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>
Although the contract is a big win for AT&T, Qwest and Verizon,
industry analysts said, it is a devastating blow for Sprint, which
has provided services under the government's previous two major
telecom contracts, spanning two decades.
"This doesn't just mean a loss of federal business -- this will
marginalize Sprint and really narrow their scope to a niche wireless
contractor versus a broad carrier," said Warren Suss, a telecom
analyst for Suss Consulting in Jenkintown, Pa. "The fact that they
didn't make the cut here means that from a pricing and technological
point of view, they had a hard time providing services across the
board."
Other analysts speculated that the government was wary of doing
business with Sprint, which has been losing subscribers and whose
stock has lost about 20 percent of its value, adjusted for dividends
and splits, since its 2005 merger with Nextel. William E. Kennard,
former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, was brought
on to Sprint's board of directors after the merger, in part to help
bolster the company's federal presence. He resigned from his post
three weeks ago -- an early sign, some say, that Sprint was facing
defeat.
While current GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out, Bob
Woods, a former official at the agency who now works as a consultant,
surmised that Sprint could not meet the low prices of its
competitors. Woods estimated that Sprint could lose roughly $200
million to $250 million annually in existing government business.
Executives from Sprint plan to meet with GSA officials next week to
discuss why their contract proposal fell short, and the company will
decide afterwards whether to file a protest, spokeswoman Sukhi Sahni
said in an e-mail.
[MORE]
Sprint Nextel will not protest contract
<http://www.kansascity.com/438/story/62087.html>
Sprint Nextel Corp., the only losing bidder among four companies
vying for a government telecommunications contract worth up to $48
billion, said Friday it has decided not to protest last week's
decision.
The company met with the General Service Administration on Wednesday
for a "debriefing" on why they weren't chosen for the 10-year
"Networx Universal" contract.
....
Sprint, which has been supplying telecom services to the government
for the last 18 years, lost out to Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T
Inc. and Qwest Communications International Inc. for the Universal
contract. As a result, Sprint will not be able to compete for
individual agency business for the next decade.
The blow to Sprint, which had participated in providing telecom
services to the federal government for nearly 20 years, was a
crusher. The company has been leaking customers and jobs since
acquiring Nextel in 2005, and it had already announced plans to lay
off 5,000 workers this year as sales lagged. Asked why Sprint was
sent home, John Johnson of the GPA would say only, "The three
awardees best meet our needs." Sprint officials said they would press
the feds for a more detailed explanation next week before deciding
whether to protest its exclusion. [MORE]
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:32:22 -0700, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com>
wrote in <WEvSh.158200$p17.128201@newsfe11.phx>:
>What is the reason that Sprint lost the contract? Does anyone have any
>information? Navas, do you know anything?
>
>
>"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 $17.
>>
>> Fifteen feels more like it.
>>
>> Nobody can resist speculating on crummy companies. I just have to
>> warn you that any potential buyers of this company know that things
>> are crummy there and they aren't interested, either.
>>
>> The fundamentals of any company must be good enough that you will
>> want to buy more if there is a disappointment. It's pretty clear
>> today that Sprint owners want out. That's what you get when you make
>> a bet on unsound merchandise.
>>
>> Caveat emptor.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Great article at face value but a few things stand out- I spotted at least
three major inaccuracies and no comparative mention of Cingular's merger
woes.
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote in
news:WEvSh.158200$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.
"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.
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>
"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.
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.
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. Ironically Sprint ran that WiFi service--and it was slower than
heck (there was some non-subscription access).
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>
"John Navas" wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I can't argue that when I was stuck in the airport with no connectivity, I
wasn't looking enviously at those with data connect cards/adapters. <g>
The other thing with WiFi is being careful about connecting to unknown
networks. Too many "Free WiFi!!!" SSIDs out there for my comfort level.
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.
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.
--
Mike
Even with $20 on top of my regular plan's handset 'Net, assuming handset
tethering here, that still seems more money than most people would pay. And
$20
> "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.
>
>
> 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.
A lot depends on where you are located. I am not in the sticks but
everything you described is unusual in the areas where I typically
work/travel. If you want mobile connectivity here you buy an aircard.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:reen13ljq5uav13e29d72647lq5f0f1u05@4ax.com:
> 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).
And you base this on what? Sprint is specifically markrting WiMax as a
mobile solution and not initially intending it as a replacement for
hardwired broadband. HSDPA does not show the performance of EVDO rev.2 in
terms of performance, and therefore would be hard pressed to command a
premium price when EVDO and WiMax buildouts are completed. Cingular has
come out and said that they are "a few years" from having a truly high
speed broadband offering or anything approaching a 4G product.
>
>>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.
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.
> 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>
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,
will continue, even though the planet is being dragged, kicking and
screaming if necessary, into a new data age?
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.
No, I believe Sprint is simply placing themselves at the head of the line
in the WiMax transition. Instead of this multiple, half-assed, parallel
system of cellular/PCS phone nonsense America is today of non-cooperating
competitors, who only briefly coordinate their inadequacies with other
carriers on their particular data scheme, then refuse to cooperate,
dispite their customers having all these holes. WiMax carriers will all
be resellers of the SAME system, each a part of the whole, as cellular
should have been by force of law from its inception.
Those lagging behind, trying to hold onto their little archaic fiefdoms,
as now, will find themselves losing revenues, as the worldwide WiMax
becomes a reality. The sooner the better for all of us...er,
ah...customers, that is....(c;
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news1cn13p3ioe7k75grsep07eiorbk914fm1@4ax.com:
> They (AT&T and T-Mobile) already have.
>
We don't have T-mobile native coverage in Charleston, SC.
But, all over town as I'm scanning the wifi band with Network Stumbler on
the laptop in the car, I'm bombarded with POPs from T-mobile wifi in all
kinds of crazy places. Some places in town, there are EIGHT different T-
mobile hotspots at once! They have great range, even on the little, low
powered wifi band.
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.
> 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? ;-)
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!
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. 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.). 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
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!)
> 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.
> 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...? ;-)
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.
> 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.
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.
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>
Sprint Leads in data ARPU, Verizon passes Cingular in Subscribers,according to IDC Report 
duk1318s5d372aoduh4ig4po7tkptvvhu@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
