Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report
Page 4 - 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.
> >Just like they are trying to discourage text messaging
> >without a monthly texting plan.
>
> They are just trying to make it financially viable.
Surrrre. Texting is the absolutely most cost-effective method of
cellular communication for the carrier. It is overpriced, as most
ancillary wireless services are, to compensate for the hyper-competitive
pricing in voice plans. (Which is fine with me- any service I don't
regularly use that subsidizes services I do benefits me!) ;-)
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:evk883$6lb$1
@aioe.org:
>> 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.
>
> True, but the wireless networks give priority to voice, so those who
> notice congestion will be the data users whose connections will slow
and
> stutter. They'll need to decide whether it's "good enough" for the
> price! ;-)
>
Exactly.
>
>> > some folks will want to ditch
>> > wired broadband to avoid two bills as well, even if the speed isn't
as
>> > fast as wired. This might put Sprint in the awkward position of
>> > metering/capping usage, or enforcing a restrictive TOS.
>>
>> They have ample spectrum and backbone to prevent this from happening.
>> If it fails, it won't be due to the lack of technical resources
>> available.
>
> Then why not target fixed broadband as a market as well?
Because they have ample spectrum, not unlimited.
>
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps. Frankly, I've never found plugging in a PCMCIA card much of
a
> technological barrier personally... ;-) Having a "cable-ready" TV
> didn't stop me from subscribing to cheaper satellite TV. I go where
the
> deals are.
As usenet geeks, we tend to take things for granted that would keep our
neighbors busy for hours :-)
>
>
>> I was talking about dedicating two different spectrum bands to WiMax
>> and developing dual mode technology to allow a greater availability
of
>> unused network.
>
> Now you want your cake and ea it too! Sprint can't play the
> "interoperability" and "embedded technology" cards, then say "and if
we
> oversell it, we'll just add a non-standard band." (Well they can do
> that, but then they can't move the "embedded" users to the new bands
to
> free spectrum- just the ones they've sold proprietary cards to.)
And there's no problem with that- the move would be backwards compatible
from the user's standpoint.
>
>> 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.
>
> You're assuming that the networks ar running near capacity. The
> ridiculous rates and draconian TOS's prevent that. Heck, Verizon has
so
> much leftover bandwidth they're showing TV on the excess! ;-)
And Verizon is the champion of capacity problems in some of the big
cities. They have alleviated the problem by building out their network
in those bottleneck spots, but the margin for error is still razor thin.
>
>> Agreed, but it is the technology that gives benefit to the customer.
>
>
> Only if the consumer sees and values the benefit. If someone invented
> Star Trek's matter transporter tomorrow, business people wouldn't care
> how it worked- they'd just want to know if it can get them to New York
> faster than United, and how many carry-ons are they allowed to beam.
>
>> They may not care about it, but they rely on it to grow and give the
>> latest/greatest.
>
> Once the early adopters give it critical mass, anyway. You're a tech
> guy, that's your background. I'm from the sales/marketing side of the
> fence. There's an old saying in business- it's easy to identify the
> pioneers- they're the ones with the arrows in their backs. Other,
> larger, entities may be content to see if Sprint's $10B gamble pays
off
> before swooping in and taking the business out from under them.
>
> After WiMax launches, Verizon will throw up a bunch of TV ads with
maps
> showing that their 3G has more coverage than "any other wireless data
> company," remind you that you save x dollars off the regular price by
> adding it to your voice plan, and show that little dork in the jacket
in
> the middle of an Arizona desert tapping out on his laptop "Can you e-
> mail me now?" and Sprint will have a hard, hard, sell, even with the
> better product- because, frankly, we're all stupid, and we seem to
> believe that Verizon actually sends people to swamps with phones to
test
> reception for us! ;-)
And Sprint will turn around with their own ads reminding cutomers of the
larger CDMA network available for their data needs if coverage is a
concern. Remember- Sprint is not abandoning the CDMA technology and
have publicly stated that they have no intention of getting rid of it.
While I believe this statement to be technically correct, I can see a
scenario where they eventually get out of wireless voice entirely and
concentrate the business on data transport. They took a huge step
towards this in the wireline world with the spinoff of their local
wireline business, while keeping the internet backbone. Doing the same
thing with wireless- eventually spin off the CDMA business and focus on
wireless data backbone, if they can pull off WiMax.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:b59r13dgglat4b8nnvhluehvuopvpe3p05@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:14:33 -0600, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <evk883$6lb$1@aioe.org>:
>
>>
>>True, but the wireless networks give priority to voice, so those who
>>notice congestion will be the data users whose connections will slow
>>and stutter. They'll need to decide whether it's "good enough" for
>>the price! ;-)
>
> Actually not, because (a) it doesn't work that way [it's not that
> dynamic], and (b) there's ample 3G spectrum [thanks to technical
> efficiency that's been increasing faster than demand].
Rubbish- ca[acity issues have been resolvewd by going back in beefing up
the network bottlenecks. That does not qualify as technocal efficiency.
>
> Sprint OTOH faces major technical risks -- even assuming WiMAX lives
> up to the hype, it's by no means clear that Sprint can successfully
> integrate cellular with WiMAX -- efforts to integrate cellular with
> Wi-Fi have been notably unsuccessful thus far.
OK, John- read this next part real slowly- it contains important public
information that runs contrary to your your consumer opinion.
Sprint has no plans to combine CDMA and Wimax or to integrate the two
products. The current offering of voice and data services will continue
to run on the CDMA network. New data options will be run on the WiMax
network. The two networks will run exclusive to the other and
technology offered on each network will be exclusive to that network. A
very clean business plans that eliminates all of messy isues trying to
integrate products.
>
>>> > some folks will want to ditch
>>> > wired broadband to avoid two bills as well, even if the speed
>>> > isn't as fast as wired. This might put Sprint in the awkward
>>> > position of metering/capping usage, or enforcing a restrictive
>>> > TOS.
>>>
>>> They have ample spectrum and backbone to prevent this from
>>> happening. If it fails, it won't be due to the lack of technical
>>> resources available.
>>
>>Then why not target fixed broadband as a market as well?
>
> The economics aren't there -- wired broadband is cheaper, and going
> toe-to-toe with DSL and cable would probably be a disaster.
The correct answer here is that they don't need to. Hisory indicates
that consumers will make the decsion to drop wireline broadband, much as
they did with cellular. And it might take as long as it did for
wireless voice- dropping the landline became a popular option only in
the last couple of years after many years of carrying both products.
When wireless data becomesfast and cheap enough, we'll see the same kind
of movement with broadband.
> And it works both ways- for every dead spot you can point out in the Sprint
> network, I can point out a VZW dead spot. No carrier is immune from dead
> spots.
I sincerely doubt that it's one for one. It's not only the advantage of
800 MHz, it's the fact that Verizon has been around (or has morphed from
companies that have been around) far longer than Sprint. At least in my
area, the 800 MHz carriers have a big advantage in terms of having been
able to install sites prior to residents mobilizing to stop them.
Scott wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:g0lq1397rt2p614uv9vtqueo4jdn4nrfsr@4ax.com:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> No it's not. You are once again showing your lack of a clue.
Yes, it's the tethering that is the source of so many issues regarding
data. It's much easier when you take that variable out of the equation.
Look at all the web sites that go into excruciating detail on the
procedures necessary to tether for data. You don't see that for the
CardBus cards.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:461db22b$0$27247$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> And it works both ways- for every dead spot you can point out in the
>> Sprint network, I can point out a VZW dead spot. No carrier is
>> immune from dead spots.
>
> I sincerely doubt that it's one for one. It's not only the advantage
> of 800 MHz, it's the fact that Verizon has been around (or has morphed
> from companies that have been around) far longer than Sprint. At least
> in my area, the 800 MHz carriers have a big advantage in terms of
> having been able to install sites prior to residents mobilizing to
> stop them.
>
Be careful- you're starting to sound like Navas. Verizon is not the be-
all, end-all carrier. The fact is that nobody is. The quicker you accept
this fact, the easier it is to see the world in real terms.
Verizon has coverage holes. Stones in glass houses, Steve.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:461db301$0$27227
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:g0lq1397rt2p614uv9vtqueo4jdn4nrfsr@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:05:46 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <461d318b$0$27175$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>>> At 11 Apr 2007 14:08:04 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they see tech support as the killer -- low price packages
>>>>>> are only viable with _zero_ support, and cellular data isn't (yet
>>>>>> at least) foolproof enough to make that work.
>>>>> Good point- I was actually going to address that issue but left it
>>>>> out for brevity!
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that you could avoid (or at least recoup) support
>>>>> costs "upfront" with a good overpriced install CD/data cable kit
>>>> The support issues largely go away when you use a CardBus or
>>>> ExpressCard wireless modem.
>>> Complete nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> No it's not. You are once again showing your lack of a clue.
>
> Yes, it's the tethering that is the source of so many issues regarding
> data. It's much easier when you take that variable out of the equation.
> Look at all the web sites that go into excruciating detail on the
> procedures necessary to tether for data. You don't see that for the
> CardBus cards.
>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:37:40 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <evkegd$htb$1@aioe.org>:
>At 11 Apr 2007 21:37:09 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> >Just like they are trying to discourage text messaging
>> >without a monthly texting plan.
>>
>> They are just trying to make it financially viable.
>
>Surrrre. Texting is the absolutely most cost-effective method of
>cellular communication for the carrier. It is overpriced, as most
>ancillary wireless services are, to compensate for the hyper-competitive
>pricing in voice plans. (Which is fine with me- any service I don't
>regularly use that subsidizes services I do benefits me!) ;-)
What you seem to be missing is the cost and difficulty of micropayments.
It's much more efficient to sell a package than to sell each micro part
of that package. That's a big part of why things are so much cheaper in
Costco on a unit basis than they are in conventional retailers. Costco
couldn't afford to sell them at that price one-by-one.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:14:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461db22b$0$27247$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>> And it works both ways- for every dead spot you can point out in the Sprint
>> network, I can point out a VZW dead spot. No carrier is immune from dead
>> spots.
>
>I sincerely doubt that it's one for one. It's not only the advantage of
>800 MHz, it's the fact that Verizon has been around (or has morphed from
>companies that have been around) far longer than Sprint. At least in my
>area, the 800 MHz carriers have a big advantage in terms of having been
>able to install sites prior to residents mobilizing to stop them.
It's actually not a real issue.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:18:06 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461db301$0$27227$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:g0lq1397rt2p614uv9vtqueo4jdn4nrfsr@4ax.com:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No it's not. You are once again showing your lack of a clue.
>
>Yes, it's the tethering that is the source of so many issues regarding
>data. It's much easier when you take that variable out of the equation.
>Look at all the web sites that go into excruciating detail on the
>procedures necessary to tether for data. You don't see that for the
>CardBus cards.
You clearly don't understand how these things work. Cardbus cards Just
trade third-party drivers for built-in OS facilities. The actual
difficulty of the necessary support software is much greater, not less.
In other words, you have it backwards.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
> Verizon is not the be-
> all, end-all carrier. The fact is that nobody is. The quicker you accept
> this fact, the easier it is to see the world in real terms.
I have never stated that Verizon was the be-all, end-all, etc.
However there is a reason why they are consistently rated as having the
best coverage and quality by every major independent survey--surveys
with huge sample sizes, with methodology beyond question. If you look at
the carrier maps for the metro areas that these surveys cover, you'll
find that they show coverage that is about equal among all the carriers,
yet clearly the carriers are not equal in coverage, as the survey
results show. Surely you're not going to pull a Navas and start making
ridiculous statements about the surveys from CR, JDP, YG, etc.!
> Verizon has coverage holes. Stones in glass houses, Steve.
You said for every Sprint hole that there was a corresponding Verizon
hole. If that were true, and the holes were of equal size, then Sprint
would not be rated so poorly in comparison.
I can't use Sprint. There are large gaps in coverage in the city I live
in, as well as surrounding cities, gaps that don't exist for Verizon.
The reasons are PCS versus Cellular bands, as well as fewer cell sites.
> Surrrre. Texting is the absolutely most cost-effective method of
> cellular communication for the carrier. It is overpriced, as most
> ancillary wireless services are, to compensate for the hyper-competitive
> pricing in voice plans. (Which is fine with me- any service I don't
> regularly use that subsidizes services I do benefits me!) ;-)
That's how I feel. I'm happy to use up their bandwidth with voice, when
it would be more efficient for them to allow me to text as part of my
minutes. Of course since when has the cost of providing a service
actually been related to what the provider can charge for the service?
Look at Caller ID, Call Waiting, and unlisted numbers.
I'd really like to be able to pay about $50 for a modem that supports
1xRTT, EVDO, EDGE, HSDPA, and Wi-Fi. When you fire up the modem it
would show you which signals are available and then allow you to
select a network and a "pay-per-use" plan for that day (or other time-
frame).
I know I'm too ignorant to realize all the complications that would be
involved in such a device. But I'm kind of frustrated with the fact
that we basically have two data networks (three now with Wi-Max and
four if you count Wi-Fi) and neither of these two data networks really
offer satisfactory high-speed coverage. For those who live in
metropolitan areas and seldom venture from them, they do not see this
as an issue. But for the rest of us, it's a big issue. Providers have
been slow to cover some heavily populated areas that are not inside a
popular metropolis, thinking more specifically of EVDO and HSDPA. It
simply doesn't pay for me to pay for a data plan when the high-speed
service isn't available anyway.
$10 per day would make me squirm a little. I do like the idea of
having this available for occasional use, but if you use it more than
five times a month, you might as well have a data plan. $5 per day
sounds a lot more agreeable, considering it would raise the "need-for-
a-data-plan" threshold to a more acceptable level.
I think some hardware standardization for cell. phones is a critical
part of providing data services. The Motorola Sprint/Nextel ic502 now
uses a more standardized USB cable (without a proprietary end at the
phone). This is a move that all mfg's should follow in order to
simplify hooking your phone up to your computer, but i don't really
expect it any time soon, if ever. It appears that proprietary
solutions have been proven to fill the coffers so why would
manufacturers and providers consider otherwise?
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:55:21 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461dc9cb$0$27204$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>> Verizon is not the be-
>> all, end-all carrier. The fact is that nobody is. The quicker you accept
>> this fact, the easier it is to see the world in real terms.
>
>I have never stated that Verizon was the be-all, end-all, etc.
Now that's funny! LOL
>You said for every Sprint hole that there was a corresponding Verizon
>hole. If that were true, and the holes were of equal size, then Sprint
>would not be rated so poorly in comparison.
Differences in ratings are actually relatively small, on the order of
the sampling error, in addition to being based on badly flawed
methodology (e.g., lumping together of iDEN and CDMA2000, making the
result not meaningful for either).
>I can't use Sprint. There are large gaps in coverage in the city I live
>in, as well as surrounding cities, gaps that don't exist for Verizon.
You've made it clear that you only like Verizon. Fair enough. No
reason to constantly dis other carriers the way you do.
>The reasons are PCS versus Cellular bands, as well as fewer cell sites.
Those aren't real reasons.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On 12 Apr 2007 05:41:49 -0700, "HK" <Harlan.Koehn@gmail.com> wrote in
<1176381709.706994.323220@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>:
>I'd really like to be able to pay about $50 for a modem that supports
>1xRTT, EVDO, EDGE, HSDPA, and Wi-Fi.
Me too. I'd also like a new BMW for $20,000. Both are unrealistic.
One standard, but not the whole gamut -- technology just isn't there
today.
>I know I'm too ignorant to realize all the complications that would be
>involved in such a device. But I'm kind of frustrated with the fact
>that we basically have two data networks (three now with Wi-Max and
>four if you count Wi-Fi) and neither of these two data networks really
>offer satisfactory high-speed coverage. For those who live in
>metropolitan areas and seldom venture from them, they do not see this
>as an issue. But for the rest of us, it's a big issue. Providers have
>been slow to cover some heavily populated areas that are not inside a
>popular metropolis, thinking more specifically of EVDO and HSDPA. It
>simply doesn't pay for me to pay for a data plan when the high-speed
>service isn't available anyway.
EGPRS(EDGE) offers respectable speed and very wide coverage, with 1xRTT
not too far behind. Why won't they work for you?
>$10 per day would make me squirm a little. I do like the idea of
>having this available for occasional use, but if you use it more than
>five times a month, you might as well have a data plan. $5 per day
>sounds a lot more agreeable, considering it would raise the "need-for-
>a-data-plan" threshold to a more acceptable level.
The problem is that the carrier can't make money at that kind of low
price point on such a complex service -- even $10 is probably too low.
That's why data packages make sense for both the carrier and the
customer.
>I think some hardware standardization for cell. phones is a critical
>part of providing data services. The Motorola Sprint/Nextel ic502 now
>uses a more standardized USB cable (without a proprietary end at the
>phone). This is a move that all mfg's should follow in order to
>simplify hooking your phone up to your computer, but i don't really
>expect it any time soon, if ever. It appears that proprietary
>solutions have been proven to fill the coffers so why would
>manufacturers and providers consider otherwise?
For the reason that Motorola is now using standard mini USB cables.
Standardization greatly increases the market, and makes retail
distribution of accessories practical. It will be particularly driven
by retailers and carriers, but benefits manufacturers as well.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:58:44 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461dca96$0$27204$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Surrrre. Texting is the absolutely most cost-effective method of
>> cellular communication for the carrier. It is overpriced, as most
>> ancillary wireless services are, to compensate for the hyper-competitive
>> pricing in voice plans. (Which is fine with me- any service I don't
>> regularly use that subsidizes services I do benefits me!) ;-)
>
>That's how I feel. I'm happy to use up their bandwidth with voice, when
>it would be more efficient for them to allow me to text as part of my
>minutes.
Text messages do not use voice channels and air time.
>Of course since when has the cost of providing a service
>actually been related to what the provider can charge for the service?
>Look at Caller ID, Call Waiting, and unlisted numbers.
Those service all had and still have real costs.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
HK wrote:
> I'd really like to be able to pay about $50 for a modem that supports
> 1xRTT, EVDO, EDGE, HSDPA, and Wi-Fi. When you fire up the modem it
> would show you which signals are available and then allow you to
> select a network and a "pay-per-use" plan for that day (or other time-
> frame).
>
> I know I'm too ignorant to realize all the complications that would be
> involved in such a device. But I'm kind of frustrated with the fact
> that we basically have two data networks (three now with Wi-Max and
> four if you count Wi-Fi) and neither of these two data networks really
> offer satisfactory high-speed coverage. For those who live in
> metropolitan areas and seldom venture from them, they do not see this
> as an issue. But for the rest of us, it's a big issue. Providers have
> been slow to cover some heavily populated areas that are not inside a
> popular metropolis, thinking more specifically of EVDO and HSDPA.
Actually EVDO coverage does extend beyond major metro areas.
> $10 per day would make me squirm a little. I do like the idea of
> having this available for occasional use, but if you use it more than
> five times a month, you might as well have a data plan. $5 per day
> sounds a lot more agreeable, considering it would raise the "need-for-
> a-data-plan" threshold to a more acceptable level.
It's a fine line between an acceptable level for occasional use, and
losing many of your monthly customers, but I agree, $5 would be acceptable.
> I think some hardware standardization for cell. phones is a critical
> part of providing data services.
Not really. Many notebooks now build in HSDPA or EV-DO, and a CardBus or
ExpressCard modem, would make providing data services less complex.
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <Np7Th.21636$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.
They were implemented about a year ago. "Latest" means there have been no
changes to that policy up to present.
>> 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%.
> The questions are
> if and when AT&T will deploy them.
IMHO they are more likely to drop in a new DSLAM on a buried fiber line
along the roadside.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:50:21 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461e3922$0$27203$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>HK wrote:
>> I think some hardware standardization for cell. phones is a critical
>> part of providing data services.
>
>Not really. Many notebooks now build in HSDPA or EV-DO, and a CardBus or
>ExpressCard modem, would make providing data services less complex.
Really. Complexity isn't a function of form factor. Those devices need
complex device drivers and control software.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Scott wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> RE-ADSL2 and ADSL2+/RE-ADSL2+ are capable of much longer distances
>> than standard ADSL, a range increase of roughly 50%. ("RE" is short
>> for "Reach Extended.) ADSL2 and ADSL2+ are also capable of much
>> higher speeds, up to 12 mbps and up to 24 mbps respectively. The
>> questions are if and when AT&T will deploy them.
>>
>
> Vaporware.
Like Extended GSM...Extended meaning extended range, not extended
frequencies which is a common phrase in the GSM world.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:34:02 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <KjsTh.77$j63.63@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> :
>John Navas wrote:
>> 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.
>
>They were implemented about a year ago. "Latest" means there have been no
>changes to that policy up to present.
They were actually implemented (albeit not as explicitly and publicly
stated) long before that.
>>> 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%.
>> The questions are
>> if and when AT&T will deploy them.
>
>IMHO they are more likely to drop in a new DSLAM on a buried fiber line
>along the roadside.
You may well be correct in many (or even most) cases, but these newer
ADSL technologies are compelling from a cost standpoint in cases where
that kind of major upgrade isn't needed.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 11 Apr 2007 15:46:53 +0000 DTC wrote:
>> Personally I think that's a failed model as Clearwire
>
> Spoken like a city slicker! ;-)
I can speak polysyllabic or redneck...name yer poison.
> 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.)
Very true..IF the "sticks" are kind of close into town or a nearby remote
DSLAM...but still there a lot of "deep sticks" where rural WiFi can find a
home.
>> 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.
I haven't looked at Clearwire's license maps to see if they really have the
coverage, so I can't say if they be able to pull that off. On the other
hand, its going to be far more expensive for them than a rural WiFi
provider as they don't use outside antennas - their unit sits nest to you
PC on the desk. Looking at the coverage maps and AP locations, it looks
like each AP has only about a two mile radius compared to six or eight mile
radius for rural WiFi.
> (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.)
The Third World doesn't have the copper infrastructure like the U.S telcos,
so its certainly cheaper and faster to deploy.
> Many rural areas in the US will likely be better
> served by wireless or satellite internet for quite some time.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 11 Apr 2007 17:43:40 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> 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.
John Navas wrote:
> the battle
> between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
> to most users.
On a slightly different note on importance...
I'm seeing customers in the rural WiFi market that choose aesthetics of the
installation over price and speed.
"I don't want anything with guy wires and will go with a company that can
put a small antenna on the roof of my house" (never mind the cost or speed
of the connection).
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:01:11 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <bJsTh.89$j63.40@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> :
>John Navas wrote:
>> the battle
>> between cable and DSL has shown that cost is more important than speed
>> to most users.
>
>On a slightly different note on importance...
>
>I'm seeing customers in the rural WiFi market that choose aesthetics of the
>installation over price and speed.
>
>"I don't want anything with guy wires and will go with a company that can
>put a small antenna on the roof of my house" (never mind the cost or speed
>of the connection).
I've seen that too, particularly in higher-end neighborhoods. Likewise
when people are browsing in a retail store, not only the product, but
also the packaging. Esthetics can indeed be a powerful force. We geeks
tend to dismiss that as silliness, but average folks lack our expertise,
and have found that better products tend to have better esthetics,
making esthetics a useful albeit imperfect criterion.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:b59r13dgglat4b8nnvhluehvuopvpe3p05@4ax.com:
> Sprint OTOH faces major technical risks -- even assuming WiMAX lives up
> to the hype, it's by no means clear that Sprint can successfully
> integrate cellular with WiMAX -- efforts to integrate cellular with
> Wi-Fi have been notably unsuccessful thus far.
>
Why integrate? Dump cellular and put a VoIP phone on WiMax.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:57:39 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns991084230D067noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:b59r13dgglat4b8nnvhluehvuopvpe3p05@4ax.com :
>
>> Sprint OTOH faces major technical risks -- even assuming WiMAX lives up
>> to the hype, it's by no means clear that Sprint can successfully
>> integrate cellular with WiMAX -- efforts to integrate cellular with
>> Wi-Fi have been notably unsuccessful thus far.
>
>Why integrate? Dump cellular and put a VoIP phone on WiMax.
Given issues of latency, traffic priority, and network congestion, that
might not work well. To be viable as a general proposition, I think it
would have to be as good as CDMA2000 cellular.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On 2007-04-11, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> 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.
I know RE-ADSL2 (Annex L) is ADSL2 with the upper frequency dropped from
1104 kHz to 552 kHz, and I know ADSL2+ (Annex M) is ADSL2 with the upper
frequency increased from 1104 kHz to 2208 kHz, but I can't figure out
what the heck RE-ADSL2+ might be. ADSL2+ is normally considered to
be a higher speed (up to 24 Mbps) but more range-limited service because
higher frequencies are attenuated more strongly with distance (which is why
Reach-Extended ADSL2 does this by squeezing its signal into a smaller
bandwidth).
Also, I've not seen anyone claim more than about a 3000 foot increase
in reach for RE-ADSL2 over ADSL at the same speed. This might come close
to a 50% increase in coverage area, but not in range.
Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream 
