 |
 | 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 / Cingular / March 2006"Mobile users diss premium content"
<http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>: We'll have it - as long as it's free Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their phones, but they won't pay a premium for it. Operators should view mobile content as a way to reduce churn rather than as a new revenue stream, according to a worldwide survey from accountants KPMG. Forty per cent of those questioned said they would not pay a premium for mobile content. [MORE]  SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> KUDOs to John for keeping his ear to the ground for wireless communications trends and articles. A trade magazine discussed "mobile TV" last summer and presented two very opposite views. One side observed that watching TV is a "sit down experience" not very adaptable to walking down the sidewalk, much less while driving. And could you really enjoy watching a 1"x1½" screen? The other side touted it as the next killer app for cellular and as the article mentioned, with the same fevor that you heard in the time before the intenet bubble burst. It was obvious the guy pitching this new concept was using "talking points" and "power terms" similar to a snake oil salesman. I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials. In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays" illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage. > I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials. > In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far > less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing > structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents > a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays" > illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage. The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we pay in the U.S.. It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S.. It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs. The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes the first time. >> I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials. In >> Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far less [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes the first > time. IMO, in this country, people always want "something for nothing". We have "free" long distance, "free" nights and weekends, "free" roaming, "free" mobile to mobile and "free" phones. Now we tell the customer that he needs to pay as much for the extras as he's already paying for his voice plan..."It costs what!?" Cingular's mantra these days (with their dealers) is "sell features." Does anybody want to watch a 10 minute trailer of their favorite television show on a 2" diagonal screen? I know the technology works, but does the mass market want it, or more to the point, are they willing to pay for it? Mark > Cingular's mantra these days (with their dealers) is "sell features." Does > anybody want to watch a 10 minute trailer of their favorite television show > on a 2" diagonal screen? I know the technology works, but does the mass > market want it, or more to the point, are they willing to pay for it? All the carriers do that. I was in a Verizon store last week, and the manager was training the sales people on selling Mobile Web. It was amusing to listen to. Funny thing is, if they priced the services more reasonably, I think a lot of people would use them on occasion, rather than never using them at all. > > I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials. > > In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes > the first time. The only premium I pay for is for Mediaworks, and that is for PDA tethering, and very occasionally laptop usage when Wi-Fi is not available. But never over 40MB/month so far. > <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>: > > We'll have it - as long as it's free > > Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their > phones, but they won't pay a premium for it. <snippety> Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I want mobile "content." Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road. Outside of that, I couldn't care less about what else might be offered. Keep the peace(es). SignatureDr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute (Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR) http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm "Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..." >> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Outside of that, I couldn't care less about what else might be >offered. While I likewise prefer my laptop (notebook) computer for many things, my phone is better for other things, particularly since I don't always have my computer with me. Things which work well on my phone include: * Google Mobile personalized (email, weather, news, movies) * Google Local for Mobile (maps, businesses, and directions) * Froogle Mobile (shopping) * Weather * Movies (reviews and showtimes) * Phone directories * Flight schedules * eBay * FedEx tracking SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I > want mobile "content." Well, I'd really like my phone to replace my Palm. I don't want "content" but I really want to keep my calendar and address book on it - and be able to sync with a PC (which some phones will do, but not mine). I certainly don't want any media content from the phone company, though. Signaturederek [...] > Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi > point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so > I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road. You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection. [...] >[...] >> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi >> point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so >> I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road. > >You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection. Just the opposite. VPN can create a very secure connection, and can work over a secure wireless connection. The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to secure your connection. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to > secure your connection. OK, didn't think of that. I understood Squeegee's "restrictions" to include security measures that would block access to his own LAN. If I misunderstood, well, it's not the first time. And won't be the last. :-) > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to > secure your connection. Quite true. Some open networks, for whatever reason, do not permit VPN traffic to go through. In most cases I've found of such, it was simply misconfiguration of the access point involved, in that the owners of it were unaware that they needed to actually tell the thing 'allow traffic on port x to go through.' No evil plots, no conspiracy to extract a premium for allowing VPN to go through. Just plain ignorance. SignatureDr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute (Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR) http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm "Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..." >> >[...] >> >> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > No evil plots, no conspiracy to extract a premium for allowing VPN >to go through. Just plain ignorance. In other cases it's based on being able to monitor all traffic, as I've found in some public libraries. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > In other cases it's based on being able to monitor all traffic, as I've found > in some public libraries. They can monitor me all they want - but watching my VPN payload is like watching paint dry. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>>The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to >>>>secure your connection. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >They can monitor me all they want - but watching my VPN payload is like >watching paint dry. VPN is blocked. Next time take the time to read the entire context. ;) SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [...] > > Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi > > point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so > > I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road. > > You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection. Only in the sense that the basic connection to ANY open WiFi access point is insecure by its very nature. Read my post again. I'm using VPN over wireless while on the road. VPN traffic is heavily encrypted by its very nature. In my case, the client software I use is provided to work specifically with our hardware firewall/router. It implements IPSec with 3DES encryption, though PPTP is another popular protocol. Properly-implemented VPN makes it nearly as safe to use as if you were still hardwired to your office network. If you're curious about it, here's a handy link. http://vpn.shmoo.com/vpn/FAQ.html Keep the peace(es). SignatureDr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute (Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR) http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm "Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..." >> [...] >>> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Read my post again. [...] I misunderstood. > Properly-implemented VPN makes it nearly as safe to use as if you >were still hardwired to your office network. ... Arguably safer, since a wired network may well be subject to physical compromise, exposing all unencrypted traffic. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> hath wroth: ><http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>: > > We'll have it - as long as it's free Someone out there has to pay retail. > Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their > phones, but they won't pay a premium for it. This is the automobile that includes a snow plow and trailer as standard. Very useful, but might get in the way. I found that out the hard way when I plugged a 512MByte SD card into a Sony Clie PDA and played a rather long video clip over and over until the battery died. 15 minutes and it was dead. I suspect cell phones will be similar (or worse). Translation: Anyone that actually pays for mobile video will need to solve some technical problems. > Operators should view mobile content as a way to reduce churn rather > than as a new revenue stream, according to a worldwide survey from > accountants KPMG. Forty per cent of those questioned said they would > not pay a premium for mobile content. Yep. It's the traditional battle between selling bandwidth and selling content. The TV and CATV content providers have always considered it more profitable to force feed packaged content to the users than to allow them to choose their own entertainment. With packaged content, one can add commercials and guarantee that the user is force to slog through them to get to whatever they are watching. It's not internet access. It's "interactive video". Sigh. In my never humble opinion, the cell phone is just a communications device. It can talk audio or data and communicate with other devices with Bluetooth or 802.11. My ideal cell phone is NOT a conglomerated monstrosity that does iTunes, video, GPS, PDA functions, camera, and game console. It can do all those, but the results are invariably a compromise. The benifits of conglomeration are often negated by the compromises necessary just to make everything work in one package and on one small screen. Methinks integrated video is such a compromise. Small screen, short battery life, limited memory, DRM, slow delivery, and price of necessary air time, will make video a wasted effort. Maybe for short video clips from the built in camera turned video recorder, but nothing that will justify advertising content and revenue. The right answer (for me) is a modular system that includes the cell phone. My oversized PDA would have a keyboard that I can actually use to type instead of peck at the screen. The screen would be big enough to see the subtitles. I would also have a screen and keyboard imbedded in my vehicle dashboard. My cell phone would be just a handset. Everything would communicate with UWB (wireless USB), 802.11, Bluegoof, or whatever is in fashion at the time. Transfer of data would be extensible making this wearable network part of my home or office network automatically. Replication of the address book is seamless. If the phone can't find someones number, it checks the PDA, which then checks the vehicle server, which then checks the cellular directory, which then checks the internet directory servers. One lookup for everything. Video would be an easy fit into this puzzle as a cellular video phone. Transmission would not be full motion video but animated avatars and characters where the only data being transfered are the motions and talking head instructions. Etc (I'm late...) Science fiction? Nope. All it would require is a concerted initiative by the various players to decide how it all should work. Chances of that happening are slim. Cellular nervana will have to wait. SignatureJeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> hath wroth: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Someone out there has to pay retail. Not necessarily -- ads underwrite much of the Internet, and might well underwrite mobile content as well. >> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their >> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >died. 15 minutes and it was dead. I suspect cell phones will be >similar (or worse). My Motorola V551 does quite a bit better than that -- even with steady use of multimedia I still get a few hours of battery life. >The right answer (for me) is a modular system that includes the cell >phone. My oversized PDA would have a keyboard that I can actually use [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >directory, which then checks the internet directory servers. One >lookup for everything. That's more bulk and complexity than I'm prepared to deal with. I prefer to just carry a high-end cell phone that can do all the essential tasks. (If and when I need more, I'll tether a full notebook computer.) The current Motorola V360 does that pretty well now. An HSDPA version, or something like the Motorola V1150/V3X, would be even better. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>Someone out there has to pay retail. > >Not necessarily -- ads underwrite much of the Internet, and might well >underwrite mobile content as well. Yep. If I were paying for measured rate bandwidth (i.e. airtime), then having my content delivered with advertisements might be perceived that the user was paying for delivering the advertising. A solution might be to give the users the option of getting advertising at a lower rate, or paying more for advertising free content. As for paying for the internet, judging by the predominance of file sharing programs occupying much of the bandwidth, the internet is being paid for by stolen content, copyright violations, and pornography. Whether the cell phone market can handle such mainstream internet content is questionable. >>This is the automobile that includes a snow plow and trailer as >>standard. Very useful, but might get in the way. I found that out [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >My Motorola V551 does quite a bit better than that -- even with steady use of >multimedia I still get a few hours of battery life. I'm not familiar with the V551. (I'm on Verizon, not Cingular). Note that the Sony Clie has a much larger screen than the V551 and is several years older technology. I don't recall if the file was AVI or MOV but I recall that the Clie was getting noticeably warm after about 5 minutes of playing. I'll conceed that it can be done on modern phones without killing the battery. However, it would be interesting to run a test of how many minutes of video can be played before killing the battery. I found no numbers in any of the reviews or on the official data sheet: http://www.motorola.com/motoinfo/product/detailsPf/0,,72,00.html >That's more bulk and complexity than I'm prepared to deal with. There's no bulk. You only carry the phone. Think of it like a TV remote control for the other gadgets. When you wanna watch your multimedia content, just drag out the viewer and watch the show. When done, stuff it back where it hides. Disigning a user interface that is both handles all the possible modes and functions, while at the same time is useful, is a major challenge. I have some experience doing that for mobile radios and have a few ideas about how it may be done. A minor problem will be managing the storage and controlling the movie display. The phone might end up looking like a Tivo remote control with a mic and earphone. Not a great idea and probably useless. Yet, all the functions need to be there. I think the complexity can be reduced sufficiently, but there will be some oddities. For example, want buttons on both sides of your cell phone? >I prefer to >just carry a high-end cell phone that can do all the essential tasks. (If and >when I need more, I'll tether a full notebook computer.) The current Motorola >V360 does that pretty well now. An HSDPA version, or something like the >Motorola V1150/V3X, would be even better. I agree and that's also my vision of my current cell phone requirements. However, the discussion was about multimedia content delivered to a cell phone. If this is going to be the next big thing, some thought should go into how the multimedia cell phone of the future will look and act. Perhaps you might not like my vision of such a phone, but there may be some potential customers that are willing to pay for such a service. Incidentally, my only use of the internet from my cell phone is at 14Kbits/sec for a WAP browser doing directory lookups. If I want access, I'll do it via Wi-Fi (because it's cheaper). Signature# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us # http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS SMS wrote: > It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that > mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think > that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs. > The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes > the first time. That's me. I think it's ridiculous that I have Laptop Connect Unlimited (with a Sony Ericcson PC card) which I use frequently to download a fairly large amount of data, yet I have to pay extra if I want to use the WAP browser in my cell phone to download a limited amount of data. I used to be with Nextel and I was using their Packetstream Gold unlimited data plan while tethering my cell phone. In the beginning I had to pay an extra $10/month to use the WAP browser on the cell phone. Several months later Nextel changed the requirements so that Packetstream Gold users had unlimited WAP browser use as well for no additional charge. This made a lot more sense to me. I think that as a Laptop Connect Unlimited user, I should be able to use my WAP browser in my cell phone for no additional charge. AFAIK, since this is not the case, I do not use the WAP browser in my cell phone except for extremely limited use. The same goes for SMS messages. I would use this feature if I did not have to pay the current rate. As it is, I have only used it a couple of times in the past year. Again my point is, I do not want to pay extra for data services on my cell phone when I already have an unlimited data plan with the PC card. I'll take the inconvenience instead. If anyone is wondering why I pay for Laptop Connect unlimited - it's because I work for weeks at a time on the water. If I want internet service, an unlimited data plan is my only practical choice. I do like my internet, so I am willing to pay for it. I use the internet for personal business, news, and information, as well as for entertainment. >I think it's ridiculous that I have Laptop Connect Unlimited (with a >Sony Ericcson PC card) which I use frequently to download a fairly >large amount of data, yet I have to pay extra if I want to use the WAP >browser in my cell phone to download a limited amount of data. Why? Just move the PC card SIM to the phone. >I used >to be with Nextel and I was using their Packetstream Gold unlimited [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >users had unlimited WAP browser use as well for no additional charge. >This made a lot more sense to me. Sure, but giving network resources away for free doesn't make sense for the carrier, unless the carrier has to give it away to make up for how uncompetitive it is, as in the case of Nextel. >... The same goes for SMS >messages. I would use this feature if I did not have to pay the >current rate. ... Why not use messaging over an Internet connection instead of SMS? SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Sure, but giving network resources away for free doesn't make sense for > the > carrier, unless the carrier has to give it away to make up for how > uncompetitive it is, as in the case of Nextel. So, the highest ARPU carrier in the industry is "giving" resources away? Are you really that stupid? >> Sure, but giving network resources away for free doesn't make sense for >> the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you really that stupid? LOL. Nextel is rather unique in that is offers a useful premium service that customers actually want, actually use, and are willing to pay a premium for. They also have a great barrier to entry of other competitors, at least for now. John Navas wrote: >> I think it's ridiculous that I have Laptop Connect Unlimited (with a >> Sony Ericcson PC card) which I use frequently to download a fairly >> large amount of data, yet I have to pay extra if I want to use the WAP >> browser in my cell phone to download a limited amount of data. > Why? Just move the PC card SIM to the phone. Yes that is possible, but it is not something I would consider convenient; swapping SIM cards back and forth. Besides, I could not receive any voice calls while the PC card SIM was in the phone. No thanks. >Nextel is rather unique in that is offers a useful premium service that >customers actually want, actually use, and are willing to pay a premium >for. They also have a great barrier to entry of other competitors, at >least for now. In fact Kodiak PTT now available from Cingular is competitive with iDEN (Nextel) PTT. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> Sure, but giving network resources away for free doesn't make sense for >> the >> carrier, unless the carrier has to give it away to make up for how >> uncompetitive it is, as in the case of Nextel. > >So, the highest ARPU carrier in the industry is "giving" resources away? Yes. Nextel ARPU is based on premium voice services, not data. >Are you really that stupid? No. And you? SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes. Nextel ARPU is based on premium voice services, not data. And SprintNextel reported data ARPU for the 4th quarter that 50% (?) higher than Cingular. Wanna try again, genius? >>Are you really that stupid? > > No. And you? Obviously at least three rungs higher than you- your ignorance in this thread proves that. "Scott" <how.do@you.do> hath wroth: >And SprintNextel reported data ARPU for the 4th quarter that 50% (?) higher >than Cingular. Wanna try again, genius? http://www.networkworld.com/news/2004/122004-sprint-nextel.html Nextel has been able to nab a nearly $20 premium per user vs. Cingular primarily because of its high ratio of business to consumer customers (80% vs. 20%). Business users tend to spend more for features, applications and reliability. The article and accompanying numbers are a bit dated but the effect of the large number of business customers is still the same. Sprint/Nextel: http://www.kensei-news.com/bizdev/publish/fin_service_providers/article_43647.shtml 4th quarter ARPU = $63 per user. Cingular: http://www.kensei-news.com/bizdev/publish/fin_service_providers/article_42884.shtml 4th quarter ARPU = $49 per user. Difference = (63 - 49) / 49 = 29% Not anywhere near 50%. The difference again is mostly due to the different business/consumer mix. For sake of completeness, Verizon = $49 per user, same as Cingular. SignatureJeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 > "Scott" <how.do@you.do> hath wroth: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Difference = (63 - 49) / 49 = 29% > Not anywhere near 50%. The numbers I referred to were data (premium service) APRU numbers specifically reported by each carrier- I believe I was quite clear about that. Cingular reported data ARPU in excess of $4.50 while SprintNextel came in at over $6.00, which was the highest in the industry. You'll notice that the 50% is followed by question marks, indicating that I was unsure of the actual number- unlike Navas, I actually have a life and the actuial numbers had slipped my mind. The estimates were posted to invalidate the claim that Nextel "has to give it away to make up for how uncompetitive it is" (a direct quote from John Navas). And while my numbers are not accurate to the penny or percentage point, they are much more accurate than anything Navas has posted in this thread. You'll also notice that Navas will never respond to these numbers, as he knows that he was caught in a lie yet again. SprintNextel is not giving away services as he claimed- the numbers don't lie. > The difference again is mostly due to the different business/consumer > mix. A non-factor- money is money no matter where it comes from. > A non-factor- money is money no matter where it comes from. Well it does show that Sprint's purchase of Nextel may have been a good idea, but time will tell if they get a positive ROI out of the deal. So far no one else's PTT is as good as Nextel's. If the iDEN network is shutdown, suddenly you'll have three carriers competing for PTT customers with poorer quality PTT, both in service and equipment, but with much better coverage overall. No incentive to stay with Sprint if that happens, though Sprint will try to retain them, and just the effort to change carriers will help them retain most of the Nextel users. >> A non-factor- money is money no matter where it comes from. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > though Sprint will try to retain them, and just the effort to change > carriers will help them retain most of the Nextel users. And if the assumption that any non-iDen PTT alternative is the same as the VZW or Cingular crap, you are correct. However, the company has technology licensed that (at least on paper) appears to be far superior and does not rely on a bastardization of normal telephony (like Cingular). They are in no hurry to get something out there- they have a working product that will soon be available on cross-platform phones. By the time they get ready to shed the iDen network (still years away), most of their voice and data traffic will be CDMA and a viable CDMA PTT solution will also exist. > Well it does show that Sprint's purchase of Nextel may have been a good > idea, but time will tell if they get a positive ROI out of the deal. Some trade magazines are pointing out the possibility that the U.S. government myy buy out the Nextel infrastructure for unified communications. >> A non-factor- money is money no matter where it comes from. > >Well it does show that Sprint's purchase of Nextel may have been a good >idea, but time will tell if they get a positive ROI out of the deal. So >far no one else's PTT is as good as Nextel's. Kodiak technology (used by Cingular) is actually better. >If the iDEN network is >shutdown, As it almost certainly will be. >suddenly you'll have three carriers competing for PTT >customers with poorer quality PTT, both in service and equipment, but >with much better coverage overall. Actually better in the case of Cingular. >No incentive to stay with Sprint if >that happens, though Sprint will try to retain them, and just the effort >to change carriers will help them retain most of the Nextel users. Sprint hopes that EV-DO Rev A, expected to be deployed later this year, will measure up to iDEN and Kodiak in PTT. It looks promising in field trials thus but. But if not, Sprint could go with Kodiak as well. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Kodiak technology (used by Cingular) is actually better. Better than what? Nextel's? If this is your claim, it is the strongest evidence to date of your stupidity. >>If the iDEN network is >>shutdown, > > As it almost certainly will be. It will be that is far from a secret. >>suddenly you'll have three carriers competing for PTT >>customers with poorer quality PTT, both in service and equipment, but >>with much better coverage overall. > > Actually better in the case of Cingular. Rubbish. >>No incentive to stay with Sprint if >>that happens, though Sprint will try to retain them, and just the effort [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thus > but. But if not, Sprint could go with Kodiak as well. Wrong again- that is not the technology they are going with. "Scott" <how.do@you.do> hath wroth: >The numbers I referred to were data (premium service) APRU numbers >specifically reported by each carrier- I believe I was quite clear about >that. Sorry. I missed the word "data" in your statement below. I was thinking overall revenue. "And SprintNextel reported data ARPU for the 4th quarter that 50% (?) higher than Cingular. Wanna try again, genius?" >Cingular reported data ARPU in excess of $4.50 while SprintNextel came in at >over $6.00, which was the highest in the industry. From: | http://www.sbc.com/Investor/Financial/Earning_Info/docs/4Q_05_Cingular_Earnings.pdf I find Cingular ARPU from data at $4.71 for 4th quarter 2005. Close enough. I couldn't find anything specific for Sprint/Nextel with some sources mentioning "about $6" for wireless data ARPU. Interesting article on the subject of wireless data revenues. | http://www.chetansharma.com/66.pdf >You'll notice that the >50% is followed by question marks, indicating that I was unsure of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >knows that he was caught in a lie yet again. SprintNextel is not giving >away services as he claimed- the numbers don't lie. I'm not so sure he's totally wrong. Nextel is selling GPS location and navigation services which is a big seller among public safety organizations using Nextel in place of conventional 2-way radio. Cingular has nothing that's even close. Nextel gets $20/month per phone for "mobile location" which methinks is rather expensive and will certainly skew the wireless data derived ARPU numbers. http://www.nextel.com/en/services/gps/gps.shtml It's become almost a requirement for the local security services and delivery agents that use Nextel. >> The difference again is mostly due to the different business/consumer >> mix. >A non-factor- money is money no matter where it comes from. I beg to differ slightly. If the data services are subsidized by equipment and 3rd party vendors, it's not money spent by the customer. The real issue (from my warped perspective) is how much does Joe Sixpack pay for the service. However, I see no evidence of a Nextel giveaway or subsidies for data services at this time. If the numbers were broken down seperating the various data components such as: 1. Internet access 2. SMS messaging 3. photo distribution 4. GPS services 5. mapping and direction services. 6. etc. it would probably be much easier to see where the giveaways and subsidies are hiding. For example, it seems that Nextel charges $0.15/SMS message while Cingular charges $0.10 (based on overage charges). If the number of messages were equal and fairly substantial, that would skew the ARPU numbers. SignatureJeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 > "Scott" <how.do@you.do> hath wroth: >>You'll also notice that Navas will never respond to these numbers, as he >>knows that he was caught in a lie yet again. SprintNextel is not giving [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > phone for "mobile location" which methinks is rather expensive and > will certainly skew the wireless data derived ARPU numbers. It doesn't skew- it increases the number, which is the whole point of measuring it. That is why it is measured as an average (and is essentailly measured identically by all carriers). > http://www.nextel.com/en/services/gps/gps.shtml > It's become almost a requirement for the local security services and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I beg to differ slightly. If the data services are subsidized by > equipment and 3rd party vendors, it's not money spent by the customer. But they are not in that sense. Any subsidy would come as a decrease in licensing or development cost or a service discount, not as a service subsidy. > The real issue (from my warped perspective) is how much does Joe > Sixpack pay for the service. However, I see no evidence of a Nextel [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > charges). If the number of messages were equal and fairly > substantial, that would skew the ARPU numbers. Again, it doesn't skew. In your example, Nextel would simply have a higher ARPU. >>Not necessarily -- ads underwrite much of the Internet, and might well >>underwrite mobile content as well. > >Yep. If I were paying for measured rate bandwidth (i.e. airtime), >then having my content delivered with advertisements might be >perceived that the user was paying for delivering the advertising. You mean like with cable TV? ;) While it's not metered, I think the principle is pretty similar. >A >solution might be to give the users the option of getting advertising >at a lower rate, or paying more for advertising free content. Attempts to do that in other areas haven't been very successful -- given a choice, consumers have usually voted overwhelmingly for "free" ad-supported content. >As for paying for the internet, judging by the predominance of file >sharing programs occupying much of the bandwidth, the internet is >being paid for by stolen content, copyright violations, and >pornography. Pornography is indeed a big factor, but I think ads are now king in terms of revenue, witness the revenues of Google, Doubleclick, Yahoo, et al. As for file sharing, there's no incremental revenue -- you'd have to argue that it's driving broadband. While it's almost certainly a factor, I don't think it's the dominant factor. >Whether the cell phone market can handle such mainstream >internet content is questionable. Porn is already a significant factor overseas. >>That's more bulk and complexity than I'm prepared to deal with. > >There's no bulk. You only carry the phone. Think of it like a TV >remote control for the other gadgets. When you wanna watch your >multimedia content, just drag out the viewer and watch the show. When >done, stuff it back where it hides. Hides? Where? In a backpack? No thanks. :) This afternoon I was wandering around with just my cell phone in a belt holster, and that's usually all that I want to be carrying. >... For example, want buttons on both sides of >your cell phone? I have buttons on both edges of my cell phone, in addition to the keyboard. Methinks you need a slider form factor. >>I prefer to >>just carry a high-end cell phone that can do all the essential tasks. (If and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >such a phone, but there may be some potential customers that are >willing to pay for such a service. You may be right. My own vision is high resolution heads up display and speakers on my glasses, driven from the phone over your short range wireless. >Incidentally, my only use of the internet from my cell phone is at >14Kbits/sec for a WAP browser doing directory lookups. If I want >access, I'll do it via Wi-Fi (because it's cheaper). I'm guessing that's driven by your carrier. On Cingular I have an unlimited data package for only $20/month. That enables heavy use of such useful tools as: * Google Mobile personalized (email, weather, news, movies) * Google Local for Mobile (maps, businesses, and directions) * Opera Mini for full Web browsing * Froogle Mobile (shopping) * Weather * Movies (reviews and showtimes) * Phone directories * Flight schedules * eBay * FedEx tracking SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You mean like with cable TV? ;) While it's not metered, I think the >principle is pretty similar. Yep, almost exactly, but for a different reason. With CATV, the "streaming" content is continuous and uninterrupted. The cable content bundlers assemble a package of entertainment, advertisements, announcements, and previews, that are streamed at the user continuously and without interruption. Hopefully, that won't happen with streaming content to a cell phone. However, it is possible that some brilliant cellular marketeer may decide that some of the data bandwidth be dedicated to some form of broadcasting. It wouldn't be bad if it were traffic reports, weather reports, terrorist alerts, sports scores, stockmarket numbers, AMBER alerts, and other useful items (similar to what the pager people have been broadcasting for many years). However, it could easily also be advertising, promos, and manure. It's the more like the wireless version of the "last mile", where vendors fight to own the "last mile" to the customer so they can act as a funnel for all the garbage that various groups want to shovel at the customer. Yep, just like CATV. >>A >>solution might be to give the users the option of getting advertising [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >choice, consumers have usually voted overwhelmingly for "free" ad-supported >content. That's fine. Then the advertisers shouldn't complain if people are willing to tolerate the ads. A few might find it sufficiently obnoxious to pay for a clean feed. For things I use often, I would probably pay. My vision (or nightmare) of the internet of the future is a virtual reality headset, where users navigate their way through a virtual shopping mall, make purchases, negotiate deals, ask for information, and generally use current reality as a paradigm for navigation. Of course, it will all be paid for by advertisers, who lurk in the shadows, and accost the users with sales pitches. I don't see a VR headset option for a cell phone, but given sufficient memory and bandwidth, it's possible. >Pornography is indeed a big factor, but I think ads are now king in terms of >revenue, witness the revenues of Google, Doubleclick, Yahoo, et al. Certainly. But if you add up the alleged revenue lost to file sharing, methinks the numbers may be considerably larger than advertising revenue. The internet doesn't generate this revenue, but it certainly defrays the expenses for many of the file sharing users. I also forgot to mention the spammers. I keep reading erratic reports of substantial revenue from spamming. I don't know if they're true. >As for >file sharing, there's no incremental revenue -- you'd have to argue that it's >driving broadband. While it's almost certainly a factor, I don't think it's >the dominant factor. Yep. Personally, I think Windoze Updates are driving broadband, but file sharing is certainly number one. One of my less astute customers had Limewire running on his laptop over a Verizon EV-DO link and was bugging me to figure out why his connection was so slow. Duh. I'm not sure which came first. The chicken or egg, or file sharing or broadband. Each one drives the other. Give them more bandwidth and they'll share more content, er... copyright violations. Does bandwidth increase to meet the needs, or are new needs invented to use the bandwidth. In the case of wireless internet, the needs will by necessity be limited by the bandwidth and never approach those of wired carriers. That just might drive the technology. Who know, we may just have wireless file sharing. Sigh. >>Whether the cell phone market can handle such mainstream >>internet content is questionable. > >Porn is already a significant factor overseas. One of my friends just returned from Europe. I got to play with his new cell phone. The porno collection in memory was truly impressive. Never mind ring tones, lets bring on the multimedia pornography. Hmmm... maybe the VR headset wouldn't be a bad idea if it can play 3D porno video clips. Premium services perhaps? >>There's no bulk. You only carry the phone. Think of it like a TV >>remote control for the other gadgets. When you wanna watch your >>multimedia content, just drag out the viewer and watch the show. When >>done, stuff it back where it hides. >Hides? Where? In a backpack? No thanks. :) This afternoon I was wandering >around with just my cell phone in a belt holster, and that's usually all that >I want to be carrying. Ok, so you're not a real geek. I have my PDA cell phone, flashlight, and tape measure on my belt. On the dash of my gas guzzler, I have a Panasonic Toughbook CF-M34 laptop that acts as a file server. It could just as easily be a multimedia movie viewer. In my scenario, either the vehicle server or the phone downloads the video files, and play them to the display via UWB (wireless USB). No need to play them on the tiny cell phone display. However, if you're going into a restraunt, hotel, or airport, and you wanna watch your own movies, bring your own viewer. It's not that big. >I have buttons on both edges of my cell phone, in addition to the keyboard. >Methinks you need a slider form factor. Think voice recognition and control. The major functions remain on the keyboard. User defined buttons for creative applications. Voice control does the rest. Ideally, it should recognize and parse phrases and offer options. There's only so much that can be done with buttons. >You may be right. My own vision is high resolution heads up display and >speakers on my glasses, driven from the phone over your short range wireless. Yep. Take a giant step backwards and look at the cell phone from the standpoint of a user interface to the digital (and analog POTS) world. Is it a good interface? Does it do its job efficiently? Can it be done better? In my never humble opinion, the operation and cybernetic features of a cell phone are terrible. Only the basics like dialing a number are handled gracefully. For example, my vision of programming a phone is to use two shaft encoders (dials). One dial selects the function to be set, the other selects the value. Punch enter and it's saved. Total no-brainer to learn and no maze of sub menus to navigate. I once designed a marine radio that worked like that. Everyone loved it except the dealers. They claimed that customers judged the "value" of a radio by the number of knobs and buttons. The more the better. So, we added knobs and buttons all over the place. Bluetooth hang it on your ear headsets is another kludge. It would be so easy to make one that folds flat and fits in my pocket instead of being a big, lumpy, fragile, and light weight ear hanger. Mine would unfold, expand to something like a normal headset, and get put away when not in use. However, the real problem with Bluetooth is pairing. Bluetooth headsets can only pair with one device at a time. This makes it useless for fast switching between a cell phone and a computer. 4000 companies in the Bluetooth Sig and nobody thought a headset might be used with more than one device. Add a VR display (or something similar) will only solve the output problem. The device still needs to be controlled and that's where methinks the problems hide. Think wearable computers where one of the wearable boxes is a cell phone. >>Incidentally, my only use of the internet from my cell phone is at >>14Kbits/sec for a WAP browser doing directory lookups. If I want [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >* eBay >* FedEx tracking True. Verizon offers two levels of service. 14.4 for $5/month and EV-DO for about $60/month. At $20/month, I would probably subscribe for the data service. At $60/month, I can live without it. Actually, the 14Kbit/sec is quite adequate for what I need (directory service). The catch is that it eats minutes of connect time and my use is very close to my maximum minutes. http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/promotion/controller?promotionType=miniPac&ac tion=miniStart Signature# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us # http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS > Ok, so you're not a real geek. I have my PDA cell phone, flashlight, > and tape measure on my belt. On the dash of my gas guzzler, I have a > Panasonic Toughbook CF-M34 laptop that acts as a file server. I'll raise the geek bar with my Hughes satellite dish in the bed of my truck. Might win me the best camp belt buckle at the next rodeo if I throw up a WiFi hotspot. >> Ok, so you're not a real geek. I have my PDA cell phone, flashlight, >> and tape measure on my belt. On the dash of my gas guzzler, I have a >> Panasonic Toughbook CF-M34 laptop that acts as a file server. >I'll raise the geek bar with my Hughes satellite dish in the bed of my >truck. Might win me the best camp belt buckle at the next rodeo if I >throw up a WiFi hotspot. I'll raise your pizza dish and add my ham radio geek paraphenalia to my sagging waist belt. I sometimes have a Yeasu 2-meter radio on my belt. For special ocassions, I substitute one of perhaps 20 assorted radios in my collection (most with half dead batteries). If I'm trying to impress other geeks, I'll wear one of my commercial Motorola status symbol radios, which demonstrates to everyone that I overpaid for the radio. | http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/office/slides/radio-mess.html That was about a year ago. The pile is 3 times larger now. Of course, high fashion has it's designer cell phones: | http://www.pcworld.com/news/article.asp?aid=33322 That was 6 years ago and I haven't seen any such phones. Oh well. I think this is what John is worried about happening to cell phones: | http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Wearcompevolution.jpg No, I don't think we're ready for the cell phone cyborg. Drivel: When I was much younger (in the 1960's) I thought that when technology was finally able to deliver a working Dick Tracy wrist radio, everyone would rush out and buy one. I tried to build several during my past life in designing radios. Nobody wanted them. So much for my abilities to predict the future of technology. Signature# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us # http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS > If I'm > trying to impress other geeks, I'll wear one of my commercial Motorola > status symbol radios, which demonstrates to everyone that I overpaid > for the radio. Tell me it was a Moto HT-220 and I will surely be impressed. DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> hath wroth: >> If I'm >> trying to impress other geeks, I'll wear one of my commercial Motorola >> status symbol radios, which demonstrates to everyone that I overpaid >> for the radio. >Tell me it was a Moto HT-220 and I will surely be impressed. That was the status symbol in the 1960's. Absolute rats nest of wires inside. I had both the slim line versions and piggy back 12 channel board version, with my life savings in xtals inside. I designed some signaling accessories that fit inside (around the speaker). I used a few of those through the mid 1970's but donated them to someone that was willing to spend their spare time keeping them alive and on frequency. My current Motorola status symbols are various GP-300, GP-350, and HT-1000. These are big and heavy enough to be useful for pounding nails. http://www.batlabs.com/pgallery.html Please note that the true geek carries it all with him. Mounting your satellite dish in the truck bed is a step in the right direction, but unless you spend your life in the truck bed, you won't be recognized as a geek. Perhaps if you wore the remote control or a GPS on your belt. To be a true Cingular cell phone geek, you need to have on your belt, at least one cell phone, an attached PDA for tethered internet access, an 802.11b/g access point to allow others to share your unlimited internet connection, a GPS for posting your location on a internet, and a web cam that posts pictures of your surroundings for all to see. Anything less is just a wannabe cellular geek. Don't forget the pocket protector full of pens, screwdriver, hemostat, and spare flash drives. For historical accuracy, white socks, horn rim glasses held together with a band-aid, and the remains of last nights pizza on the t-shirt, are also helpful. SignatureJeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 >Don't forget the pocket protector full of pens, screwdriver, hemostat, >and spare flash drives. For historical accuracy, white socks, horn >rim glasses held together with a band-aid, and the remains of last >nights pizza on the t-shirt, are also helpful. I'd say black socks in white sneakers, and a tie printed on the t-shirt. A Jolt cola is also helpful. :) SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I'd say black socks in white sneakers, and a tie printed on the t-shirt. > A Jolt cola is also helpful. :) Please don't tell me you did that. :) > Perhaps if you wore the remote control or a GPS on your belt. Nah, GPS too inaccurate for me. I use my topo maps on laptop. > an attached PDA for tethered internet access, Haven't figured out yet how to tether my iPaq to my phone. > an 802.11b/g access point to allow others to share your unlimited > internet connection, Already have a mobile AP with extendable 30' mast. > a GPS for posting your location on a internet, That would get me into trouble. > and a web cam that posts pictures of your surroundings for all to see. Already have a saddle mount for my web cam when I go trail riding in the grasslands. (Makes note to get a metal case for laptop, horses like to rub against trees) >> Perhaps if you wore the remote control or a GPS on your belt. > >Nah, GPS too inaccurate for me. I use my topo maps on laptop. My GPS is accurate/repeatable to about 15 feet. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My GPS is accurate/repeatable to about 15 feet. And my hummer gets 38 MPG >> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >And my hummer gets 38 MPG For what its worth, _my_ GPS (Garmin eMap) /is/ accurate to 15 feet, less sometimes. How do I know? I've stood on a trig point and compared to where the emap thinks I am. The only way a hummer gets 38MPG is if the M stands for metres. Mark McIntyre > For what its worth, _my_ GPS (Garmin eMap) /is/ accurate to 15 feet, > less sometimes. How do I know? I've stood on a trig point and compared > to where the emap thinks I am. I posted in 2001 about the trip my apartment building took. Two nights in a row, my apartment building took off from my Chicago suburb and flew into Indiana (according to my GPS). Readings stopped when the building hit 100,000 feet at 650 MPH somewhere southwest of Lafayette, Indiana. I also had one other occurrance where the apartment building went up like an elevator from its ground level (just under 700 feet AMSL) to 1100 feet, then way down to about 60 feet below sea level, then returned. USUALLY my GPS is accurate to 15 feet or less. If you believe yours is *always* that accurate, go try your story in sci.geo.satellite-nav. SignatureAll relevant people are pertinent. All rude people are impertinent. Therefore, no rude people are relevant. -- Solomon W. Golomb clifto <clifto@gmail.com> hath wroth: >> For what its worth, _my_ GPS (Garmin eMap) /is/ accurate to 15 feet, >> less sometimes. How do I know? I've stood on a trig point and compared >> to where the emap thinks I am. >I posted in 2001 about the trip my apartment building took. Two >nights in a row, my apartment building took off from my Chicago [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(just under 700 feet AMSL) to 1100 feet, then way down to about >60 feet below sea level, then returned. Reflections and crappy processing. I drive through a small canyone every day. The moving map display is truely artistic when the signals have to go through trees, bounce off hillsides, and fade in and out. >USUALLY my GPS is accurate to 15 feet or less. If you believe yours >is *always* that accurate, go try your story in sci.geo.satellite-nav. I suggest downloading and running: http://www.visualgps.net/VisualGPS/ and see for yourself. One version is free. I sometimes have it running for hours when my car is parked somewhere. One standard deviation is about 20ft for my ancient Magellan map 410. SignatureJeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 > clifto <clifto@gmail.com> hath wroth: >>I posted in 2001 about the trip my apartment building took. Two [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > every day. The moving map display is truely artistic when the signals > have to go through trees, bounce off hillsides, and fade in and out. Unquestionably! Now name all the circumstances under which that cannot happen. :) SignatureAll relevant people are pertinent. All rude people are impertinent. Therefore, no rude people are relevant. -- Solomon W. Golomb >> For what its worth, _my_ GPS (Garmin eMap) /is/ accurate to 15 feet, >> less sometimes. How do I know? I've stood on a trig point and compared >> to where the emap thinks I am. > >USUALLY my GPS is accurate to 15 feet or less. If you believe yours >is *always* that accurate, go try your story in sci.geo.satellite-nav. FWIW I don't recollect ever having said any such thing. I recall a trip from Wales to Oxford which was recorded ok, but which on closer examination had one stray point on Rockall... The point is, its perfectly capable of being accurate to 15ft, or indeed better. Mark McIntyre >> For what its worth, _my_ GPS (Garmin eMap) /is/ accurate to 15 feet, >> less sometimes. How do I know? I've stood on a trig point and compared [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >USUALLY my GPS is accurate to 15 feet or less. If you believe yours >is *always* that accurate, go try your story in sci.geo.satellite-nav. I've been a regular and frequent user of GPS for years, and I've never had that kind of problem. As I'm usually using and able to compare at least two different good brands (currently Magellan and Garmin), I'm quite confident of *always* having had and continuing to have that level of accuracy. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I've been a regular and frequent user of GPS for years, and I've never had > that kind of problem. As I'm usually using and able to compare at least > two > different good brands (currently Magellan and Garmin), I'm quite confident > of > *always* having had and continuing to have that level of accuracy. Please refrain from posting unsubstantiated and factless claims. Regarding Nextel's PTT, I recently read some articles in a marine trade magazine called "Professional Mariner" regarding the Katrina hurricane disaster in New Orleans and vicinity. Immediately after the hurricane, Nextel PTT was the only cellular game in town. It was either Nextel's PTT or VHF radio communications. Nothing else worked. Even most of the land lines were down. Companies were ordering Nextels by the dozens so they could communicate with their employees and others. There is a reason why the government would be interested in Nextel's infrastructure. > There is a reason why the government would be interested in Nextel's > infrastructure. Hence the stories in the trade magazines about government possibly buying the Nextel side. >Regarding Nextel's PTT, I recently read some articles in a marine trade >magazine called "Professional Mariner" regarding the Katrina hurricane [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >There is a reason why the government would be interested in Nextel's >infrastructure. That was probably the mobile to mobile mode, which is unique to iDEN; i.e., not infrastructure (e.g., towers). The most reliable communications were probably satellite (e.g., Iridium). SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > i.e., > not infrastructure (e.g., towers). Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't your beloved Kodiak technology- Kodiak failed miserably in the hurricane aftermath. > The most reliable communications were probably satellite (e.g., Iridium). Whatever. > Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't your beloved Kodiak technology- Kodiak > failed miserably in the hurricane aftermath. Did Kodiak fail, or was it the fact that so few sites had any sort of back-up power, and many of those that did were underwater, or had the wired connection to them broken? In South Florida, Verizon did very well in terms of service after Wilma, with a call completion rate of 96%, versus 3% for other carriers. Cingular deployed portable generators in South Florida, where only a small percentage of its sites have permanent back-up power, something that is quite strange in an area that has a lot of power outages due to lightning storms. The failure of PTT from Cingular and Verizon has a lot more to do with the limited number of handsets, and the fact that most Nextel PTT customers are apparently satisfied with Nextel and see no reason to switch. >> Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't your beloved Kodiak technology- >> Kodiak failed miserably in the hurricane aftermath. > > Did Kodiak fail, or was it the fact that so few sites had any sort of > back-up power, and many of those that did were underwater, or had the > wired connection to them broken? My comment was a jab at Novice for his claim that Kodiak is the superior PTT technology available. Of course it failed because towers were not available. > The failure of PTT from Cingular and Verizon has a lot more to do with the > limited number of handsets, and the fact that most Nextel PTT customers > are apparently satisfied with Nextel and see no reason to switch. Agreed. >> Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't your beloved Kodiak technology- Kodiak >> failed miserably in the hurricane aftermath. > >Did Kodiak fail, or was it the fact that so few sites had any sort of >back-up power, and many of those that did were underwater, or had the >wired connection to them broken? What failed is the infrastructure (e.g., cells), not the underlying technology. >In South Florida, Verizon did very well in terms of service after Wilma, >with a call completion rate of 96%, versus 3% for other carriers. Proof? Or just another made up claim? The facts: Verizon Wireless has restored its digital network in Florida to near full capacity across the state in the wake of Hurricane Wilma, with fewer than three percent of cell sites in the impacted areas still out of service. <http://enews.ospmag.com/article/?articleID=00000773> That *doesn't* say that 97% Verizon survived the hurricane -- it says that Verizon had "restored" 97% of its network when that article was written, and it says nothing comparative about other carriers. In other words, you either don't understand what you're reading, or you're deliberately misstating the facts. >The failure of PTT from Cingular and Verizon has a lot more to do with >the limited number of handsets, and the fact that most Nextel PTT >customers are apparently satisfied with Nextel and see no reason to switch. The "failure" of Verizon PTT is largely due to the high latency of first generation CDMA PTT. That may well change once EV-DO Rev A is rolled out. It's too early to judge the success or failure of the Kodiak technology as deployed by Cingular, although initial results look promising. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> That was probably the mobile to mobile mode, which is unique to iDEN; >> i.e., not infrastructure (e.g., towers). > >Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't your beloved Kodiak technology- Kodiak >failed miserably in the hurricane aftermath. Like all infrastructure-based cellular systems. iDEN mobile to mobile only works over short distances -- it's better than nothing, but only that, and no better than regular walkie-talkie radios. >> The most reliable communications were probably satellite (e.g., Iridium). > >Whatever. The "whatever" is that it beats the heck out of iDEN mobile to mobile if you need more than short-range communications. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message