Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report
Page 4 - Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report. Discuss Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report, on Wireless Forums.
On Apr 12, 6:24 pm, Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote innews:q1ds13907scf5f64mtjkpcj0imqisnqrrg@4ax.com:
>
> > On 12 Apr 2007 05:41:49 -0700, "HK" <Harlan.Ko...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > <1176381709.706994.323...@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?
Still getting "network gremlins" from SPCS/Virgin Mobile's toy
internet service which dropped in price to $5/ month from $1 for 24
hours...Ha Ha JG
John Navas wrote:
> <http://www.thestreet.com/_htmlbtb/smallbusinesstech/smallbusinesstech/10348860.html>
WELL.. It' looks like the Cocksucker NAVAS is back. And sucking harder
than ever. Hey NAVAS, hows it feel to have cocksuckers cramp in your anus?
> They can't make money on a normalized price of $300/month? Are you smoking
> the shitty crack again?
It all depends on how many $50 a month customers they lose to daily use
of less than five times per month. Look at how they have to keep raising
texting rates in order to get people to stop using pay as you go. Pretty
soon it'll be $1 per text message!
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in
news:461ed065$0$27235$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Scott wrote:
>
>> They can't make money on a normalized price of $300/month? Are you
>> smoking the shitty crack again?
>
> It all depends on how many $50 a month customers they lose to daily
> use of less than five times per month. Look at how they have to keep
> raising texting rates in order to get people to stop using pay as you
> go. Pretty soon it'll be $1 per text message!
>
Actually, they are raising the rate to determine where the ceiling is. Pay
per use is not detrimental to them and is quite a nice little profit
machine. It costs them no more to provide casual use- the billing system
captures the transaction and bills for it.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:a24u13p7rbpg7nv274ueevmaits3jo5j6n@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:35:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <461ed065$0$27235$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> They can't make money on a normalized price of $300/month? Are you
>>> smoking the shitty crack again?
>>
>>It all depends on how many $50 a month customers they lose to daily
>>use of less than five times per month. Look at how they have to keep
>>raising texting rates in order to get people to stop using pay as you
>>go. Pretty soon it'll be $1 per text message!
>
> The real issue is the poor economics of infrequent users of text
> messages.
>
Untrue, as has been pointed out. Give it up already- your opinion is
flawed.
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:34:02 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
>> 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.
Apparently it varied by area, as the service area I deal with the policy
went in February of last year based on dealing with the new orders department.
> Actually, they are raising the rate to determine where the ceiling is. Pay
> per use is not detrimental to them and is quite a nice little profit
> machine.
It is detrimental if low per-use rates encourage subscribers to not sign
up for a monthly plan. That's exactly what was happening with text when
it was 5¢ to send a message, (and even less to receive). You can
envision the marketing meeting dialog: "Why is no one signing up for
texting plans?" "Our per use price is so low that no one sees the upside
in paying an extra $5-10 per month for a texting bundle." "How do we fix
that?"
If T-Mobile ever puts in an HSDPA network, they'd be the ones that might
break the current pricing model.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:17:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <461f9f0b$0$27185$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>> Actually, they are raising the rate to determine where the ceiling is. Pay
>> per use is not detrimental to them and is quite a nice little profit
>> machine.
>
>It is detrimental if low per-use rates encourage subscribers to not sign
>up for a monthly plan. That's exactly what was happening with text when
>it was 5¢ to send a message, (and even less to receive). You can
>envision the marketing meeting dialog: "Why is no one signing up for
>texting plans?" "Our per use price is so low that no one sees the upside
>in paying an extra $5-10 per month for a texting bundle." "How do we fix
>that?"
Actually: "Because of the costs, cheap pay-as-you-go messaging isn't an
attractive financial proposition, so we'll give a big price break on
bulk messaging packages."
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:19:09 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
wrote in <xjMTh.20986$PL.7564@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:34:02 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
>>> 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.
>
>Apparently it varied by area, as the service area I deal with the policy
>went in February of last year based on dealing with the new orders department.
I was referring only to the San Francisco Bay Area.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:11av13lgdqj3mo8i1b2fn2bbi9j7fndcen@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:19:09 GMT, DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
> wrote in <xjMTh.20986$PL.7564@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:34:02 GMT, DTC
>>> <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob>
>>>> They were implemented about a year ago. "Latest" means there have
>>>> been no changes to that policy up to present.
>>>
>>> They were actually implemented (albeit not as explicitly and
>>> publicly stated) long before that.
>>
>>Apparently it varied by area, as the service area I deal with the
>>policy went in February of last year based on dealing with the new
>>orders department.
>
> I was referring only to the San Francisco Bay Area.
>
No you weren't- you made a blanket statement and got caught misonforming
again.
> Actually: "Because of the costs, cheap pay-as-you-go messaging isn't an
> attractive financial proposition, so we'll give a big price break on
> bulk messaging packages."
So you think the cost to provide SMS has tripled in the last two years
wwhen texting has become more popular than ever?
When I signed up with T-Mo, all plans came with 50 free texts in or out.
Three or four years ago they changed it to 50 free incoming, and 5-cents
out. Two years ago theydropped the free texts and it became 5-cents in/5-
out, last year it was 10-cents in/out and is going to 15-cents in June.
Meanwhile, voice plan costs have stayed essentially static in those 3
years. You don't think that just maybe, messaging rates are being used
to raise ARPU because competition is keeping voice plan prices in check?
More texts are sent today than when they cost a third or less than
current prices, but suddenly it's costing the carriers more to process
them?
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:36:57 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <evplrd$opm$1@aioe.org>:
>At 13 Apr 2007 15:50:42 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> Actually: "Because of the costs, cheap pay-as-you-go messaging isn't an
>> attractive financial proposition, so we'll give a big price break on
>> bulk messaging packages."
>
>So you think the cost to provide SMS has tripled in the last two years
>wwhen texting has become more popular than ever?
What I actually think is that (a) historical per message prices were not
attractive to carriers but volume was so low it didn't matter, and (b)
cost of messaging has increased due to gateway processing between
carriers.
>Meanwhile, voice plan costs have stayed essentially static in those 3
>years.
Voice prices have been held down due to vicious price competition
between carriers.
>You don't think that just maybe, messaging rates are being used
>to raise ARPU because competition is keeping voice plan prices in check?
Sure. Customers in the USA have historically been less interested in
and therefore less sensitive to the costs of messaging.
>More texts are sent today than when they cost a third or less than
>current prices, but suddenly it's costing the carriers more to process
>them?
>
>Surrrre.
When volume is very low, cost isn't an issue. In the beginning,
messaging was essentially a minor feature, essentially a loss leader.
As volume has soared, cost becomes much more of an issue; likewise the
revenue opportunity.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity." [Hanlon's razor]
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:cc4u13d9fm3ninidh4jk1kqqbp0216egq9@4ax.com:
>>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!
>
> On wireless? What kind of wireless? WiMAX?
Circuit City has a free, open wifi router for anyone with wifi in their
stores, here. Look for SSID Circuit City. Works great with the Netgear
SPH101 Skype phone. While looking over the list, there was another wifi,
SSID Free Wifi, or something like that, but right in the store CC was
stronger. CC works about 100 yards out into the parking lot, 24/7, if
you wanna drive up and check your email or make a call or look something
up for free. No webpage logon, it's a simple Linksys router back in the
Firedog service area.
>
>>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.
>
> Over what kind of cellular? The latency of anything but the latest 3G
> is very noticeable on Skype.
>
Skype sort-of works on 1X, but it's very marginal because of 1X's slow
data rates and poor ping times. On Verizon's new broadband, it works
very well, nearly as good as a real wifi broadband link. Of course, on
Verizon, you'll soon go afoul of the Gigabyte Gestapo going over their
5GB/month arbitrary limit on "unlimited" service, so you have to use it
sparingly, not hours on end, like on wifi.
Alltel promises to match Verizon's broadband by the end of April, here.
They have about the same restrictions that Verizon Wireless does on
usage, but it's not enforced that we can trigger. I know someone who
listens to BBC Radio on Alltel's aircard on trips and he's still
connected. Go figure....??
Sure beats the spam on American radio stations in the car....
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:njs1235kcnn4ud8gmol0qqfsjnlrv6pmff@4ax.com:
> When volume is very low, cost isn't an issue. In the beginning,
> messaging was essentially a minor feature, essentially a loss leader.
> As volume has soared, cost becomes much more of an issue; likewise the
> revenue opportunity.
>
>
The math still says it's the biggest ripoff around.....
156 bytes per message, 6,410,256 messages per Gigabyte x $US0.15/message =
$US 961,538.40 per Gigabyte! Even using the system, isn't that kinda
high?! No wonder they get pissed if you download a movie on an aircard for
$60/month!
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:06:38 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9912D70DEDB78noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:njs1235kcnn4ud8gmol0qqfsjnlrv6pmff@4ax.com :
>
>> When volume is very low, cost isn't an issue. In the beginning,
>> messaging was essentially a minor feature, essentially a loss leader.
>> As volume has soared, cost becomes much more of an issue; likewise the
>> revenue opportunity.
>
>The math still says it's the biggest ripoff around.....
>
>156 bytes per message, 6,410,256 messages per Gigabyte x $US0.15/message =
>$US 961,538.40 per Gigabyte! Even using the system, isn't that kinda
>high?!
No.
>No wonder they get pissed if you download a movie on an aircard for
>$60/month!
Since when?
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:58:16 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9912D5A319C08noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:cc4u13d9fm3ninidh4jk1kqqbp0216egq9@4ax.com :
>
>>>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!
>>
>> On wireless? What kind of wireless? WiMAX?
>
>Circuit City has a free, open wifi router for anyone with wifi in their
>stores, here.
Fair enough, but not WiMAX, and thus not directly relevant.
>> Over what kind of cellular? The latency of anything but the latest 3G
>> is very noticeable on Skype.
>>
>Skype sort-of works on 1X, but it's very marginal because of 1X's slow
>data rates and poor ping times. On Verizon's new broadband, it works
>very well, nearly as good as a real wifi broadband link.
I'd put it about halfway between the painful experience of 1X and the
decent experience of wired broadband, clearly inferior to Skype over
wired broadband and to cellular; i.e, usable, but nothing to write home
about, which is why I don't think it would be a viable commercial
offering for general consumption.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:5kk523t2i9kurndqtlah5qn7nkm8jdj0ni@4ax.com:
>>No wonder they get pissed if you download a movie on an aircard for
>>$60/month!
>
> Since when?
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas
<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
>
"UNLIMITED DATA PLANS AND FEATURES
Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess,
BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY be
used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet
browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to
corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like
customer relationship management, sales force, and field service
automation). The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for
any other purpose. Examples of prohibited uses include, without
limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading or
streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server devices or
host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera
posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine–to–machine
connections or peer–to–peer (P2P) file sharing; or (iii) as a substitute
or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. This means, by
way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet,
downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets
is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services
and/or redirecting television signals for viewing on laptops is
prohibited. A person engaged in prohibited uses, continuously for one
hour, could typically use 100 to 200 MBs, or, if engaged in prohibited
uses for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GBs in a
month.
For individual use only and not for resale. We reserve the right to
protect our network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. We
reserve the right to limit throughput or amount of data transferred, and
to deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is
using an Unlimited Data Plan or Feature in any manner prohibited above or
whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Anyone using
more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the
service in a manner prohibited above, and we reserve the right to
immediately terminate the service of any such person without notice. We
also reserve the right to terminate service upon expiration of Customer
Agreement term"
And, it looks like it's being enforced from what I read from the
users....at least the individual users. Big corporate users are probably
exempted. Verizon is stupid, but not THAT stupid to lose big money
accounts.
This isn't new. The limit is new. It WAS 10GB/month but has been
dropped 50% to 5GB/month. Cellular has never quite gotten over selling
data by the kilobyte, ya know...(c;
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:nkn923llegh1o2kav19bii9lihq31s83a9@4ax.com:
> I'd put it about halfway between the painful experience of 1X and the
> decent experience of wired broadband, clearly inferior to Skype over
> wired broadband and to cellular; i.e, usable, but nothing to write home
> about, which is why I don't think it would be a viable commercial
> offering for general consumption.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
>
I don't see any difference in using Skype on a Verizon EVDO Aircard
actually on EVDO and using it on a cable modem/wifi router with the same
laptop. Maybe there's some kind of priority on this particular aircard
because the aircard belongs to a huge international construction company
who's Verizon bill must be +$100K/month. That might buy them better
prioritizing for their aircards....??
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:41:14 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns99159FE51A13Fnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:5kk523t2i9kurndqtlah5qn7nkm8jdj0ni@4ax.com :
>
>>>No wonder they get pissed if you download a movie on an aircard for
>>>$60/month!
>>
>> Since when?
>[SNIP]
>This isn't new. The limit is new. It WAS 10GB/month but has been
>dropped 50% to 5GB/month. ...
"A movie" compressed with MPEG4 is about 700 MB, far below 5000 MB.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:44:48 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9915A0807C06Fnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:nkn923llegh1o2kav19bii9lihq31s83a9@4ax.com :
>
>> I'd put it about halfway between the painful experience of 1X and the
>> decent experience of wired broadband, clearly inferior to Skype over
>> wired broadband and to cellular; i.e, usable, but nothing to write home
>> about, which is why I don't think it would be a viable commercial
>> offering for general consumption.
>I don't see any difference in using Skype on a Verizon EVDO Aircard
>actually on EVDO and using it on a cable modem/wifi router with the same
>laptop. ...
I do.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On 2007-04-17, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:58:16 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>>Skype sort-of works on 1X, but it's very marginal because of 1X's slow
>>data rates and poor ping times. On Verizon's new broadband, it works
>>very well, nearly as good as a real wifi broadband link.
>
> I'd put it about halfway between the painful experience of 1X and the
> decent experience of wired broadband, clearly inferior to Skype over
> wired broadband and to cellular; i.e, usable, but nothing to write home
> about, which is why I don't think it would be a viable commercial
> offering for general consumption.
?? Skype comes pre-installed on some Nokia phones from several UK
carriers, e.g.
Their network, their rules. If they want to limit you to port 80
access to a half-dozen websites, and they say they'll do so in their
contract, they can (although that would be STUPID). The problems: the
original poster on the EVDOForums was given incorrect info or outright
lied to, and VZW can't explain exactly what was done that violated the
Terms of Service, and as the OP said, you can't necessarily assume a
specific type of traffic based on the TCP or UDP port being accessed.
The AUP was not the problem, the lack of clear enforcement was. But
that was still a horrible situation that didn't have to happen.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:a49a23pv2774hphtg641ag2m988mt9c4rs@4ax.com:
>>[SNIP]
>>This isn't new. The limit is new. It WAS 10GB/month but has been
>>dropped 50% to 5GB/month. ...
>
> "A movie" compressed with MPEG4 is about 700 MB, far below 5000 MB.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
I view this nonsense just like Comcrap Cable's 2GB/month Usenet
limit...without some hacking involving multiple email addresses....
Sure, you can watch a couple of movies and NOTHING ELSE ALL MONTH. What
stupidity is that? On Comcrap, you get one Divx movie per month then 30
days, 23 hours, 42minutes, 8 seconds of DEAD TIME. How stupid.
Why would anyone pay for something that only works a few hours a month?
Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:slrnf2aan9.7i.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com:
> ?? Skype comes pre-installed on some Nokia phones from several UK
> carriers, e.g.
>
> http://www.three.co.uk/xseries/get_x_series/index.omp
>
> They seem to find it perfectly viable to offer it for general
> consumption. It sounds pretty fine to me, too.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
>
>
Geez, Dennis! You're gonna give some Verizon hack a heart attack!
Unlimited Skype on a cellphone....That's like finding out the Archbishop
has a teenager!....(c;
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in news:Xns9915DE3D912B8noonehomecom@
208.49.80.253:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:a49a23pv2774hphtg641ag2m988mt9c4rs@4ax.com:
>
>>>[SNIP]
>>>This isn't new. The limit is new. It WAS 10GB/month but has been
>>>dropped 50% to 5GB/month. ...
>>
>> "A movie" compressed with MPEG4 is about 700 MB, far below 5000 MB.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>
>
> I view this nonsense just like Comcrap Cable's 2GB/month Usenet
> limit...without some hacking involving multiple email addresses....
>
> Sure, you can watch a couple of movies and NOTHING ELSE ALL MONTH. What
> stupidity is that? On Comcrap, you get one Divx movie per month then 30
> days, 23 hours, 42minutes, 8 seconds of DEAD TIME. How stupid.
>
> Why would anyone pay for something that only works a few hours a month?
>
> Larry
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:15:38 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnf2aan9.7i.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2007-04-17, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:58:16 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>>>Skype sort-of works on 1X, but it's very marginal because of 1X's slow
>>>data rates and poor ping times. On Verizon's new broadband, it works
>>>very well, nearly as good as a real wifi broadband link.
>>
>> I'd put it about halfway between the painful experience of 1X and the
>> decent experience of wired broadband, clearly inferior to Skype over
>> wired broadband and to cellular; i.e, usable, but nothing to write home
>> about, which is why I don't think it would be a viable commercial
>> offering for general consumption.
>
>?? Skype comes pre-installed on some Nokia phones from several UK
>carriers, e.g.
>
> http://www.three.co.uk/xseries/get_x_series/index.omp
>
>They seem to find it perfectly viable to offer it for general
>consumption. It sounds pretty fine to me, too.
I was referring to voice over WiMAX.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Sprint's Big Pipe Dream 
Linear Mode
