Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / T-Mobile / April 2006
Tmo on the block...?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
RWEmerson - 03 Jul 2005 20:23 GMT Deutsche Telekom Ponders Sale of T-Mobile USA Unit
By JASON SINGER, DAVID PRINGLE and MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL July 3, 2005 2:47 p.m.
Deutsche Telekom AG is grappling with a tough call: whether to sell its T-Mobile USA cellphone operations, a move that could fetch about $30 billion and reshape mobile-phone markets on both sides of the Atlantic.
As the German telecommunications giant faces a huge bill to upgrade the U.S. unit to keep pace with rivals, Deutsche Telekom's management board has been debating T-Mobile USA's fate, according to people close to the matter. The company has told investors recently it expects to make a decision by December.
Choosing to sell the division, however, could prove to be a difficult option. The most likely buyer, Vodafone Group PLC, says it isn't interested even though the world's largest wireless carrier has long wanted to control a service provider in the U.S. So far, Vodafone just owns a 45% stake in Verizon Wireless. Verizon Communications Inc. owns the rest.
Verizon Wireless has refused to use Vodafone's brand and uses a different network technology than Vodafone, which makes it tricky to roll out services that work in both the U.S. and Europe. T-Mobile USA, by contrast, uses the same technology as Vodafone. Vodafone has tried and failed to gain control of a U.S. carrier. Last year, it lost a bidding war for AT&T Wireless Services Inc.
Bobby Leach, a spokesman for Vodafone, Newbury, England, says a purchase of T-Mobile USA isn't in the cards for Vodafone. "We are not interested in T-Mobile's U.S. assets," Mr. Leach says. "We have made clear our commitment to the Verizon Wireless partnership." Mr. Leach declined to comment further.
Analysts say Vodafone is likely to be wary of taking on a service provider that trails far behind the three leaders in the U.S. market and requires considerable investment.
Still, some top Deutsche Telekom executives have argued the company should sell T-Mobile USA and use the proceeds to make acquisitions in Europe instead of spending as much as $10 billion during the next few years to build a faster network in the U.S. needed by T-Mobile USA to keep pace with rivals offering high-speed wireless Internet access and low-cost voice calls, according to people close the situation. Acquisitions could fill out Deutsche Telekom's fixed-line, mobile, Internet and other operations across Europe, including propping up its ailing United Kingdom unit, they say.
T-Mobile USA's relatively weak position in the cut-throat U.S. market has some investors rooting for Deutsche Telekom to sell. "From a strategic position, I would rather have them exit the U.S. market, especially when you are faced with this huge upgrade," said Theo Maas, a fund manager with ABN Amro Asset Management in Amsterdam. Mr. Maas says he is holding an "overweight" position in Deutsche Telekom in the hope that it may sell in the U.S., but he declined to say how many shares ABN holds. ABN Amro doesn't do investment-banking business for Deutsche Telekom.
Deutsche Telekom executives who are inclined to keep T-Mobile stress that it is the company's fastest growing business, people close to this group say. If Deutsche Telekom were to keep T-Mobile USA, based in Seattle, the company could skip the upgrade investments and turn the carrier into a discount operator.
Opponents to a sale also say that keeping the unit is wise because potential acquisition targets in Europe are pricey and many are in slow-growing markets, people close to them say. In addition, these executives worry that following a sale of T-Mobile USA, shareholders would pressure management to return that money to them. Germany's cash-strapped government is the company's biggest shareholder and it might push management to distribute the proceeds of a sale, which would be between $25 billion and $30 billion, analysts say.
Deutsche Telekom's share price has languished for years and its relationship with investors has often been contentious. Deutsche Telekom's shares have fallen about 12% so far this year. On Friday, Deutsche Telekom's shares rose 12 euro cents to close at €15.42 in Frankfurt, while the firm's American depositary shares slipped 2 cents to $18.40 on the New York Stock Exchange.
Another option that hasn't gained much attention inside the company is the prospect of selling a minority stake in T-Mobile USA in an initial public offering to raise money for the upgrade. That scenario would let Deutsche Telekom retain control and compete in the U.S. But, Deutsche Telekom just went through a messy delisting of its T-online subsidiary in Germany, an experience that could turn it off another subsidiary IPO.
Deutsche Telekom acquired T-Mobile USA, then called Voicestream, at the height of the telecom boom in 2001 for €39 billion (US$47.2 billion). T-Mobile USA's revenue leapt 27% to €2.60 billion in the first quarter of 2005 from a year earlier. That represents 18% of Deutsche Telekom's total revenue of €14.28 billion during the quarter. Analysts at Credit Suisse First Boston expect T-Mobile USA to generate €1.61 billion in cash in 2005.
Meanwhile, Deutsche Telekom's European cellphone operations have stagnated. In Germany, the firm's biggest European market, T-Mobile's market share has declined as it focused on trying to improve margins. During the first quarter, earnings were flat. In the U.K., enforced price cuts by regulators and mounting competition on price from a unit of Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., a Hong Kong conglomerate, as well as other no-frills service providers is hurting T-Mobile UK.
But, with a market share of about 10%, T-Mobile USA remains dwarfed by market leaders Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless. With T-Mobile lacking the scale of those rivals, many analysts say Deutsche Telekom will eventually need to sell.
Cyrus Afzali - 04 Jul 2005 16:25 GMT >Deutsche Telekom Ponders >Sale of T-Mobile USA Unit [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >T-Mobile USA cellphone operations, a move that could fetch about $30 >billion and reshape mobile-phone markets on both sides of the Atlantic. The article goes on to say they may refocus it into a discount operator. I fail to see how that's a sound use of an asset. It will turn what is now a profitable business into a business that more closely performs like a commodity-oriented one. There's little money in that kind of business over the long haul.
And if they do that, they may drive off the business-oriented customers they have, like myself whose bills are double their typical average.
Karen - 04 Jul 2005 20:39 GMT They have already driven me off. They cannot compete with Stinkular. They do not have the coverage.
>>Deutsche Telekom Ponders >>Sale of T-Mobile USA Unit [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > customers they have, like myself whose bills are double their typical > average. Cyrus Afzali - 05 Jul 2005 13:29 GMT >They have already driven me off. They cannot compete with Stinkular. They >do not have the coverage. Their coverage has been the same for ages, so that shouldn't have really been a surprise to you. In fact, it's improved through roaming partnerships over the years.
It's been the case for ages that if you want a signal everywhere that can be reasonably expected, you need to choose either Verizon Wireless or Cingular.
>> The article goes on to say they may refocus it into a discount >> operator. I fail to see how that's a sound use of an asset. It will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> customers they have, like myself whose bills are double their typical >> average. Jerome Zelinske - 06 Jul 2005 00:12 GMT Depends where you are. Here it would be cingular or uscellular. Both cellular. One gsm. The other CDMA.
>>They have already driven me off. They cannot compete with Stinkular. They >>do not have the coverage. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>customers they have, like myself whose bills are double their typical >>>average. Mike Schumann - 06 Jul 2005 11:24 GMT So far, T-Mobile has been very successful offering better value than anyone else. As a result, they are one of the fastest growing operators in the US market.
I think that the whole data thing is totally overblown. Most people want reliable voice cell phone service. If they want data, they would much rather pay $20 / month for unlimited internet access at dial up speeds, than significantly more for higher data rates.
It would be a very shrewd strategy to let everyone else spend $10B + to deploy high speed data networks which will never pay for themselves, and mint money selling reliable voice services on a network that has been fully amortized.
If they really want to attract business users, they should open up the old grandfathered international roaming rates to new customers.
Mike Schumann
>>Deutsche Telekom Ponders >>Sale of T-Mobile USA Unit [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > customers they have, like myself whose bills are double their typical > average. SirJaymes@gmail.com - 06 Jul 2005 12:01 GMT Bull crap... Read thru some of the Wireless World reports or RCR for how many sites Tmobile USA has built out... In fact you are incorrect that CIngular has benefited more from romaing agreements with TMobile then TMobile has by roaming on Cingular...
Cyrus Afzali - 06 Jul 2005 16:27 GMT >So far, T-Mobile has been very successful offering better value than anyone >else. As a result, they are one of the fastest growing operators in the US [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >rather pay $20 / month for unlimited internet access at dial up speeds, than >significantly more for higher data rates. Data gives you a crucial way to differentiate yourself from competitors. And, most significantly, it also helps you attract business-class customers. If data was overblown, you wouldn't have people like VZW promoting the hell out of their new offering in the Northeast corridor.
Voice is a commodity, but data gives you the ability to attract high-margin customers. Those are what anyone wanting to succeed in a business like wireless are going to need.
>It would be a very shrewd strategy to let everyone else spend $10B + to >deploy high speed data networks which will never pay for themselves, and >mint money selling reliable voice services on a network that has been fully >amortized. If you want to stay at the bottom of the national carriers list, sure. Data will pay a whole lot faster than voice because the average monthly bills of voice and data users are close to double the voice only user.
>If they really want to attract business users, they should open up the old >grandfathered international roaming rates to new customers. The number of business users that travel enough to be concerned about grandfathered international rates are small. Those are passed along as expenses to their company, so they don't care. They DO care about voice coverage and data reliability, however.
>Mike Schumann
>> The article goes on to say they may refocus it into a discount >> operator. I fail to see how that's a sound use of an asset. It will [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> customers they have, like myself whose bills are double their typical >> average. Mike Schumann - 06 Jul 2005 20:06 GMT Look at what's happening in Europe. All the carriers spend huge sums on the latest gear. They're aren't seeing anything close to the revenue that they anticipated.
T-Mobile's subscriber market share has been increasing. As they slowly continue their buildout and roaming agreements, there is no reason that this will not continue, as long as they remain the low cost provider. The way to be the low cost provider, is to have the lowest cost structure.
Just look at the airline industry. All the majors, going after the "business" customer are loosing their shirts. The new guys who are going after people who watch their pennies are profitable, and gain lots of market share.
I own a small business. I watch the $s I spend on business expenses just as much as any private individual. Larger business who don't have the same attitude that I have, aren't going to survive in this new environment.
Mike Schumann
>>So far, T-Mobile has been very successful offering better value than >>anyone [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>> customers they have, like myself whose bills are double their typical >>> average. Cyrus Afzali - 06 Jul 2005 20:22 GMT >Look at what's happening in Europe. All the carriers spend huge sums on the >latest gear. They're aren't seeing anything close to the revenue that they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >will not continue, as long as they remain the low cost provider. The way to >be the low cost provider, is to have the lowest cost structure. But there's no sustainable money in being the low cost provider. Those people often choose pre-paid, the product that's most closely suited for them. People who are spending $40 or more on wireless want coverage and data services.
>Just look at the airline industry. All the majors, going after the >"business" customer are loosing their shirts. The new guys who are going >after people who watch their pennies are profitable, and gain lots of market >share. Totally irrelevant example. I spent a large chunk of my career covering American Airlines and Southwest for various news outlets. The airline industry for years after deregulation in 1978 made a hefty living off the principles of yield management. Pioneered by American Airlines' former chief Robert Crandall, it held that airline seats should be treated as a commodity since business travelers often didn't have a choice of when they flew. So people who wanted to fly today on a major carrier paid 3-4 times what they paid when they booked 3 weeks out. That decision was predicated on sophisticated models showing how likely seats were to go "spoiled" (e.g. unsold). They were always willing to let a few go unsold if historical patterns showed there was a good chance they could be sold for a much higher value than those who booked earlier.
For years before they spun off Sabre Holdings, American Airlines made a fortune selling access to their proprietary fare system to other airlines. For a time, they had the largest privately-owned computer systems in the world humming along in Tulsa, Oklahoma doing nothing but calculating airfares.
The majors calculated their financials based on the notion that the ability to charge like this would last into the foreseeable future. And it worked for years after the 1971 launch of Southwest too. It doesn't work anymore and the majors are left with cost structures their struggling to trim.
Majors are also much more economically sensitive. They have traditionally made the VAST majority of their money off first-class flyers and the cargo in the belly. Coach passengers have been largely cream on the top.
>I own a small business. I watch the $s I spend on business expenses just as >much as any private individual. Larger business who don't have the same >attitude that I have, aren't going to survive in this new environment. A gross overgeneralization. I own a small business myself and have to watch pennies, but that's because I don't have the scads of money that a large corporation does. That doesn't mean the large companies are going away. Many still waste scads of money. And you know what? Americans like it that way. If we got as efficient as we could, you could thin the middle management ranks in this country by a third or better. People fight efficiency because too many people's bread is buttered by the lack of it.
danny burstein - 06 Jul 2005 20:45 GMT >Majors are also much more economically sensitive. They have >traditionally made the VAST majority of their money off first-class >flyers and the cargo in the belly. shhh... Cargo profits are the big sekret the airlines don't talk about.
Many airplanes are just a big freight truck with a bunch of seata thrown in for good measure...
 Signature _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Mike Schumann - 07 Jul 2005 03:34 GMT There's no money in being the low cost provider in a commodity market?????? Go tell that to Dell.
Mike Schumann
>>Look at what's happening in Europe. All the carriers spend huge sums on >>the [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > better. People fight efficiency because too many people's bread is > buttered by the lack of it. Cyrus Afzali - 07 Jul 2005 13:32 GMT >There's no money in being the low cost provider in a commodity market?????? >Go tell that to Dell. Dell isn't low cost, they're high efficiency. There are many instances where I can get a computer as cheap or cheaper from someone besides Dell. Where Dell has skyrocketed above everyone is efficiency. They have the fewest number of days of spare parts and other inventory of anyone. So they don't end up writing off inventory that's never used. It also alleviates the need for as many warehouses, etc.
Really, you just don't know what you're talking about here.
>Mike Schumann > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >> better. People fight efficiency because too many people's bread is >> buttered by the lack of it. danny burstein - 06 Jul 2005 20:43 GMT >The number of business users that travel enough to be concerned about >grandfathered international rates are small. Those are passed along as >expenses to their company, so they don't care. They DO care about >voice coverage and data reliability, however. Otoh, the international traveller tends to be the richer, more influential in the company... person. So if DT gains that loyalty, it'll have a cascading impact.
 Signature _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
^'^BatAttaK^'^ - 07 Jul 2005 00:15 GMT >If data was overblown, you wouldn't have >people like VZW promoting the hell out of their new offering in the >Northeast corridor. If it _weren't_ overblown they wouldn't have to promote it at all...it would sell itself. They're promoting it so heavily simply because they spent so much implementing it.
Joseph - 07 Jul 2005 04:39 GMT >If you want to stay at the bottom of the national carriers list, sure. >Data will pay a whole lot faster than voice because the average >monthly bills of voice and data users are close to double the voice >only user. Even if T-Mobile made an expenditure of 20 or 30 billion dollars they'd still be fourth in line. It's awful hard to be a competitor of substance when the top two have over 40 million subscribers and the third has the remaining majority of subscribers. T-Mobile on its own will never be in the same status as Verizon, xingular or SpriNextel.
- -
Cyrus Afzali - 07 Jul 2005 13:32 GMT >>If you want to stay at the bottom of the national carriers list, sure. >>Data will pay a whole lot faster than voice because the average [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >third has the remaining majority of subscribers. T-Mobile on its own >will never be in the same status as Verizon, xingular or SpriNextel. Right. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with being No. 4. What I'm saying is there's a limit to the number of people you can add with an approach that emphasizes cost over everything. Given the services that TM is able to offer that others aren't (or as easily), such as international roaming, access to data services, etc. it seems to me that they'd be smart in using that to their advantage.
In the end, we'll probably end up with as many nationwide wireless carriers as there were long distance carriers. If that's true, there's room for about 3 at the most.
Joseph - 07 Jul 2005 16:34 GMT >In the end, we'll probably end up with as many nationwide wireless >carriers as there were long distance carriers. If that's true, there's >room for about 3 at the most. Well, there's all sorts of variations. In Canada they basically have one GSM operator since evil Rogers bought Microcell (Fido) a few months ago. Then on the other hand you have what's going on in Europe. In the Netherlands there are five separate networks and there are eight MVNO's which by my poor arithmetical skills is thirteen choices to get mobile service. In the UK there are five networks with five more MVNO's which makes ten possible places to get mobile service. There must be enough of a pie for all parties to make a go of it.
- -
Cyrus Afzali - 08 Jul 2005 14:39 GMT >>In the end, we'll probably end up with as many nationwide wireless >>carriers as there were long distance carriers. If that's true, there's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >mobile service. There must be enough of a pie for all parties to make >a go of it. It's hard to compare the U.S. with any other market -- especially Europe. For starters, the geographic size of many European countries makes it much easier and less expensive to adequately cover them. The fact that we also have several pockets of densely populated areas also causes companies to chase that money and continue to improve infrastructure there before they'll take it to smaller areas. That's one reason governments made the decision to incentivize cable companies by offering them exclusive franchises to go into an area.
Also, a lot of European countries basically leapfrogged into the cellular age. Rather than spending money to keep improving POTS systems, they put money into wireless, people subscribed at a fast clip and that gave them the capital to enhance service. Also, with the exception of urban areas, few Americans were willing to cut the tie from POTS as soon as they got wireless, so they spent relatively little every month. Wireless companies saw that and were scared to put new money into advanced services.
Another big problem in the U.S. is companies are too tied to their sacred cows. IOW, if they can milk POTS for all its worth, they'll do that before putting money into wireless efforts. With many of the wireless carriers having ties to RBOCs at one time or another, that created an internal fight that stunted what could have been much faster adoption of advanced technologies. Look at VoIP for example. RBOCs did NOTHING with it until, as usual, cable started kicking their a.s. As a result, you now have people like me who don't give one penny to an RBOC anymore.
To a degree, wireless players have been the same way. Look at how long it took VZW to offer EvDO. They didn't do it until the GSM operators had been offering GPRS for a good while.
You're right in that there's enough pie for everyone to theoretically operate profitably. The question becomes whether they can continue to grow that profitability at a rate that will suffice their boards and shareholders. The latter is usually one of the big things that spurs consolidation. Historically, there's never been five big players in very many communications markets -- at least on a nationwide basis.
MS - 02 Apr 2006 21:22 GMT What would really be a disaster is if one of its large US rivals bought it--Cingular for example, which uses the same GSM system.
Competition in the US cell industry has been going down with buyouts, for instance Cingular buying ATT Wireless. (Funny that now ATT has bought Cingular! ;-) ) With less competition, there will be less motivation to improve services and rates for consumers.
And what would happen to our T-Mo rate plans if T-Mo was bought by Cingular? We would have to choose a Cingular rate plan.
Steve Sobol - 02 Apr 2006 21:25 GMT > What would really be a disaster is if one of its large US rivals bought > it--Cingular for example, which uses the same GSM system. **That** would suck.
Regardless of Cingular's service, I refuse to give any money to Sucks Big **Censored** (SBC) Communications. :)
It's a philosophical issue. SBC tried to screw me out of several hundred dollars on an issue with a non-working DSL line a few years back, and now I'm SBC-free and never want to pay them another cent again.
It would suck because I've been very happy with T-Mobile so far.
 Signature Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, CA ** 888.480.4NET (4638) ** sjsobol@JustThe.net
Resident of Southern California - the home of beautiful people and butt-ugly traffic jams
Todd - 03 Apr 2006 02:19 GMT > What would really be a disaster is if one of its large US rivals bought > it--Cingular for example, which uses the same GSM system. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And what would happen to our T-Mo rate plans if T-Mo was bought by Cingular? > We would have to choose a Cingular rate plan. You could always try to go for some of the smaller independent cell phone providers. some small ones that I can think of are Cellular south (though thats only MS and TN land) and Cricket.
I don't use my cell much anymore and cellsouth has a 9.95 plan for folks like me, you don't see cingular/t-mobile/bignamecellprovider offering any cell services in the <30/month range.
as long as private cell phone providers stay around, we'll be ok.
Regards, Todd
danny burstein - 03 Apr 2006 02:38 GMT >I don't use my cell much anymore and cellsouth has a 9.95 plan for folks >like me, you don't see cingular/t-mobile/bignamecellprovider offering >any cell services in the <30/month range. I addition to pre-paid, t-mobile has their "basic plus" plan. It's $29.95 (plus plenty of the usual taxes and fees) and gives you 300 whenever minutes, plus weekends.
 Signature _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Todd - 03 Apr 2006 19:41 GMT >> I don't use my cell much anymore and cellsouth has a 9.95 plan for folks >> like me, you don't see cingular/t-mobile/bignamecellprovider offering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's $29.95 (plus plenty of the usual taxes and fees) and > gives you 300 whenever minutes, plus weekends. The last few months I haven't went over 30 minutes of usage on my cell. I think I deserve to be able to get a cell phone service cheaper than 29.95 and many other folks who seldom use their cell phones would also appreciate a low-end plan that isn't 30 bucks/month, so far no large cell provider really caters to the low usage market.
Regards, Todd
Michael - 03 Apr 2006 20:16 GMT > The last few months I haven't went over 30 minutes of usage on my cell. I > think I deserve to be able to get a cell phone service cheaper than 29.95 and > many other folks who seldom use their cell phones would also appreciate a > low-end plan that isn't 30 bucks/month, so far no large cell provider really > caters to the low usage market. Hmm, T-M prepaid , $100 for the gold plan , they gave me 1250 minutes ............104 minutes a month for $8.33 a month.
Todd - 04 Apr 2006 18:54 GMT >> The last few months I haven't went over 30 minutes of usage on my cell. I >> think I deserve to be able to get a cell phone service cheaper than 29.95 and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hmm, T-M prepaid , $100 for the gold plan , they gave me 1250 > minutes ............104 minutes a month for $8.33 a month. well, I stand corrected.
Regards, Todd
rocky - 03 Apr 2006 21:27 GMT > >> I don't use my cell much anymore and cellsouth has a 9.95 plan for folks > >> like me, you don't see cingular/t-mobile/bignamecellprovider offering [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Regards, > Todd I just renewed the $19.95 basic plan with T-Mobile. 60 Min./month, 500 min. weekends/month. With taxes it comes to $23.xx per month.
Cyrus Afzali - 03 Apr 2006 03:40 GMT >What would really be a disaster is if one of its large US rivals bought >it--Cingular for example, which uses the same GSM system. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Cingular! ;-) ) With less competition, there will be less motivation to >improve services and rates for consumers. I'm not disputing that there's some truth to your statement. However, history will show that once most any market reaches a mature stage, you have roam for at most about 3 or 4 major players, and the top two usually have a market penetration that well exceeds 50 percent. There's no reason to think a capital-intensive business like mobile communications will be any different.
>And what would happen to our T-Mo rate plans if T-Mo was bought by Cingular? >We would have to choose a Cingular rate plan. Which really aren't that bad. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we'll see a deal involving TM for some time, largely because TM USA is a major cash generator for Deutsche Telekom. Because of that, they don't have the pressures to make it be a competitor for the no. 1 or 2 spot in the market. But were it not for that, the situation would be a whole lot different, and in all likelihood, T-Mobile USA would have already been involved in a deal.
wild bill - 03 Apr 2006 17:20 GMT >What would really be a disaster is if one of its large US rivals bought >it--Cingular for example, which uses the same GSM system. That's not the point. We gotta stop ALL the old Bell systems cold.
ATT/SBC/Bell-whatever is losing business to wireless. Since they are guaranteed Return-On-Investment for their WIRES, they will NEVER give them up. If a competetitor like wireLESS shows up eating their lunch, they have no option but to fight back. Since Bell could have given us wireless decades ago but chose not to, there's really no reason to let them take over and dominate the game NOW, when they finally see the handwriting on the wall.
They have NO INTEREST in promoting wireless, but DO want to slow the steady flow of customers leaving their wired system.
If Bell comes to dominate wireless, look for high prices and crappy service, in part to keep people 'on-the-wire'.
We went off the wire three years ago and I sure hope we don't ever have to go back. DSL begins at around $55 a month (total, NOT the advertised 'special' rate of around $12.95) and offers less than T-Mobile's add-on $20 a month wireless 24/7 Edge data.
Don't know what the 1.5 megabit wireless will cost, but it's coming.
Wired Internet is okay for desktops, but just as obsolete. It's really clear that PORTABILITY (and wireless) is where everything's going.
If Bell wanted you to have portability, what the hell ever stopped them putting Wi-Fi on their poles? Would have made perfect sense and saved their ground-based infrastructure. They don't care about customers, only about their own obscene profits. I say, better for all of us when somebody finally drives a wood stake into them.
Blood sucking bastards. You shoulda been in the theatre in 1968 when 'Fun With Dick And Jane' first played. The whole place errupted in roars when they stuck up the PHONE COMPANY.
Until that moment, I hadn't realized how much people hated them.
Bell would probably be better off getting behind a 'cell phones can cause brain tumors' scare campaign. Other than that, they're toast.
Bill
Cyrus Afzali - 03 Apr 2006 22:41 GMT >>What would really be a disaster is if one of its large US rivals bought >>it--Cingular for example, which uses the same GSM system. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >They have NO INTEREST in promoting wireless, but DO want >to slow the steady flow of customers leaving their wired system. Actually, that's not completely true. They absolutely have interest in promoting networks that they spend billions to build. Secondly, wireless networks generate far more money than their POTS counterparts. They're hoping to increase this revenue even more, now that an increasing number of networks can do high-speed data, etc.
That said, they still are holding on to their insane policies in regard to wirelines. My VOIP system was installed for nothing, and Verizon wanted more than $100 to come in, convert to POTS, and install only one jack. Like most old-line businesses in the U.S., they're willing to completely milk the cow dry because they think they'll always have something new to offset any lost biz. That may or may not be true.
>If Bell comes to dominate wireless, look for high prices and >crappy service, in part to keep people 'on-the-wire'. That's not necessarily true. There's still plenty of competition in wireless. Remember that in any mature market, they'll be 2 companies that get close to 50 percent of the market, and a few other smaller players that get the rest. Wireless is proving to be no different, but there are a lot of companies catering to users that aren't necessarily mainstream; either they roam internationally a lot, only want a few minutes, use high-speed data a lot, etc.
>We went off the wire three years ago and I sure hope we don't >ever have to go back. DSL begins at around $55 a month (total, >NOT the advertised 'special' rate of around $12.95) and offers >less than T-Mobile's add-on $20 a month wireless 24/7 Edge data. > >Don't know what the 1.5 megabit wireless will cost, but it's coming. Then you have a really bad competitive situation. Even Verizon will give you DSL of 3.0 megabits for under $30, and they're the least competitive RBOC around.
>Wired Internet is okay for desktops, but just as obsolete. It's really >clear that PORTABILITY (and wireless) is where everything's going. Maybe, but as someone who has both, let me tell you it will be a while before wireless catches up to wired speed. While my T-Mobile wireless connection would have been considered zippy in the days where ISDN was the best you could do, the term high-speed wireless is still a very relative term in the US.
>If Bell wanted you to have portability, what the hell ever stopped >them putting Wi-Fi on their poles? Would have made perfect sense >and saved their ground-based infrastructure. They don't care about >customers, only about their own obscene profits. I say, better for all >of us when somebody finally drives a wood stake into them. Wi-fi isn't really an option because of its limited travel distance, interference restrictions, etc. There was a service being trialed a few years ago called Local Multipoint Distribution System (LMDS) that was essentially a forerunner to what you have now with high-speed wireless. Remember too that wireless is a very iffy proposition in urban areas where obstructions and other issues make signal travel much more difficult.
|
|
|