hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to tc1uscg
Re: Consumer interest?
I think it would work better if it wasn't a co-brand deal and more than that Sprint is charging. Hell the phones even say Sprint on them. At least they could have put the Cable brand or Pivot on it. Or let the cable co's use their one phones like they did with Virgin Mobile. Let it be a true MVNO instead of some re-packaged Sprint plan. If the cable Co's were smart they'd take the brand over together- joint venture; and then buy up some cell phone companies or one and turn it into their own control it the way they want on their own level. Basically like reselling the service from the joint venture to the actual cable co's customers. Pivot as the joint company and then TWC, Comcast, Cox, BrightHouse; etc the retail side. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| Agree. I don't think cable thought about putting their name on the phone till they figured it would "good to go". At least ESPN had a ESPN phone (the sanyo 9000 model, which was a ok evdo phone for it's time). But it still didn't go over well. Look at Disney. Same thing there. No Sprint logo on the phone but it's a failure too. I think these people, same as cable, have too high of expectations that people will stand in line to get this service. Sprint should just sell it's back bone use and cable should not be so greedy (it's investors) and let the service sell itself over time. VM is doing well and still gets rated at the top of the list in just about every corner. A recent PCmag writeup shows a sad perception of Sprint. Their network got rated low, but VM rides on Sprints network only and it got rated way up there. Go figure. Sprint needs to change it's name to Nevertel or something just to get out from under this dark cloud. |
|
