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.
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.
> 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.
Agreed. I'd probably be a Comcast broadband customer today (I was one in
Kansas City) but when I moved here my neighborhood had DSL, but not
Comcast. (They brought broadband here about a year later.) Apathy being
what it is, I've stuck with Qwest, since I can get landline and DSL for
the price of cable broadband, albeit with a slower (but "good enough")
connection.
> 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! ;-)
> > 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?
> 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.
> > 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.
If WiMax is as successful as you seem to think it will be, competitors
will spend what it takes.
> 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 over a million customers (I believe that's the number Cingular says
> are on the preorder list) walk away extremely unhappy.
Over a million are on the "e-mail me when you get it so I can look at it
and not buy it" list. IIRC, Apple predicts selling a couple hundred
thousand in 2007. Just as a comparison data point, I believe over 55
MILLION Razrs have sold to date.
> 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.
I don't think they'll run out of iPhones, I'm guessing they'll go over
like lead balloons at $600, then sell at $300 or $400.
Cingular will use the iPhone as bait. They'll hope to get a bunch of
people in the store to drool all over it's clown fish wallpaper, then,
after the customer says "sweet- but I'm not spending $600 for THAT," the
salespeople will say "I know- but this $49 Sync also plays your music and
can do Google Maps just like the iPhone, and this $99 Blackjack can do
push e-mail as well as music and maps. Will that be cash or charge?"
> 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! ;-)
> 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! ;-)
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:14:33 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <evk883$6lb$1@aioe.org>:
>At 11 Apr 2007 19:00:23 -0500 Scott wrote:
>> 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! ;-)
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].
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.
>> > 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.
>> 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.
There's actually no advantage there -- it's just as easy to bundle 3G
(as is already happening) as it is to bundle WiMAX.
>> 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! ;-)
Correct. There is no capacity crunch. Sprint faces far greater risks.
>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! ;-)
Not to mention AT&T/Cingular. And that's assuming WiMAX works for
Sprint without major issues, a very risky assumption.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
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.
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 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>
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.
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.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:11:45 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnf1sq2h.81.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2007-04-11, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> 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).
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSL#_note-adsl-annex-l>
>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.
See <http://www.internode.on.net/adsl2/graph/>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
DTC wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> The law actually doesn't work that way -- it's actually hard to block
>> towers.
>
> I'll take it up a notch and say its more like damned impossible to block
> new towers.
LOL, I guess the people in my city are a real anomaly. It's actually not
hard to prevent towers from going in, but a lot depends on the
government of the city in question. You can't block a site based on
health concerns, but there is a plethora of issues to raise when
fighting a site.
Cingular and then T-Mobile tried for about eight years to put in a site
at a small shopping center about a mile from me. They were successfully
blocked at every turn. There were endless public hearings, and finally
they gave up trying. Then they tried a fake tree site across from the
shopping center, but that was also successfully blocked by NIMBYs.
I'm not saying that what the nearby residents did was a good thing, but
it's important to understand what the law actually says regarding cell
sites and refusing to allow them. You can stop them, just not for the
wrong reason.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:05:06 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <SMsTh.90$j63.89@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> :
>John Navas wrote:
>> The law actually doesn't work that way -- it's actually hard to block
>> towers.
>
>I'll take it up a notch and say its more like damned impossible to block
>new towers.
Correct.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:q1ds13907scf5f64mtjkpcj0imqisnqrrg@4ax.com:
> On 12 Apr 2007 05:41:49 -0700, "HK" <Harlan.Koehn@gmail.com> wrote in
> <1176381709.706994.323220@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>:
>
>
>>$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.
>
They can't make money on a normalized price of $300/month? Are you smoking
the shitty crack again?
DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote in
news:KUsTh.92$j63.75@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink. net:
> Scott wrote:
>> As usenet geeks, we tend to take things for granted that would keep
>> our neighbors busy for hours :-)
>
> [semi-snicker mode activated]
>
> And a corollary might be, we tend to spend hours ridding our PCs of
> evil tool bars and spyware that the neighbors take poor PC performance
> as granted.
>
> [/semi-snicker mode]
>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:r8qs1313oqoav5msqlamfb4p186re8kfc3@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:11:45 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
> <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
> <slrnf1sq2h.81.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>
>>On 2007-04-11, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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).
>
> See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADSL#_note-adsl-annex-l>
>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:ahps139ojh6gq24jn9rn88pjlqkjk1gvm8@4ax.com:
> 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.
>
>
I have Skype installed on an HP laptop with cam at Circuit City open for
anyone who knows about it to call. Did you know CC leaves all their
electronics in the whole store on all night?..(c; It's just as noisy in
there at 2AM as on Saturday morning!
Someone threw the old "latency" BS up who said Skype and all the internet
phones sucked because of awful delays. So, I flipped Skype open and
called HIS cellphone on it from CC's laptop. Hmm....less latency and
delay Skype to him than there was my cell to his cell. Not bad....
Then, just for fun, I had him call my Skype In number, which I'm
betatesting MobiVox on. It forwards to my cell when I'm not online PLUS
lets me make Skype calls FROM my cell, too. MobiVox will be available
soon. It replaces leaving your computer online with Vox for Skype.
MobiVox has its own servers in Canada (or was that Cambodia??). Our
cellphones were then connected from my cell to MobiVox Skype conferenced
to his cell. It sounded just fine and the total delay seemed less than
before, but I had, standing in Circuit City's computer department, no way
of measuring it.
While we were connected through MobiVox-Skype, my Skype "rang". It was a
friend of mine, David, in Hawaii calling my Skype from his office PC
Skype-to-skype. The look on the guy's face when he could talk to all of
us....Priceless...(c;
MobiVox, when released, will connect your cell to Skype by remote control
WITHOUT leaving your home computer running, at all. Not sure what it
will cost, but not much. You'll be able to call any of the millions of
Skype computers....straight from your cellphone, with voice or touchtone
control. Pretty neat! http://www.mobivox.com/ Not much of a webpage,
yet....though. Sign up if you're interested in the email info.
Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream 