axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| disruptive?
I think the best time to be disruptive is when in a position of strength. If a company is making too much money in a new industry, their competitors can too... until the market matures, and pain sets in. Sprint being disruptive now could just look like dying a painful death, instead of staying ahead of competitors by offering a better deal. |
|
upidstay
@mchsi.com
| Killer Instinct
Sprint is just doing what any company that is fighting for its life would do, and that is pulling out all the stops.
Though in a different business but kind of in a similiar situation, some say Intel do the same with its Core 2 Duo
processors when the Athlon 64 FX line was giving 'em hell.
Now its Intel back on top and AMD struggling. I know this may be only a stereotype, but it seems Sprint would be pretty desparate for a telco to embrace a fully open network which is in contrast to the business philoaopy of
what we usually see out of the telcos. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Sprint should concentrate on coverage
All the open access features and low cost are nice marketing techniques. But unless Xohm can provide good wireless coverage at the speeds stated, it will never go anywhere. Wireless broadband has under delivered with WiFi over and over. If Wimax is to gain any traction, it must start delivering on its promises with the very 1st rollouts.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
JasonD
@comcast.net | Leaving it open will kill them....
Nobody makes money just being a 'dumb pipe'. Other companies will take advantage of this and market services that ride on top of their network, while Sprint walks away from money on the table. It just doesn't make any sense to do this. |
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to upidstay
Re: Killer Instinct
said by upidstay :
Sprint is just doing what any company that is fighting for its life would do, and that is pulling out all the stops.
Well they are not at a point of fighting for their life. They are a $40B company, bigger than Intel, Apple, CocaCola and Disney. They could lose millions of customers and likely still be bigger than those companies. They aren't anywhere near bankruptcy. They are just a big ole company that isn't growing (actually it's just the Nextel side shrinking). They are big enough to eventually turn around.
Sprint has always been relatively more open than others... open BlueTooth and unlimited EVDO are examples. The Xohm openness is no surprise, but it's hardly a differentiation.
Now WiMAX in itself is the differentiation. WiMAX came from IEEE, which brought us the ubiquity of ethernet. LTE comes from 3GPP, the controlling telcom industry. WiMAX will be on all kinds of consumer products. They just drop in an IEEE compliant WiMAX chipset. LTE likely will be limited to devices mostly controlled by the telcom industry. |
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
1 edit | reply to JasonD
Re: Leaving it open will kill them....
You can be open and have a dumb pipe while developing and selling your own services, which will be options, not requirements. Windows has 'open' APIs in a similar manner and allows any application to be written for it. Microsoft also competes with other software vendors on Windows.
The model works. |
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Sprint should concentrate on coverage
Looks like April is when the first 3 markets will be available to consumers - Chicago, DC and Baltimore. I've also heard Dallas is about ready to launch, but may not be reliable info.
Sprint needs investment from the outside to rollout WiMAX nationwide. They need to split the Xohm group off as separate company (mostly owned by Sprint), and allow others to invest in just WiMAX, like Intel and maybe Google and other players in the WiMAX industry. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
| reply to JasonD
Re: Leaving it open will kill them....
On the contrary, people will flock to them as saviors from unfees, caps, filtering, etc.
They are proud of being a dumb pipe and I applaud that.
I want my internet connection to be a dumb pipe and dont need some company trying to nickel and dime me with lame features I would never use or could do myself for free.
--
~ Don't you ever give up, Don't ever give in. Were going to make it ~ Damian Marley |
|
flyingjoey
join:2005-11-07
Jersey City, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Windows of Opportunity
For the first time in a long time, sprint can really take the lead, if they play their cards right!
LTE is years away, if sprint gets its head out of its a$$ and has xohm available in key markets, it will be ahead of its competition.
Make the service flexible, make it all you can eat, make it affordable and they will come! |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| Finally, a company that understands the key to true customer satisfaction! Don't screw around with phone software, don't create invisi-caps, and don't limit what internet apps a sub can use, and customers will flock over in droves!! Way to go Sprint!! |
|
stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
·Verizon BroadbandA..
| The Internet is a Utility
When people buy internet, they look at price, speed, and the lack of gotchas. When they buy mobile broadband, they look at this plus coverage.
While the internet companies try to brand themselves and get some business this way, I think most people look at the internet the same way they do water, gas, and electricity.
I'd be furious if my electric company starting prioritizing their own air conditioners of ones purchased at Home Depot on brownout days, or because that company had a couple of web pages designed to maximizing energy savings, or a tech support center somewhere in the world that could save me if I naively plugged a hazardous device into my electric socket.
As we enter the next ten years, we are going to see many more devices that share data wirelessly. My wife's Kindle downloads books that way, five bucks says you'll see an iPhone style device that bundles the prices of music transfers into the price of the song or show, rather than a monthly plan on top of it. I wouldn't be surprised to see Pay Per View coming to an MP3 near you. Once a carrier divorces their unit from a phone number and voice, they don't have the universal subsidies, etc., dragging down the price.
Xohm will have a built in advantage in anything they enter into because they have an inherent ability to leverage the price of their own data than a third party will if the data is on a plan to the customer.
Vending Machines and Parking meters that tell people when to empty or service them become a possibility, burglar alarms will probably switch to cellular for monitoring, and the list goes on. Laptop cards are just the tip of the iceberg that we are talking about here. The order pads carried by service people will all be embedded with inexpensive chipsets conveying information back to the business, etc.
Many devices will have PAYG data built in and the price of the transaction will be based on a transactional model. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to xenophon
Re: Killer Instinct
True that the company is technically worth billions, however
their stock price is in the toilet, making them a target for a takeover, being at less than $9/share
»www.businessweek.com/magazine/co···8185.htm
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
xenophon
join:2007-09-17
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Yeah, a takeover or merger is possible, but it's not like they'll go away. They're just too big.
It's also not likely that a US telcom company will merge with them. Maybe a foreign one, especially given exchange rates. But if that happens the Sprint US operations will still essentially be intact. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Xohm Phone
So, does Sprint plan on using this for phone-type devices or just computers? Would WiMax work for a VOIP-type setup, or would you still have to rely on Sprint's PCS network for phone calls? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to xenophon
Re: Killer Instinct
If anything, I'd expect a foreign deal like Vodafone/Verizon Wireless, possibly with a Korean or Japanese CDMA player
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to EPS
Re: Xohm Phone
primarily, WiMax isn't designed for phone-like systems. It'll more likely be embedded into Cameras, MP3 players, PDA's, and most laptops. sprint will merely be one of the many providers of the service itself. It's basically a model where the customer will bring their own device, and pay a flat monthly fee w/o contracts. Also, yes, you'll likely be allowed to use VoIP over a laptop connected to the network via WiMAX, as it's said to have less latency that current cell data services. Even if sprint did offer its own devices/voice services over WiMax, they will definitely be based in IP architecture, instead of circuit switching. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to JasonD
Re: Leaving it open will kill them....
said by JasonD :
Nobody makes money just being a 'dumb pipe'. Really?
So all of the nationwide providers who are out there selling a connection with just bandwidth, IPs and a BGP session to large business are loosing money hand over fist, right ?
Oh wait, that's right, those dumb pipes are making them money.
Other companies will take advantage of this and market services that ride on top of their network, while Sprint walks away from money on the table. It just doesn't make any sense to do this. Perhaps you need to relearn that the internet is suppose to work that way. Different companies compete by offering different services across the Internet. The idea that ONLY providers should be allowed to offer their customers services is not only backward, it is both contrary to the internet's purpose and anti-capitalist.
Sprint is doing EXACTLY what is best for them right now - focusing on offering a high quality and, over time, nationwide service. Focusing their attention on that first, before offering cutesy little services that other people are much better at offering, is called having their priorities in order. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to xenophon
I agree... I expect this to be more of a 2 tiered style of use:
1. Users using data (datacards, handheld devices, etc.)
2. Specialized devices and services resold by other vendors - wireless cameras, security (ADT anyone), ATM links.
Unlike the baby bells, this does not run over the cellular network, and does not have the same requirements for service, and is not tied into the old Bell business model.
Downside: WiMAX doesn't have the coverage (yet) or devices to compete.
Upside: Its more likely to have the price to compete, and blow away traditional DSL/Cable internet costs, which have been increasing unless bundled with TV or phone service.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Sprint should concentrate on coverage
said by TKJunkMail  :All the open access features and low cost are nice marketing techniques. But unless Xohm can provide good wireless coverage at the speeds stated, it will never go anywhere. Wireless broadband has under delivered with WiFi over and over. If Wimax is to gain any traction, it must start delivering on its promises with the very 1st rollouts. Hammer, meet the head of the nail... This appears to be why Sprint is just offering a straight IP pipe. Instead of focusing on services they could offer and might make money on, they are focusing on the one service they know they can make money from - access. By not diverting capital from the network buildout for other adventures, they can focus on doing EXACTLY what you have stated - high speed, high quality bandwidth with good coverage. |
|
jay_rm
join:2002-04-12
Netville
·Fox Valley Internet
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to en102
Re: Leaving it open will kill them....
said by en102 :Downside: WiMAX doesn't have the coverage (yet) or devices to compete. Both can happen. Coverage only takes money for infrastructure - they have the spectrum. Devices only takes Intel delivering on their promise.
Question is, is there enough money available in todays market ?? |
|
