 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / October 2008Things just got interesting! (WiMax)
"Xohm exec details WiMAX pricing strategy, discusses usage rules" http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20081002/WIRELESS/810029959/1078/newsletter33 It looks like the Xohm (WiMax) folks just announced pricing: Home service: $35/month ($10 off for the first six months), requires $80 modem. "On the Go" service: $45/month ($10 off the first six months), requires $70 PC Aircard "Pick 2": Buy both the home modem and laptop card and get introductory $50/month pricing for life on the two services (regularly $60/month.) No usage restrictions or limits yet, but according to the article: > As far as capping usage goes, Gude [senior VP of mobile broadband] said > that Xohm > mobile WiMAX is open and will not restrict usage as long as there's no > congestion > on the network. However, when congestion appears, that will change. > > "We have to apply certain rules to protect our customers," he said. "[It's] > the rights > of many vs. the rights of few." Ok, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mo... it's your move! ;-) A new option... not a game changer... and not a big deal ;) > "Xohm exec details WiMAX pricing strategy, discusses usage rules" > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Ok, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mo... it's your move! ;-) >> http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20081002/WIRELESS/810029959/1078/newsletter33 >> >> Ok, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mo... it's your move! ;-) > >A new option... not a game changer... and not a big deal ;) Not a game changer right away, since WiMax isn't really deployed yet, but it may force the cellular carriers to reconsider pricing strategies. If Xohm offers "fallback" to Sprint's 2G/3G data network when outside Xohm range (unlikely, IMO), it would be both a game changer and a big deal immediately! Who's going to pay Verizon or AT&T $60-70 for laptop data with a 5GB cap when Xohm offers it for $45 and will throw in a second account for home access, allowing you to "fire" your current broadband provider, for $5 more? >Not a game changer right away, since WiMax isn't really deployed yet, That's the key! All these "new" promises that come from these companies about what they plan to do but it takes years before any of it really happens on a wide spread basis if it happens at all. The US is sooooooooo far behind the rest of the world with cell technology! >>Not a game changer right away, since WiMax isn't really deployed yet, > > That's the key! All these > "new" promises that come from these companies about what they plan to do > but it takes years before any of it really happens on a wide spread > basis if it happens at all. I meant to say "fully deployed"- WiMax is alive and being sold in Baltimore as we speak, and will roll out in a dozen cities or so by year-end, most likely. Certainly not as mature or ubiquitous as 3G, but they'll get there, or run out of money trying! ;-) > The US is sooooooooo far behind the rest of the world with cell > technology! Perhaps, but that's caused by three things, IMO. First, our government places a lot of value on "backwards compatibility" which is how we've been stuck with outdated tech like NTSC TV and analog cellular for so long. (I'm not saying I disagree with that philosophy, but it's a factor.) Secondly, the US has a challenging geography due to it's size- it's a LOT easier, for example, to deploy a wireless technology over, say, 98% of the population of Japan, Great Britain, or Iceland, for example, than 98% of the US! Lastly, we have a very fragmented market with the duopoly of CDMA and GSM. If we'd settled on (or were mandated by the Feds to use) just one technology, we'd see better phones, since manufacturers wouldn't have to re-develop their phones for a second technology, and we'd probably see a lot more (and better) cross-roaming agreements in less populated areas. As it stands now, the 800-lb gorillas (Verizon and AT&T) see less practical advantage to roaming agreements, because "Podunk Cellular" in East Cupcake, Nebraska needs AT&T or Verizon to provide them with a "national footprint" more than Verizon or AT&T needs them to provide great backwater Nebraska coverage. With a single technology, the small fry, who are now splintered between two technologies) could cross-license with each other to battle the big guys (like T-Mobile and regional GSM providers try to do, in an attempt to rival AT&T coverage), and even the big guys, like AT&T and Verizon, could develop shared areas of less import (i.e. one operates the network in rural Montana, the other takes rural Idaho and "shares" the systems, like Cingular and T-Mobile used to share Cingular's California and T-Mo's New York networks before each had their own.) The less money everyone spends on redundant little-used networks, is the more money they'd have to deploy new technologies and services. Todd, Excellent and truthful post. > As it stands now, the 800-lb gorillas (Verizon and AT&T) see less practical > advantage to roaming agreements, because "Podunk Cellular" in East Cupcake, > Nebraska needs AT&T or Verizon to provide them with a "national footprint" > more than Verizon or AT&T needs them to provide great backwater Nebraska > coverage. I don't know, but if you look at these http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/ http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController comparing prepaid to postpaid coverage it becomes clear that almost half of the nationwide coverage Verizon and AT&T make a big deal of selling (measured by land area, at least) comes from roaming agreements which are almost certainly reciprocal. Since nationwide coverage and those near-complete coverage maps are what the big guys sell, while rural carriers do a lot more business with regional plans, I'd argue that the big guys have at least as great an interest in cheap roaming as the little guys do. > networks before each had their own.) The less money everyone spends on > redundant little-used networks, is the more money they'd have to deploy new > technologies and services. I don't think anyone builds redundant networks in rural areas much at all any more. What happens instead is that rural carriers build out the infrastructure and customer base in their licensed area until one of the big carriers decides they'd like to offer service in that area, at which point there's an acquisition and the owners of the rural carrier have their payday. Eventually there will only be a few big nationwide carriers, the rural carriers which exist now are the farm teams for the big guys. As an example of how it goes, at one point I'm pretty sure Verizon thought they'd build a network in west Texas since they spent a fair bit of cash buying 30 MHz PCS licenses there. Note from the map above, however, that Verizon did nothing with these, which turned out to be pretty smart since their acquisition of Alltel instead gives them coverage in the same place in nice cellular spectrum, customers included. Having little carriers band together to form bigger, nationwide carriers might somehow advance the interests of consumers but I think the carriers themselves, both big and small, are pretty well taken care of by the current system. Oligopolies can be profitable. Dennis Ferguson > > As it stands now, the 800-lb gorillas (Verizon and AT&T) see less practical > > advantage to roaming agreements, because "Podunk Cellular" in East Cupcake, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a big deal of selling (measured by land area, at least) comes > from roaming agreements which are almost certainly reciprocal. Off topic, but does anyone besides me appreciate the irony that T-Mobile, the national carrier with poorest nationwide coverage actually has far and away the best nationwide prepaid coverage of the big four since they include roaming in their prepaid offerings? > Since nationwide coverage and those near-complete coverage maps > are what the big guys sell, while rural carriers do a lot more > business with regional plans, I'd argue that the big guys have > at least as great an interest in cheap roaming as the little > guys do. It's certainly a two-way street, but I'm guessing the lanes are wider in one direction! The big guys need the little guys to complete their maps, but the little guys need the big guys to have a map at all! ;-) If everything were equitable, Verizon and AT&T likely wouldn't be opposed to the proposed FCC ruling that would require any carrier receiving USF money to offer roaming at "fair" rates. The little guys aren't against it- just Verizon and AT&T, which makes me wonder if they're trying to protect the ability to negotiate "unfair" rates! > > The less money everyone spends on > > redundant little-used networks, is the more money they'd have to deploy new [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > nationwide carriers, the rural carriers which exist now are the farm > teams for the big guys. That's a great analogy. > As an example of how it goes, at one point I'm pretty sure Verizon > thought they'd build a network in west Texas since they spent a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > well taken care of by the current system. Oligopolies can be > profitable. True- however, getting back to my original point, if we'd had only one digital standard in the US, there might be better roaming agreements since both types of carrier (national and regional) would have more carriers to negotiate with, rather that simply having to aligning themselves with the one(s) who chose the same technology. Viaero Wireless, a regional GSM carrier in Nebraska and Colorado, for example, can't leverage Verizon or Sprint as a "threat" when negotiating rates with AT&T and/or T-Mo. On a personal note, the Verizon purchase of Alltel is giving me, a T-Mo user, the willies, since I doubt that Verizon has any vested interest in continuing to operate Alltel's GSM network (acquired in Alltel's purchase of Western Wireless and operated exclusively for roaming revenue) for the convenience of their competitors once the current roaming agreements expire. In an all-GSM or all-CDMA nation, scenarios like that wouldn't be an issue- roaming agreements would simply be a function of getting the best mutual deal, not the best out of a limited field of like-technology operators. (Although, I suppose, it could equally be argued that our dual-technology nation actually benefits rural areas with more choice- it might not be as attractive to build another competing rural network if the incumbent one(s) already had roaming deals sewn up with all the national carriers. With our system, there's an incentive to build a rural GSM network if the pre- existing one(s) are all CDMA, or vice versa, to attract roaming revenue from the previously unrepresented like-technology carriers.) >"Xohm exec details WiMAX pricing strategy, discusses usage rules" > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Ok, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mo... it's your move! ;-) And the geographic coverage of WiMax currently is...... Not much -- just an another option for people who have coverage, not very convenient if they want to 'roam' though. This 'announcement' is a mildly interesting 'non-event' ;) >>"Xohm exec details WiMAX pricing strategy, discusses usage rules" >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > And the geographic coverage of WiMax currently is...... > Not much -- just an another option for people who have coverage, > not very convenient if they want to 'roam' though. This > 'announcement' is a mildly interesting 'non-event' ;) Said the horse drawn carriage manufacturer when he saw the Tin Lizzie... ;) >> Not much -- just an another option for people who have coverage, >> not very convenient if they want to 'roam' though. This >> 'announcement' is a mildly interesting 'non-event' ;) > >Said the horse drawn carriage manufacturer when he saw the Tin Lizzie... ;) Or the Swiss watch makers with their 17 jewel movements when they saw the first Seiko quartz watches.  SignaturePaul Miner > >Ok, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mo... it's your move! ;-) > > And the geographic coverage of WiMax currently is...... Baltimore. Period. But they had to start somewhere! ;-) Sprint will be selling combo EVDO/WiMax equipment shortly. Again, this isn't going to change anything tomorrow, but suspect by the end of 2009, we'll see a different cellular data landscape with respect to pricing... >> >Ok, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mo... it's your move! ;-) >> >> And the geographic coverage of WiMax currently is...... > > Baltimore. Period. But they had to start somewhere! ;-) No roaming? Clearwire operates WiMax networks in about 50 (smaller) cities, though they've only just begun deploying the mobile version of WiMax and their service terms aren't as nice. > Sprint will be selling combo EVDO/WiMax equipment shortly. Again, this > isn't going to change anything tomorrow, but suspect by the end of 2009, > we'll see a different cellular data landscape with respect to pricing... We'll see. I've heard the assertion that while data use has been good for increasing the current operators' ARPU they think it is costly enough to provide that it hasn't actually helped their bottom line profits, which suggests that they're not likely to want to make it cheaper. The real money makers are voice and (particularly) test messages. It may be that they are telling lies (this view is supported by how cheap and conveniently 3G data is sold in the UK) and that Sprint's pricing will eventually shake them up, or it may be that Sprint's price is unsustainably low, particularly since they've left out the currently profitable parts of a wireless network, and that this will be yet another Sprint disaster. Dennis Ferguson > >> And the geographic coverage of WiMax currently is...... > > > > Baltimore. Period. But they had to start somewhere! ;-) > > No roaming? Users on 4G boards are saying roaming works in the few test cities so faf. > Clearwire operates WiMax networks in about 50 (smaller) > cities, though they've only just begun deploying the mobile version > of WiMax and their service terms aren't as nice. Xohm is the upcoming Sprint/Clearwire partnership that should be in place by year-end, so I suspect all the Clearwire areas will be folded into Xohm. > > Sprint will be selling combo EVDO/WiMax equipment shortly. Again, this > > isn't going to change anything tomorrow, but suspect by the end of 2009, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > left out the currently profitable parts of a wireless network, and that > this will be yet another Sprint disaster. Either scenario is certainly possible! > And the geographic coverage of WiMax currently is...... As we used to say back in the 90's... Sprint, where packets go to die. >> And the geographic coverage of WiMax currently is...... > >As we used to say back in the 90's... Sprint, where packets go to die. They still do :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.