Last message on previous page: Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
"Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m621d1pm8di5gagqcc92uao3hh7uho3265@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:28:15 GMT, "Bob Smith"
> <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Nor can you take your DSL down the street, across town, or anywhere else
one
> >can go with the coverage area.
>
> Since Sprint is marketing EV-DO to business users, perhaps we should
> look at some places where business users might realistically need data
> access, instead of these ambiguous places like "down the street" or
> "across town":
> 1) Hotel room
> 2) Airport
> 3) Convention center/public meeting place
> 4) Client's company
> 5) Taxi cab/other transportation
> 6) ???
>
> In my experience, most of 1-3) are now covered by WiFi or wired
> Internet, which is much cheaper than EV-DO, and in some cases free.
> Your clients might let you use their network, or they may not. If
> they don't EV-DO is nice. EV-DO would be a great for 5). I would say
> the majority of usage would be with 1-4).
>
> Maybe I just work for a small company where expenditures are
> scrutinized, but there's no way I could justify to my employer a
> charge of $80/month for a service that I can get free/much cheaper in
> most of the places I need it, not to mention the fact that with the
> present limited coverage area of EV-DO, if I did need EV-DO, there's a
> very good chance I might not be able to use it for lack of coverage.
> Maybe your employer is different.
>
> Joe Huber
> huber.joseph@comcast.net
Maybe you do ... But the point here is that every one of those places have a
separate charge, other than your home based DSL / Cable modem. There will be
times where you won't be able to get into a hotel/motel where the service is
provided or provided at no charge. WiFi providers @ airports charge a fee.
Same thing for the convention center.
Add to the fact that Vision EV-DO cost averages $3 / day or less. When
considering that just one use of that service, can more than pay for the
service, when signing up new clients or saving one you might be losing.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:07:50 GMT, "Bob Smith"
>Add to the fact that Vision EV-DO cost averages $3 / day or less. When
>considering that just one use of that service, can more than pay for the
>service, when signing up new clients or saving one you might be losing.
I know this is theoretically possible and makes for good advertising,
but I'd be interested to know if anybody here as actually faced a
situation where having high-speed Interent at your fingertips would
have been the sole or primary determining factor in winning a new
client or keeping and existing one from leaving.
Verizon's EV-DO has been out for awhile, and is priced similarly to
Sprint's. Does anyone know how are Verizion's EV-DO sales are doing?
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:29:52 GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com"
<steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:44:23 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
>wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:56:51 GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com"
>><steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>>I think Sprint is overcharging. Maybe their network has low capacity
>>>so they are not being price competitive to keep the problems from
>>>manifesting themselves. I can believe that.
>>
>>Low capacity? Do you just make this stuff up?
>No, why would you say that?
I asked that because you pulled a strange comment, ("Maybe their
network has low capacity...", out of thin air and then failed to
support it with any facts. In other words, it looked (and still looks)
made up.
>Surely you understand that Sprint has T1 lines to their cellsites.
>If 2 million subscribers suddenly started subscribing to EV-DO and
>watching video constantly would there be enough capacity on the
>cellsite for the voice calls, of would it all grind to a halt? The
>latter, obviously.
As someone else already pointed out, there is no cell site serving 2
million customers anywhere in Sprint's network or anyone else's
network, for that matter. Long before it gets to that point,
additional sites would be added. Bottom line, your "grind to a halt"
observation also looks to be made up. :-)
>Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> writes:
>
>>>I really want EV-DO performane (low latency, specifically).
>
>>Sprint's EV-DO latency is the same or slightly worse than 1xRTT
>>latency in most cases.
>
>Dang! By "most cases" what do you mean? I've been hearing great reports
>about EV-DO latency. Is Sprint doing something bad? Do you happen to know
>if VZW EV-DO latency is different?
>
> http://cent.syr.edu/projects_mobile_article.asp?id=66 >
> Sprint only offers 1xRTT data service (50 to 70 Kbps) and plans to
> deploy EV-DO next year. EV-DO is pretty hot, offering throughput in
> excess of 500 Kbps and round-trip latency under 200 milliseconds, based
> on our testing in the Washington, DC, area.
>
>Thank you.
In my own testing back in April of this year, I was seeing 650-700 mS
of latency for the first packet, which included bringing the card out
of dormancy. Subsequent packets were mostly in the range of 340-380. I
saw a low of 210 mS but it wasn't very repeatable. When I switched to
a 1xRTT card, the first packet took around 350 mS and subsequent
packets took about 220-280 mS. Three other folks who were testing
during the same period got similar results. Other testing, at other
locations and other times, would likely produce different results. If
possible, get a card and do your own testing to verify the performance
in your area.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:58:29 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
wrote:
>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:56:51 GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com"
>><steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>Surely you understand that Sprint has T1 lines to their cellsites.
>>If 2 million subscribers suddenly started subscribing to EV-DO and
>>watching video constantly would there be enough capacity on the
>>cellsite for the voice calls, of would it all grind to a halt? The
>>latter, obviously.
>
>As someone else already pointed out, there is no cell site serving 2
>million customers anywhere in Sprint's network or anyone else's
>network, for that matter. Long before it gets to that point,
>additional sites would be added. Bottom line, your "grind to a halt"
>observation also looks to be made up. :-)
One cellsite? Who said one cellsite? Not me. That's ridiculous.
If they had 2 million subscribers among their entire population of
customers distributed over all their cellsites who suddenly upped
their usage of bandwidth by 100x we would ALL notice it. Sheesh.
They would need to limit subscribers until they were sure they could
carry the load. So prices are high until then.
Heck, if they made broadband cellular phone data service cost $3 a
month we would likely ALL subscribe, they could never expand enough to
provide that much service.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
"Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ru13d11uf5umhehonvglke6n3uv7eopo4t@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:07:50 GMT, "Bob Smith"
> >Add to the fact that Vision EV-DO cost averages $3 / day or less. When
> >considering that just one use of that service, can more than pay for the
> >service, when signing up new clients or saving one you might be losing.
>
> I know this is theoretically possible and makes for good advertising,
> but I'd be interested to know if anybody here as actually faced a
> situation where having high-speed Interent at your fingertips would
> have been the sole or primary determining factor in winning a new
> client or keeping and existing one from leaving.
>
> Verizon's EV-DO has been out for awhile, and is priced similarly to
> Sprint's. Does anyone know how are Verizion's EV-DO sales are doing?
>
> Joe Huber
> huber.joseph@comcast.net
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
"Steevo@my-deja.com" <steevo@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:b9k3d1pi9hftkb63ghq4vunepgdfa2r5p0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:58:29 GMT, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 02:56:51 GMT, "Steevo@my-deja.com"
> >><steevo@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Surely you understand that Sprint has T1 lines to their cellsites.
> >>If 2 million subscribers suddenly started subscribing to EV-DO and
> >>watching video constantly would there be enough capacity on the
> >>cellsite for the voice calls, of would it all grind to a halt? The
> >>latter, obviously.
> >
> >As someone else already pointed out, there is no cell site serving 2
> >million customers anywhere in Sprint's network or anyone else's
> >network, for that matter. Long before it gets to that point,
> >additional sites would be added. Bottom line, your "grind to a halt"
> >observation also looks to be made up. :-)
>
> One cellsite? Who said one cellsite? Not me. That's ridiculous.
>
> If they had 2 million subscribers among their entire population of
> customers distributed over all their cellsites who suddenly upped
> their usage of bandwidth by 100x we would ALL notice it. Sheesh.
>
> They would need to limit subscribers until they were sure they could
> carry the load. So prices are high until then.
>
> Heck, if they made broadband cellular phone data service cost $3 a
> month we would likely ALL subscribe, they could never expand enough to
> provide that much service.
You make it sound like every customer is going to go down to the SPCS store,
or one of their approved outlets, and snap up all the EV-DO cards, and EV-DO
capable phones overnight and modify their plans to bring on capacity
problems with all of the towers.
That's not going to happen. By the time that SPCS has phased out all the
current line of phones & PCMCIA cards and replaced them with EV-DO capable
devices, it's going to be 8-12 months, and not everyone is going to be doing
EV-DO transmissions. Not everyone who has replaced a phone in the past year
or the new customers who have signed up in the past six months, will be
updating to a new capable EV-DO device.
Bob ::Noticing that this argument has now swung from cost to bandwidth::
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
Paul Miner wrote:
>>Surely you understand that Sprint has T1 lines to their cellsites.
>>If 2 million subscribers suddenly started subscribing to EV-DO and
>>watching video constantly would there be enough capacity on the
>>cellsite for the voice calls, of would it all grind to a halt? The
>>latter, obviously.
>
>
> As someone else already pointed out, there is no cell site serving 2
> million customers anywhere in Sprint's network or anyone else's
> network, for that matter. Long before it gets to that point,
> additional sites would be added. Bottom line, your "grind to a halt"
> observation also looks to be made up. :-)
Just for sake of clarification, are we talking about bandwidth between the
cell sites and Sprint or between Sprint and the rest of the Internet?
(sounds like the former, but I just want to make sure)
--
JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)
"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table" --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:19:25 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
>Paul Miner wrote:
>
>>>Surely you understand that Sprint has T1 lines to their cellsites.
>>>If 2 million subscribers suddenly started subscribing to EV-DO and
>>>watching video constantly would there be enough capacity on the
>>>cellsite for the voice calls, of would it all grind to a halt? The
>>>latter, obviously.
>>
>>
>> As someone else already pointed out, there is no cell site serving 2
>> million customers anywhere in Sprint's network or anyone else's
>> network, for that matter. Long before it gets to that point,
>> additional sites would be added. Bottom line, your "grind to a halt"
>> observation also looks to be made up. :-)
>
>Just for sake of clarification, are we talking about bandwidth between the
>cell sites and Sprint or between Sprint and the rest of the Internet?
>
>(sounds like the former, but I just want to make sure)
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
I just checked the sbc web site. The $24.99 price is introductory
price and requires a 1 yr. agreement. The lowest month-to-month price
is $49.95.
Joseph Huber wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:07:41 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
> <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't know the local cost of roadrunner, but my dsl is around $50, so
>>how is evdo 3 times the cost? Besides that it is apples to oranges.
>>dsl does not get me data on my phone.
>
>
> DSL (unlimited 1.5 Mbps down / 384 kbps up) is being offered for
> $25/month by SBC and $30/month by Waymark in this market (before
> taxes). 80/30 = 2.67 ~= 3. These are the long-term prices, not the
> introductory short-term prices. Comcast is offering cable Internet
> for $42/month to cable customers.
>
> I'm not talking about getting data on my phone, I'm talking about
> getting data on my laptop. DSL, or cable, or whatever it is, gets me
> high speed Internet on my laptop when I'm in my hotel room while
> traveling, and that is where I'd be using EV-DO most
> frequently...seems like apples-to-apples to me.
>
> Joe Huber
> huber.joseph@comcast.net
> I just checked the sbc web site. The $24.99 price is introductory
>price and requires a 1 yr. agreement. The lowest month-to-month price
>is $49.95.
Sprint also requires a 1-yr agreement for their data plans. SBC still
gives you 12 months of DSL for $24.99/mo. SBC isn't the only game in
town. If you are worried that SBC won't offer you a competitive rate
after the 1-yr agreement is up, choose a different DSL provider.
Waymark (www.waymark.net) is offering DSL at similar speeds in this
market for the slightly higher price of $29.95/mo. They also require
a 1-yr agreement. I received the following from their sales staff
regarding what happens after the 1-yr agreement is up:
"It will stay at the same rate. If we are able to offer a lower rate
on the service, you can sign up for another year and we will lower the
rate again. Otherwise, you can stay on a monthly basis and keep the
same rate."
I'll be happy to forward you this email if you like, because this
information is not posted on Waymark's web site.
So, what was the point of your post? To show that DSL is really much
more expensive than I claimed it was? Well, in this markey anyway, it
really isn't...
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
I do live in sbc territory. They are not my dsl provider. If another
dsl provider's permanent rate was significantly lower, I might switch.
By significantly lower, I mean it would have to be low enough that it
plus earthlink's "Bring Your Own Access" fee would be lower than what I
am paying now. Well if it is not on their web site, then I will pass on
the waymark "smoke". I think that a provider of any service should list
exactly what the expected price will be after any introductory offer
concludes. They are the first dsl provider I know of that does not give
new customers a free terminal adapter. That is two strikes against
doing business with them.
Joseph Huber wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:59:17 GMT, Jerome Zelinske
> <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I just checked the sbc web site. The $24.99 price is introductory
>>price and requires a 1 yr. agreement. The lowest month-to-month price
>>is $49.95.
>
>
> Sprint also requires a 1-yr agreement for their data plans. SBC still
> gives you 12 months of DSL for $24.99/mo. SBC isn't the only game in
> town. If you are worried that SBC won't offer you a competitive rate
> after the 1-yr agreement is up, choose a different DSL provider.
> Waymark (www.waymark.net) is offering DSL at similar speeds in this
> market for the slightly higher price of $29.95/mo. They also require
> a 1-yr agreement. I received the following from their sales staff
> regarding what happens after the 1-yr agreement is up:
>
> "It will stay at the same rate. If we are able to offer a lower rate
> on the service, you can sign up for another year and we will lower the
> rate again. Otherwise, you can stay on a monthly basis and keep the
> same rate."
>
> I'll be happy to forward you this email if you like, because this
> information is not posted on Waymark's web site.
>
> So, what was the point of your post? To show that DSL is really much
> more expensive than I claimed it was? Well, in this markey anyway, it
> really isn't...
>
> Joe Huber
> huber.joseph@comcast.net
> I do live in sbc territory. They are not my dsl provider. If another
>dsl provider's permanent rate was significantly lower, I might switch.
>By significantly lower, I mean it would have to be low enough that it
>plus earthlink's "Bring Your Own Access" fee would be lower than what I
>am paying now. Well if it is not on their web site, then I will pass on
>the waymark "smoke".
Do you have any evidence or experience suggesting that Waymark would
not keep the promise made in the email they sent me? Or are you just
berating them for no good reason? You could always ask Waymark to
"put it in writing". Of course, I did that with Sprint, and it meant
nothing, but I would guess that most companies would honor a written
agreement. I have a cheap dial-up account with Waymark that I keep
for emergencies and traveling. They have not broken any promises to
me so far. I don't use them for DSL, as I have cable Internet.
> They are the first dsl provider I know of that does not give
>new customers a free terminal adapter.
Maybe that's how Waymark is able to offer the same or lower monthly
rate after the 1-yr agreement expires. Perhaps the cost of your
"free" terminal adapter is rolled into you montly rate???
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)
Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> I just checked the sbc web site. The $24.99 price is introductory
> price and requires a 1 yr. agreement. The lowest month-to-month price
> is $49.95.
Fact is that SBC allows you to renew at the end of the contract year
for the then current promo price, IF YOU ASK.
I don't know what state you live in, but if I go here:
http://www02.sbc.com/DSL_new/content_new/1,,18,00.html and input California, the prices are $14.95 for 1.5Mbps
and $24.99 for 3.0Mbps, with a one year contract.
