
There is no real difference in urban areas, as I've explained a number
of times.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:c6pp1351o4n40jhppdlkgm7pjuuphbqlli@4ax.com:
a 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.
Almost true, but not really and very misleading. Sprint is getting
replacement spectrum for the 800 mHz spectrum Nextel agreed to give up.
The spectrum gained would be very attractive for wImAX USE.
>
>>> 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.
Absolutely untrue. It doesn't lead in any avaialable metric and many of
the claims of higher potential are vaporware. HSDPA/HSUPA is simple
pedestrian 3g technology, nothing more.
>
>>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.
Great- quote them by name or admit that you are lying. And for every
engineer that you can make up, I'll post the opinion of a real engineer
willing to stake their own reputation on their public opinion.
> Challenges
> include a general lack of uniform and suitable spectrum (as in India),
Who gives a shit about India? Last time I checked, this was a US
implementation we were discussing.
> radio interference
> <http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=107274> and cell-to-cell
> suppression, lack of enthusiasm in Europe, and continued delays.
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:evi2vv$8ls$1@aioe.org:
> At 10 Apr 2007 23:09:10 -0500 Scott wrote:
>
>> 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.
Oh, I'm well aware of the pricing of both companies (Colorado Springs
here) and I also know that depite the pricing difference, Comcast and
crew (Adelphia and Time Warner) grew their high speed customer base at
an incredible rate over the last five years in Colorado, in spite of the
pricing difference. I would venture to guess that cable broadband
market share in the metro Denver area is on a par with DSL service.
>
>
> 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.
>
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.
>
>> 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.
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.
>
>> 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.
Exactly.
>
>> > 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.
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.
>
> 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.
Only if everybody is willing to spend more money than Sprint (spectrum
will be an issue for everybody else) which will put even more strain on
the bottom line if bargain price is the way they enter the market.
>
> (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! ;-)
And I'm sure they are well aware of that sector of the potential
customer base. Hell, I'd drop Comcast in a heartbeat for a viable
wireless alternative, even at the expense of a little speed. One thing
that many fail to recognize with calbe high speed is that the advertised
speed is rarely (if ever) seen by customers. I have yet to see even
half of the advertised 6mbps. That said, the speed that I do see is
more than sufficient for anything I need to do (including VPN connection
to the office to work at home). It's possible that WiMax could come
close enough to what I have now to make the transition seamless.
>
>> 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.
Sprint promised to keep it on until around 2010 (?). After that, all
bets are off.
>
>> 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
No- I was talking about dedicating two different spectrum bands to WiMax
and developing dual mode technology to allow a greater availability of
unused network.
>
>> 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.
Agreed.
>
>> > 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!
And over a million customers (I believe that's the number Cingular says
are on the preorder list) walk away extremely unhappy. The public
backlash could cause a mass exodus, a la their handling of the ATT
network integration. The press gets a hold of it and all of a sudden
they have a bigger problem.
>
> 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.
Agreed.
>
>
>> > 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.
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.
>
>> 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.
Agreed, but it is the technology that gives benefit to the customer.
They may not care about it, but they rely on it to grow and give the
latest/greatest.
>
> (Excellent discussion, BTW, thank you for your insights!)
>
Yeah- nice to see that the true spirit of Usenet is still alive.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:cj1q13lnf97ke8fun733sg0eg7dikvfg6k@4ax.com:
> 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.
>
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:461d1a7f$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Verizon seems to have the high-end business market locked up, not
> because of data, but because of the combination of voice coverage that
> Sprint can't duplicate,
Is there a study out there that I'm not aware of?
> data coverage that is almost as good as
> Sprint's but far superior to Cingular's, and value-added services that
> Cingular can't offer because their network doesn't support them.
>
> I don't see any way for Sprint to overcome the issue of coverage.
Overlay the maps, Steve. They are already there, except for a few remote
areas of the country that very few people travel to or through.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:dt6q13lc93mivcp4t8q0k34rhgb9ics3pq@4ax.com:
>
> As the recent devastating loss of government business clearly shows,
> Sprint is still struggling to realize the Nextel merger, and faces
> further challenges in its big all-or-nothing bet on WiMAX.
You'll need something more than a basic consumer opinion here, Johnny. The
big kids took this thread over a long time ago. Why don't you get back on
your tricycle and go find somebody more in line with your knowledge base.
I'm sure the kids down the street will be awed with your opinions.
Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in
news:5hcq13psmsjvrpm10fog403hcst66ji711@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:40:32 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>I've long since ditched landline. HSDPA is quite sufficient for my own
>>needs, and probably those of most of the average users -- the battle
>>between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
>>to most users.
>
> I was under the impression that the battle between cable and DSL had
> come down overwhelmingly in favor of cable, indicating that most
> people are swayed by the higher speed, even though most of those same
> people probably only use/need a fraction of that speed.
>
And only get a fraction of the speed. You are right- the telcos got caught
with their pants down while cable soared past them in terms of subscribers.
> And only get a fraction of the speed. You are right- the telcos got caught
> with their pants down while cable soared past them in terms of subscribers.
When DSL and cable were priced comparably many people chose cable,
especially those with cable TV. The big increase in DSL came when they
the telcos dropped their pants on price and went after the dial-up
customers that weren't going to spend $50/month on high-speed Internet,
but that were willing to spend $20/month since they were probably
spending more than that on AOL or Earthlink.
> Overlay the maps, Steve. They are already there, except for a few remote
> areas of the country that very few people travel to or through.
The problem is that the maps are misleading because they don't show dead
spots within covered areas.
Look at the surveys of coverage and quality and even in areas where
coverage should be equal Verizon is far ahead of Sprint in most areas of
the country. Since they're both CDMA you'd think that they'd be about
equal (you expect Cingular and T-Mobile coverage to be poorer due to
GSM, regardless of the frequency).
Using my area as an example, Sprint has major coverage holes due to
their need for more cell sites than Verizon (due to the fact that they
are 1900 MHz PCS versus 800 MHz cellular). This isn't a big deal in a
really urban area where there are plenty of places for cell sites, but
in suburban areas it's a very big deal. At least in Northern California
there are a lot of suburban areas where residents have prevented the
carriers from putting cell sites in residential areas, even on private
property. There is a mistaken belief that you can’t stop a carrier from
erecting an antenna on private property. This is untrue. What you can't
do, is to challenge a site location based on safety. I.e., you cannot
"set zoning regulations based on "the environmental effects of
radio-frequency emissions, to the extent that such facilities comply
with the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] regulations concerning
such emissions." This has hurt Sprint and T-Mobile _a lot_.
There are plenty of other non-safety related challenges to cell sites
that are perfectly legal, and widely employed, that the carriers have
been unable to overcome. What’s especially effective is to point out
that competing carriers have excellent coverage in the location in
question. You put the applicant into the difficult situation of
explaining why the competitor’s network is better than their own (and in
many cities such explanations are broadcast on the city’s cable channel,
as well as archived on city web sites). A city need not permit cell
tower construction on public or private land unless a proposed site is
uniquely suited to close a gap in “dependable coverage”. When two out of
four carriers are able to provide "dependable coverage" without a
specific site, the city can legitimately claim that such a site is not
necessary.
In some cases the carrier may sue the city over a refusal to permit a
site, but this is a time-consuming and expensive process. Cingular, and
later T-Mobile, tried for about eight years to construct a tower at a
small shopping center about a mile from my house. No success. They then
tried to put up an artificial tree type of antenna, but were not allowed
to put one up where they desired. A nearby Mormon church wasn’t
interested in an antenna inside a cross, stating, “Jesus did not die for
the sins of Cingular.” Cingular was never able to obtain approval,
T-Mobile tried after they took over the 1900 MHz network from Cingular,
and they too were stymied and finally gave up. I know the leader of the
opposition, and it's rather amusing to be at a party at his house and
here people complain about not having coverage, and telling him that he
should put up a tower in his back yard.
Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream 
