 |
 | 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 / Verizon / May 2006COMCAST to Offer CellPhone Service
Apparently they will be using Sprint/NEXTEL Infrastructure since they now own a chunk of Sprint. Anyone seen more on this? Pegleg U.S. Navy Retired Support Our Troops, Question The Policy! All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope. Sir Winston Churchill > Apparently they will be using Sprint/NEXTEL Infrastructure since they > now own a chunk of Sprint. > > Anyone seen more on this? No. Do you have any source for your information as it stands presented?  SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> Apparently they will be using Sprint/NEXTEL Infrastructure since they >> now own a chunk of Sprint. >> >> Anyone seen more on this? > >No. Do you have any source for your information as it stands presented? Yesterday I went to local Comcast Service Center to switch my digital phone service over to their new digital phone service and was discussing having everything on one billing and the rep informed me that they will be offering cellphone service later this year. When I asked what infrastructure they would be using she mentioned the acquisition of a big chunk of Sprint. Pegleg U.S. Navy Retired Support Our Troops, Question The Policy! All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope. Sir Winston Churchill >>> Apparently they will be using Sprint/NEXTEL Infrastructure since they >>> now own a chunk of Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > infrastructure they would be using she mentioned the acquisition of a > big chunk of Sprint. I highly doubt they aquired anything (or I would have received notice prior to this post). Much more likely is they are now a reseller for the purposes of bundling. The major Telcos already do this. QWest had tower deals with Sprint PCS (that is an understatement really) and they resell DirecTV (they used to resell Dish Network), thus they can bundle HSI, TV, Phone, Long Distance and Wireless phones. In short, I think they just made a deal to resell for the purposes of bundling. Good news is that I already use Sprint PCS .. bad news is that I don't know that I always will. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 "Pegleg" <brian-s-jones@comcastnospam.net> wrote in message > Yesterday I went to local Comcast Service Center to switch my digital > phone service over to their new digital phone service and was discussing > having everything on one billing and the rep informed me that they will > be offering cellphone service later this year. When I asked what > infrastructure they would be using she mentioned the acquisition of a > big chunk of Sprint. One would think that such an acquisition would have made the news big-time. Perhaps Comcast and Sprint have some sort of a joint marketing agreement, in view of their joint-venture where Comcast provides content for Sprint Vision. I'm inclined to think that the rep was misinformed about Comcast buying a significant percentage of Sprint. Comcast seems committed to terrestrial facilities, not wireless or satellite. Of course, Comcast might have decided to offer a branded version of Sprint, similar to Virgin Mobile, where Sprint provides the network facilities and Comcast is just a virtual cell company. I am a Comcast Cable subscriber, and I have seen nothing at all from them offering wireless service--although they are pushing their Digital Voice system. I note that 25% of Vonage's customers leave within a year, because the Internet-based voice quality is not the same as POTS. I have a Verizon VoiceWing account, which I use for faxing, and I can attest from my own experience that the voice quality is below that of a regular long distance line. Verizon offers an unlimited LD plan in my area for $45.00, called "Freedom Essentials," and the call connect time and the audio quality are markedly better than their own VoiceWing service. I suspect that Comcast's version can't be much better than Vonage or VoiceWing, since the calls are all routed over the same Internet. For some people, it may be fine, but I was not impressed. I read that it costs Vonage about $8.00 per month to provide the service, the rest being profit. It's fine for non-critical calls, but I'm personally not impressed by it. Note: Comcast has spent millions building a fiber network. Which is a PRIMARY difference between them and Vonage/Skype/etc... Night and day difference. A big chunk of the traffic is carried over a private network, not the public Internet. My voice quality is virtually indistinguishable between the LEC's POTS (Verizon in my case) and Comcast's CDV. I fired Verizon completely, (as far as wired services) Oh, Comcast did NOT buy a chunk of Sprint. > "Pegleg" <brian-s-jones@comcastnospam.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > per month to provide the service, the rest being profit. It's fine for non-critical calls, but I'm personally not > impressed by it. > Note: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > public > Internet. Why would it matter whose network the packets travel over? Comcast is using the same transmission protocol for each call, whether they carry it or the public Internet carries it. What empirical evidence do you have that the quality of VoIP is any different over Comcast's network than over the public Internet? If that were the case, the Comcast phone adapter would have to use a different algorithm for calls carried on Comcast--and the adapter could not possibly know which network would carry the call. Public Internet = absolutely NO control over number of hops, latency, jitter, etc etc... Private network = control over ALL of the above. Sure, it is all IP packets, but HOW those IP packets traverse a network make all the difference. "algorithm"???? It's called routing... real basic Internet stuff... I have used Vonage - cheap and so so quality - I now use CDV and it is on par with any POTS service I've used - it simply is as good as any regular phone, (for me anyway). And people on the other end can't either - so for me it's a very viable phone service. AND, I can be pounding on the DOCSIS at the same time - the quality of the voice is completely independent of what the data side is doing at the same time. I'm not here to argue the details. Simply... any time you route traffic over a network that you can control and manage - you CAN control and manage the quality. >> Note: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > public Internet? If that were the case, the Comcast phone adapter would have to use a different algorithm for calls > carried on Comcast--and the adapter could not possibly know which network would carry the call. > Why would it matter whose network the packets travel over? Comcast is using > the same transmission protocol for each call, whether they carry it or the > public Internet carries it. You don't know much about transport layers, do you? The different is QoS. Comcast can schedule a higher priority for VoIP packets within its network than other data packets. This allows VoIP traffic to be "guaranteed" a minimum service quality over the network, even if the network is congested. With an outside provider like VOnage, the transport is "best effort." If there's sufficient bandwidth, then great. And fortuantely MOST of the time "best effort" is okay enough to provide a decent service level. If the network is congested, throughput will suffer along with everything else, bringing with it poor audio quality. Unfortunately, there is a bad side to this. There are lobbying efforts by some large ISPs to effectively legalize a two-tiered approach to the internet. If a content company pays a sort of "toll" to the ISP, they get higher priority on the network. If not, then data packets are assigned a LOWER priority, and given second-rate treatment, guaranteeing slower throughput. > What empirical evidence do you have that the quality of VoIP is any > different over Comcast's network than over the public Internet? Google "packet shaping" and "QoS" sometime. That'll give you all the info you need. > If that > were the case, the Comcast phone adapter would have to use a different > algorithm for calls carried on Comcast--and the adapter could not possibly > know which network would carry the call. Not true at all. QoS is done at the switch and router level. SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. > Apparently they will be using Sprint/NEXTEL Infrastructure since they > now own a chunk of Sprint. Comcast previously owned "Comcast Metrophone" in the Philadelphia area, back in the analog days. They sold it to Cellular One, which, as I understand it, eventually ended up as Cingular. I am surprised to see that they would want to re-enter a market that they had previously abandoned. What is your source for claiming that Comcast owns part of Sprint? I know that they have entered into a partnership with Sprint to provide content on Sprint PCS Vision phones, but I have never heard that Comcast was part owner of Sprint. >> Apparently they will be using Sprint/NEXTEL Infrastructure since they >> now own a chunk of Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it, eventually ended up as Cingular. I am surprised to see that they would > want to re-enter a market that they had previously abandoned. Why not ... AT&T is doing it ... own AT&T Wireless, sell it Cingular ... and then later, buy Cingular. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > >> Apparently they will be using Sprint/NEXTEL Infrastructure since they > >> now own a chunk of Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why not ... AT&T is doing it ... own AT&T Wireless, sell it Cingular ... and > then later, buy Cingular. Technically it is not true ..... At&T wireless part was bought by Cingular that was owned by Souwestern Bell ..... tahn Southwestern Bell BOUGHT AT&T but they decided to keep At&T brand name AP >> >> Apparently they will be using Sprint/NEXTEL Infrastructure since they >> >> now own a chunk of Sprint. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > AP For one thing, any significant increase in ownership of Sprint by anyone--Comcast included--would require FCC and other Federal and State regulatory approval. More to the point, why would we hear of this from a sales rep before we read it in the news? In all probability the rep was misinformed. > Comcast previously owned "Comcast Metrophone" in the Philadelphia area, back > in the analog days. They sold it to Cellular One, which, as I understand > it, eventually ended up as Cingular. I am surprised to see that they would > want to re-enter a market that they had previously abandoned. Pacific Bell sold off their analog cellular service (Pac-Tel Cellular), then re-entered the market with Pacific Bell Wireless (GSM), which eventually became part of Cingular. Their original service became AirTouch, then Vodaphone AirTouch, then Cellular One, then AT&T Wireless, then Cingular, and will soon be AT&T Wireless again if AT&T ends up buying BellSouth. >> Comcast previously owned "Comcast Metrophone" in the Philadelphia area, back >> in the analog days. They sold it to Cellular One, which, as I understand [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Wireless, then Cingular, and will soon be AT&T Wireless again if AT&T > ends up buying BellSouth. Airtouch became Verizon, not Cingular. Airtouch was here in the Twin Cities ... as the first CDMA carrier that I ever used. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > > Comcast previously owned "Comcast Metrophone" in the Philadelphia area, back > > in the analog days. They sold it to Cellular One, which, as I understand [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Wireless, then Cingular, and will soon be AT&T Wireless again if AT&T > ends up buying BellSouth. Origianl AT&T (the one thats was several months ago does not exist) was bought by Southwestern Bell that kept AT&T brand name ... but it is off topic :) http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=8961 Google to the rescue. From what I've seen, this is going to be a little more than bundled billing. One application I saw is a way to schedule recordings on your DVR from your phone. Another is a common voicemailbox across platforms. However, I think the real killer app will be playback of DVR recordings on a cell phone. THAT I would pay for, but I won't hold my breath... Between the DRM nazis and technical/logistical problems (the DVRs have a cablemodem built in, but I doubt it is integrated to the point that you can stream the hard drive). Eric >> > Comcast previously owned "Comcast Metrophone" in the Philadelphia area, back >> > in the analog days. They sold it to Cellular One, which, as I understand [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >bought by Southwestern Bell that kept AT&T brand name ... but it is off >topic :) > http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=8961 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Eric Just out of curiousity why would you (or anyone) be interested in watching video on a 240x240 screen? Well, sure, I prefer watching video on my 42" HD display. However, for some channels, a big screen isn't as critical, and may be a good timekiller at lunch. >> http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=8961 >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Just out of curiousity why would you (or anyone) be interested in >watching video on a 240x240 screen? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.