Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report
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.
Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report
See "http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=49296&src=site-marq"
Sprint leads Verizon by 41¢ in data ARPU.
Verizon passed Cingular in retail subscribers by half a million.
"Verizon became the new market leader in terms of total direct retail
subscribers/customers, with a total of 56.8 million, against 56.3
million for Cingular," said IDC's Julien Blin in a statement.
Cingular still leads in subscribers when you include wholesale MVNO
customers that sell under a variety of brands.
Re: Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers, according to IDC Report
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:20:48 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <46153e02$0$27174$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>[SNIP]
Reality check:
Sprint still struggling to make Nextel merger work
Revenue expected to remain flat and big layoffs
coming for wireless carrier.
By Denise Pappalardo, NetworkWorld.com, 01/09/07
<http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/010907-sprint-nextel-earnings.html>
The honeymoon period is clearly over for Sprint and Nextel. Their $36
billion marriage at the end of 2005 was supposed to result in a
wireless powerhouse with strong average revenue per user (ARPU). But
Sprint Nextel Monday said its earnings for 2007 will fall below
earlier expectation; its revenue will be flat and that it will lay
off 5,000 employees to cut costs.
....
Industry watchers say the carrier's ARPU sipped even further in the
fourth quarter after three consecutive months of decline, yet strong
ARPU was one of the reasons Sprint bought Nextel.
Back in 2004, when the merger was proposed, Nextel’s ARPU was $69
while Sprint’s was $63, Verizon’s $51.58 and Cingular’s $49.78. But
Sprint Nextel hasn’t been able to maintain Nextel’s ARPU let alone
Sprint's. The combined company reported ARPU of $61 in the third
quarter.
On the other hand, Verizon and Cingular’s figures have remained
steady. Verizon reported ARPU of $50.59 and Cingular reported ARPU of
$49.76 during the same period.
In an attempt to cut expenses, Sprint Nextel is slashing its
workforce to 59,600, about an 8% reduction expected to happen mostly
this quarter.
Trimming its payroll is one way it’s attempting to fix its financial
problems, but the company clearly is betting its future on wireless
broadband services, namely EV-DO Revision A and WiMAX.
The company says its capital expenditures will be about $8.5 billion
in 2007, $1.4 billion more than in 2006. The majority of that will be
spent on expanding its wireless broadband networks.
But the company’s laser focus on wireless broadband seems to be
hurting the carrier in the short term.
Some have speculated that the company has not maintained the Nextel
network, services or customer service. Reports say that the majority
of customers leaving Sprint stem from the Nextel side of the house,
hence the loss of Nextel’s high ARPU.
[MORE]
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers, according to IDC Report
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:7fkb13578d2aglkqovb8boheuorbf8srse@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:20:48 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <46153e02$0$27174$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>[SNIP]
>
> Reality check:
>
> Sprint still struggling to make Nextel merger work
> Revenue expected to remain flat and big layoffs
> coming for wireless carrier.
> By Denise Pappalardo, NetworkWorld.com, 01/09/07
> <http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...el-earnings.ht
> ml>
>
A four month old article? May be you should take your head out of your ass
and look at more recent events.
Sprint's condition looks so dismal that an all-or-nothing bet on an
unproven wireless technology is actually shaping up as a bright spot.
Tuning out the static surrounding its repeated stumbles, Sprint late
last month announced a major expansion of its wireless broadband
project. After originally targeting Chicago and Baltimore, Sprint now
says it will launch the so-called 4G service in 17 additional cities
by the end of 2008.
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.
....
"WiMax is our future," says one Sprint insider who is involved with
the decision. "There's no margin for error. It's not like we can say
'we gave it our best effort' and then move on."
[MORE]
Sprint loses out on major contract
<http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-telecom30mar30,1,3918367.story?coll=la-headlines-business>
Dealing a significant blow to Sprint Nextel Corp., the government
Thursday awarded the largest-ever federal telecommunications contract
-- a 10-year deal worth as much as $48 billion -- to Sprint rivals
AT&T, Qwest Communications and Verizon.
....
The GSA announcement was a serious loss for Sprint Nextel, analysts
said, because the Reston, Va.-based company has been providing
telecom services to the federal government for nearly 20 years.
This year, Sprint announced thousands of job cuts amid service
troubles, a dwindling customer base and difficulty assimilating
Nextel Communications, which it acquired in 2004. Sprint shares are
down about 20% from a year ago and the company is forecasting
near-flat operating revenue and earnings this year.
"It's terrible for Sprint," said technology consultant Warren Suss of
Jenkintown, Pa. "The federal government was Sprint's first major
customer since the company started."
GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out.
[MORE]
Sprint Runs Out of Appeal
<http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rmct/rmoney/jimcramerblog/10331568.html>
Sprint was a pure takeover target. That's why people owned it. No
other reason. There was no earnings potential, none as the company
pretty much telegraphed. You could bank on a disappointment, but
people couldn't resist it. They believed that no matter how bad it
was, they could withstand the pain because of the buyout potential.
Of course, as with the Gap, as with Home Depot, when you speculate on
this nonsense you have a really terrible risk/reward. Sure, Sprint
could get a takeover bid, but it won't come from $20. It might not
even come from $17.
Fifteen feels more like it.
Nobody can resist speculating on crummy companies. I just have to
warn you that any potential buyers of this company know that things
are crummy there and they aren't interested, either.
The fundamentals of any company must be good enough that you will
want to buy more if there is a disappointment. It's pretty clear
today that Sprint owners want out. That's what you get when you make
a bet on unsound merchandise.
Caveat emptor.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
information? Navas, do you know anything?
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
newsduk1318s5d372aoduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@4ax.com...
> <http://www.thestreet.com/_htmlbtb/smallbusinesstech/smallbusinesstech/10348860.html>
>
> Sprint's condition looks so dismal that an all-or-nothing bet on an
> unproven wireless technology is actually shaping up as a bright spot.
>
> Tuning out the static surrounding its repeated stumbles, Sprint late
> last month announced a major expansion of its wireless broadband
> project. After originally targeting Chicago and Baltimore, Sprint now
> says it will launch the so-called 4G service in 17 additional cities
> by the end of 2008.
>
> 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.
> ...
> "WiMax is our future," says one Sprint insider who is involved with
> the decision. "There's no margin for error. It's not like we can say
> 'we gave it our best effort' and then move on."
>
> [MORE]
>
> Sprint loses out on major contract
> <http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-telecom30mar30,1,3918367.story?coll=la-headlines-business>
>
> Dealing a significant blow to Sprint Nextel Corp., the government
> Thursday awarded the largest-ever federal telecommunications contract
> -- a 10-year deal worth as much as $48 billion -- to Sprint rivals
> AT&T, Qwest Communications and Verizon.
> ...
> The GSA announcement was a serious loss for Sprint Nextel, analysts
> said, because the Reston, Va.-based company has been providing
> telecom services to the federal government for nearly 20 years.
>
> This year, Sprint announced thousands of job cuts amid service
> troubles, a dwindling customer base and difficulty assimilating
> Nextel Communications, which it acquired in 2004. Sprint shares are
> down about 20% from a year ago and the company is forecasting
> near-flat operating revenue and earnings this year.
>
> "It's terrible for Sprint," said technology consultant Warren Suss of
> Jenkintown, Pa. "The federal government was Sprint's first major
> customer since the company started."
>
> GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out.
>
> [MORE]
>
> Sprint Runs Out of Appeal
> <http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rmct/rmoney/jimcramerblog/10331568.html>
>
> Sprint was a pure takeover target. That's why people owned it. No
> other reason. There was no earnings potential, none as the company
> pretty much telegraphed. You could bank on a disappointment, but
> people couldn't resist it. They believed that no matter how bad it
> was, they could withstand the pain because of the buyout potential.
>
> Of course, as with the Gap, as with Home Depot, when you speculate on
> this nonsense you have a really terrible risk/reward. Sure, Sprint
> could get a takeover bid, but it won't come from $20. It might not
> even come from $17.
>
> Fifteen feels more like it.
>
> Nobody can resist speculating on crummy companies. I just have to
> warn you that any potential buyers of this company know that things
> are crummy there and they aren't interested, either.
>
> The fundamentals of any company must be good enough that you will
> want to buy more if there is a disappointment. It's pretty clear
> today that Sprint owners want out. That's what you get when you make
> a bet on unsound merchandise.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Great article at face value but a few things stand out- I spotted at least
three major inaccuracies and no comparative mention of Cingular's merger
woes.
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote in
news:WEvSh.158200$p17.128201@newsfe11.phx:
> What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
> information? Navas, do you know anything?
>
>
Navas doesn't know anything if it's not contained in a Google link.
One thought on the street is that Sprint might have half-assed the whole
thing because while the dollars sound great, margin on those types of
accounts are horrible. Between huge equipment subsidies (including
contracted cell towers and private networks), huge pricing discounts,
special billing requirements, budget shortfalls (which stop payment in a
heartbeat) and the necessity to go through the GSA for payment puts net
revenue far below any other tier of customer in the industry. The money
looks good coming in, but id of no value if most of it goes right back out.
The budget piece is of particular importance- the contract was advertised
as being worth "up to $48B" over ten years. The real value won't be
determined by the carriers- it will be determined by Congress.
There is a secondary contract being offered later in the year with fewer
requirements and worth $20B. Sprint may be focusing their energies there.
Navas may call it a "pipe dream", but he will eat his words when Sprint is
the industry leader in data and 4G. Sprint will prevail! I think that it is
time for me to buy more Sprint Stock now. Talk to you later...
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:CJOdnXKAra0yT4fbnZ2dnUVZ_tKjnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote in
> news:WEvSh.158200$p17.128201@newsfe11.phx:
>
>> What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
>> information? Navas, do you know anything?
>>
>>
> Navas doesn't know anything if it's not contained in a Google link.
>
> One thought on the street is that Sprint might have half-assed the whole
> thing because while the dollars sound great, margin on those types of
> accounts are horrible. Between huge equipment subsidies (including
> contracted cell towers and private networks), huge pricing discounts,
> special billing requirements, budget shortfalls (which stop payment in a
> heartbeat) and the necessity to go through the GSA for payment puts net
> revenue far below any other tier of customer in the industry. The money
> looks good coming in, but id of no value if most of it goes right back
> out.
>
> The budget piece is of particular importance- the contract was advertised
> as being worth "up to $48B" over ten years. The real value won't be
> determined by the carriers- it will be determined by Congress.
>
> There is a secondary contract being offered later in the year with fewer
> requirements and worth $20B. Sprint may be focusing their energies there.
On 4/10/2007 12:44 AM, Tinman wrote:
> "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.
>
>
BFG
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
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...
What we haven't seen is something similar to what happened when the
RBOCs and RVOCs decided that they'd be better off selling DSL service to
the masses, at a lower price, rather than selling it to a relatively few
number of users at a high price. Of course seeding the market for FIOS
and U-Verse was one of the other reasons to go after market share for DSL.
Which wireless carrier will be the first to decide to drop their pants
on data pricing and try to sell it to the masses? And if they drop the
price, will the masses even be interested unless it can replace their
DSL or broadband connection? Unfortunately, despite the hundreds of
millions of dollars that the carriers have spent on 3G and 4G, they
don't have the capacity to sell data to the masses.
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.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:36:54 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461baf17$0$27175$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>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...
>
>What we haven't seen is something similar to what happened when the
>RBOCs and RVOCs decided that they'd be better off selling DSL service to
>the masses, at a lower price, rather than selling it to a relatively few
>number of users at a high price. Of course seeding the market for FIOS
>and U-Verse was one of the other reasons to go after market share for DSL.
>
>Which wireless carrier will be the first to decide to drop their pants
>on data pricing and try to sell it to the masses?
They (AT&T and T-Mobile) already have.
>And if they drop the
>price, will the masses even be interested unless it can replace their
>DSL or broadband connection? Unfortunately, despite the hundreds of
>millions of dollars that the carriers have spent on 3G and 4G, they
>don't have the capacity to sell data to the masses.
They, following the lead of NTT DoCoMo, are actually already well along
in what the masses want, not replacement of wired broadband connections
(something of interest only to a few of us geeks), but broadband content
appropriate to wireless: music, video, radio, etc. CNN News video on my
new V3xx is quite good -- I'm surprised at how often I watch it.
>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.
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.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
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).
>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.
>I would be willing to pay a fair price for occasional use, but not at the
>per-megabyte rate (last I checked rates, anyway). Actually, I recently
>turned down paying $9.95 for a day of WiFi usage at IAH airport (Houston).
>Considering I was only there for a few hours, had just flown in from (and
>was headed to) an airport that had free WiFi, and would have had to supply
>CC and other info over the apparently unsecured WLAN I didn't think it was
>worth it. ...
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.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
> "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.
>
>
> 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>
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.
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!)
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 Dow
Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report 
duk1318s5d372aoduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@4ax.com...