Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (
More info?)
"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:G93dd.267228$MQ5.38761@attbi_s52...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:d_%cd.996$5i5.870@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Joseph Huber" <huber.joseph@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:41745e8e.77464109@netnews.comcast.net...
> >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 03:46:00 GMT, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?O/Siris?=
> >> <0siris@sprnntpcs.ctm> wrote:
> >> >I suspect that someone invested Sprint in the Data cards. And
> >> >there's=20
> >> >likely a feeling that the cards will die off if the phones are
> >> >allowed=20
> >> >to be used in this way. I really believe that, until Sprint decides
> > the=20
> >> >cards are an alternative to phones, you're wrong: Sprint will never=20
> >> >openly authorize use of Vision phones as modems.
> >>
> >> I would suggest that Sprint's approach to laptop data use on 3G is
> >> very similar to one I ran into with a vendor that my company uses.
> >> This vendor added three new larger widgets to their product line to
> >> match the product line offering of competitors. Big announcement in
> >> the trade publications, big rollout at the primary industry trade
> >> show, etc. etc. I called this vendor a couple of weeks ago for
> >> pricing on the 3 new larger widgets, only to find out that the new
> >> widget pricing is at least twice the price of the other vendor's
> >> comparable models. This vendor knew that their pricing was much too
> >> high, but they didn't seem too concerned about it. This is industrial
> >> equipment where the widget price is in the $10,000 range.
> >>
> >> So why did the first vendor go through the whole media blitz to
> >> rollout these new products, and then price them so that few, if any,
> >> (relative to the potential size of the market) are going to buy them?
> >> Well, we find out that they really don't have a desire to sell these
> >> larger widgets, because they are happy selling the smaller widgets,
> >> but if they don't have the bigger widgets to offer, they won't look
> >> progressive and cutting edge to the shareholders and stock market
> >> analysts. This is bad for stock prices, since the "experts" see
> >> growth potential in applications where the larger widgets would be
> >> used.
> >>
> >> To me this seems to be the philosophy behind Sprint's data plan
> >> offering for 3G. Sprint doesn't want their network to be used for
> >> data, so they make it tedious, expensive, and inconvenient for
> >> customers to get into data.
> >
> > Sorry Joe, but I disagree. SPCS offers a number of plans for those who
> > want
> > to access strictly data. One can get an $80 unlimited data plan, just
like
> > Verizon does. I mention Verizon, as both are CDMA carriers.
>
> $80/mo for unlimited data at barely double dialup speeds? Wow, what a
> bargain. You can spend less than this and be covered by most major
> airport/cafe WiFi services and get much faster rates. I'm guessing that
> anyone who really needs wireless access will skip Sprint's bargain deal
and
> go for one or two WiFi accounts, and then buy a data cable for those times
> when WiFi isn't available, and use it sparingly so as to not be
disciplined
> by Sprint.
Well, all the providers in the US are at that range of speeds just right
now. When EV-DO gets released, that speed is going to go up substantially.
When EV-DV comes out, even higher speeds. Here's chart on what one can
expect -
http
/cdg.org/technology/3g/evolution.asp . As for the $80, it's
all in the eye of the beholder, if one can do work, make presentations, or
complete a sale from the accessing data remotely. You may not find it cost
worthy, but if I can pull some data off my home office server, while at the
client's location to complete a sale, it's well worth the cost.
As for Wi-Fi, one needs a hot spot to access it and it's very expensive, as
to the limited amount of time someone would spend in an airport, Starbucks,
etc.
>
> >> The only reason they offer data is
> >> because most of the other carriers have it, and not having data
> >> capability would make Sprint appear to be technologically behind (i.e.
> >> bad to the shareholders and stock market analysts).
> >
> > Just how are they behind? Seriously, I'd like to know.
>
> Rob recently mentioned here that Sprint's internal excuse for not allowing
> tethered use is that their data network currently doesn't handle tethered
> use well. So yes, they are behind, unless you doubt Rob's word.
>
Nope, I've never doubted Rob's word. The reason why SPCS doesn't allow for
tethered usage right now is that if they did, every Tom, Dick and Harry
would be doing it, and taking all the available bandwidth.
> >>
> >> Using data with Sprint is customer unfriendly. Yes, there are a few
> >> nice things that one can do with the phones themselves, but the bulk
> >> of business needs still require a laptop,
> >
> > And your point is ... ?
>
> That being told that you can't use your data-enabled phone as a modem for
> occasional data use, and that your only recourse is to buy an expensive
data
> card and spend $80/mo, is not so nice.
Ah, but we are using it for occasional usage. As for the $80/mo. plan, it's
something that SPCS & Verizon offer. You don't have to buy it or use it.
> >> One can't use a phone (a
> >> device perfectly capable of transferring data) for data while tethered
> >> to a laptop, but must buy a data card and get another phone number
> >> and plan, or risk having the voice account terminated (as small as the
> >> risk may be, it still exists). Added to that, the data cards are
> >> expensive, the data plans are expensive, there is the hustle of having
> >> two hardware devices when one would do, two phone numbers. If Sprint
> >> really wanted to sell data, they would scrap this mess and revamp the
> >> whole data offering.
> >
> > Verizon is just as expensive with their data cards and plans ... Your
> > point
> > is?
> > Why are you on this high horse of yours ... considering Verizon provides
> > the
> > same thing that SPCS does, with or without a card?
>
> He's not singling out Sprint, per se, just pointing out that their policy
> leaves something to be desired. I'm sure he'd say the same thing about
> Verizon if asked, assuming they have similar policies. He's not on a high
> horse here Bob. But I think someone else is!
>
> > Bob
>
> Bob, you really need to chill out here. I thought it was just me, but you
> seem to have a problem dealing with those whose opinions (not to mention
> questions) you don't like. You can disagree with Joseph or myself, as is
> your right, of course, but there's no need to adopt such an angry and
> indignant tone. Perhaps you like adversarial discussions, but I don't, and
> I'm guessing that most others don't, either. And in any case, I happen to
> think that he made some excellent points, especially given that he's seen
> this happen elsewhere. It's not as if he was expressing an opinion not
based
> on experience. Relax Bob, it's just a cell phone.
Kovie, where I disagree with the prior poster, it's because he singles out
SPCS in this thread, where all the wireless providers are doing the same
thing. If he wants to say it's an industry wide problem, that's great.
As for you Kovie, you are the one with the problem, and the misconceptions.
Just where did I show an angry or indignant tone to Joe's post?
You are the one who started this and the other threads, said you were going
to leave it alone after receiving all the replies, and then you come back
and start it right back up again, the same day you said you'd drop it. What
is it with you?
Bob
Facebook
Twitter