Sprint Launches Airave Service > Went to my local sprint store

Went to my local sprint store

And in essence let Sprint off the hook for NOT providing a service you pay for? If a carrier can't provide adequate service at your home, why would you stay with them? Especially Sprint, they really don't IMO offer any remarkable handsets, plans, etc.

reply to Rally

How does $10 or $20 on top of a $40 plan make sense for people to go to a $100 unlimited plan?

@fiberguy
I do understand how it works, thanks. I understand that it routes your cellular network usage over your home broadband connection, in essence providing you a mini cell tower in your home. Okay? Thanks. Second of all, the premise of my post is that a cellular provider should provide you with service at your billed residence, without the need for this type of device. Putting additional minutes or anything aside, they shouldn't charge for a device that takes the burden off their own cellular network, and places it somewhere else. I'm sorry you can't see the fact that it's merely an additional way for cell providers to reap extra revenue without actually providing anything.

So I should pay an extra $60 a month just to stick it to the phone company?

reply to mike12806
Um.. you DON'T get it, obviously.

You think that calls just magically go over the internet from one point to another? That's pretty amazing if it did. So, apparently you're incorrect. You ARE using "sprints" resources to carry the call so now maybe you should explain why you think it should be free.

Next, you could explain why you think that service at a billed residence and a "mobile" phone go hand in hand? Mobile phones are capable of working in the posted coverage areas ... it's not "home phone service"..

Next, they SHOULD charge you for a device that gives you extra service. Why is this...? Because.. if you knew anything about cellular service, it's a limited resource based on tower capacity. (it's why it's still metered) and, since phones move (thus, making them oh, .. MOBILE!) they charge per minute to maintain network stability. So, what they are offering you, if you want to enhance your existing mobile service, is to have your cell phone go off their limited network onto a service that is much easier and cheaper for them to operate and give you, in turn, an unlimited service when you are sitting at your house.

Your entire post is incredibly telling. You clearly do not understand the topic, the concept of cellular networks, and the feature.

The device is not in place to enhance or necessarily improve your service per sey.. it's there to add features to your service.

But.. around here, I should be ashamed of thinking logically here.. logic doesn't seem to take front seat here with some user.

A bit pissy today, aren't we?

reply to fiberguy
First of all, I understand that once the call is routed to Sprint's exchange with the PSTN, that is on their network. But by routing calls over my (I paid for it) broadband connection, I'm alleviating 3/4's of the backhaul that they would otherwise have to use to carry my call. I'm sorry you think my view is illogical, but if you could look at the service from a business perspective and that of an outside customer, I think you would agree it's not a very well marketed product. Cellular phones have never been marketed as "not useable in buildings", let alone a subscribers home, so I think the expectation in 95% of customer's minds is that their cell phone should work in their house, regardless if they have this device or not.

No, you don't understand. You're on a totally different 'view' here and you're 100% off.

With your logic, why should anyone pay for Vonage? After all, it's traveling over your broadband, right?

Further, just because the call moves to a VOIP call off the cellular network doesn't mean there isn't still a cost associated with providing your use. Cellular phone service is provided based on a per minute model. What they are offering you is the ability to continue to use your phone, take stress off the cellular network and onto a voip service, and while doing so, they offer you an "unlimited" service option.

And, while you're alleviating the alleged 3/4 of the back haul, then the $10 for unlimited use in your home sounds like a reasonable price. Get your mind out of your internet connection - its irrelevant to the argument you are trying to form. Even if you move the call to VOIP in the home, you assume that there isn't a per-minute charge to the provider for your call and there's no additional charge. How do you suppose they (the provider) collect some revenue to cover that? You make the common mistake that others do that these calls are free over the internet. Ever call made to another provider has a termination fee per minute. And, I suppose that your long distance calls should be free too just because you're using your internet connection.

I see nothing wrong with marketing of what a cell phone is.. I've been using cell phones longer than the average person on this site has going back to 1989 when most people were still fascinated that cell phones even existed. I'm don't expect my cell phone to work everywhere and understand limitations they face. You, however, are expecting perfection, and being unreasonable in your view of what mobile service is. I'm still hung up on your expectation that a phone should simply worn "in the home of your billable address." If mobile phones were billed as a residential service, then I'd agree with you, but it's not.

You are being 100% out of line as you attack "Cellular phones have never been marketed as "not usable in buildings", let alone a subscribers home,".. For one, cellular service has NEVER been marketed as "home phone" service much less have they ever marketed their service as based on any specific location. Further, they disclose their approximate service areas via maps. They, and most reasonable people, understand that radio signals are not guaranteed. In fact, THEY EVEN TELL YOU THAT on the map by stating something like "service areas are approximate and may be influenced by terrain and may not work in all indoor environments"..

So, here you are "My phone should work at my billable address".. Why? I buy a mobile phone to use AWAY from my "billable address" ... as a matter of fact, if that were the case, since I live in MN, my "billable address" is in Sacramento CA and my phone is rarely ever used there. Are you getting it yet? Mobile phones are just that.. mobile. They are marketed and sold to work 'in the disclosed coverage area' outside of, well, how do I say this.. outside of the hard facts of mother earth.

There's no need to reply to any more of your posts unless you change some of your points because you're factually wrong in your thinking and refusing to listen to reality.

reply to digitalfreak
.. slightly, thank you.

reply to fiberguy
@fiberguy"So, here you are "My phone should work at my billable address".. Why? I buy a mobile phone to use AWAY from my "billable address" ... as a matter of fact, if that were the case, since I live in MN, my "billable address" is in Sacramento CA and my phone is rarely ever used there. Are you getting it yet? Mobile phones are just that.. mobile. They are marketed and sold to work 'in the disclosed coverage area' outside of, well, how do I say this.. outside of the hard facts of mother earth."

Clearly, no service provider can guarantee coverage in every given area, especially in a certain building or address. I understand that. I understand that is a limit of any wireless technology, with land topography, buildings etc. That it is not necessarily the fault of the provider. However, any reasonable business person would see the inherent value in Sprint fronting the small monthly fee of these devices, as a way to increase their revenue stream (i.e increased phone usage) and making the customer satisfied with their service. I'm sorry I feel that my cell phone should (hopefully) work relatively close to my home. I mean, do you honestly solely use your home phone when you are in home? These devices would be much more successful if they were marketed with a one-time cost for the equipment, and not a recurring monthly fee as well.

I bet you agree that ISP's should move to services that include caps and traffic shaping, right?

Nice try mudding the conversation with a spin and diversion move. But, since you ask, I do agree that there should be a service cap on the internet as it's also not an infinite resource. But, that's a topic for another thread.

Do I see the inherit value in Sprint (and all the others that are entering this service area) providing these units at no cost? HELL NO! Not everyone will need or want one. Why would I want MY bill to rise so that people can have something free. I believe that if people want something, they can pay for it, thanks.

If I want a router, shouldn't comcast pay for it? No, it betters my use of the internet in the home. Why shouldn't cable buy me an HDTV and front the cost so they can get me to pay more for the HDTV box at $5 a month? See how ridiculous that is?

Do I use my home phone while in the home? Yea.. ITS WHY I HAVE ONE. Home phones/wire-lines are still far superior to cell phones in quality and reliability. If my cell rings, I answer it, but when I make a call, I pick up the cell phone.

It's becoming clear that you are one that finds your cell phone to be a great conveneince and liberator and that's fine; nothing wrong with that. BUT, it's not the replacement to a home phone and never has been. What these new devices to, however, IS gives you a step closer towards tying your phone TO the home. This is really nothing new. It's been discussed making the wireless phone the new home phone for years. It's been talked about LONG before BBR posted this thread, that sooner or later, a device, or repeater, would be placed on the home to tie down the wireless phone to the home.. and here they come. (I've been reading about this since the early 2000's)

While you feel it would be more successful if they were marketed with a one time cost, you still fail to realize the impact of calling. Calls still do not remain free. And, we're not talking about just local calling. There are termination fees that are paid to the destination phone company on every call. The reason you get free mobile to mobile calling, or for a small $5 fee, is because the calls remains on their network with out a termination.

If you move the call to a VOIP transport, the termination fees still remain. Further, if you say that those calls are no longer counted against your minutes, great! .. then people yak on their phones much longer running up costs. $10 is a drop in the bucket for that. Also, long distance still costs and you have to explain that one.

Should your phone work at your house? I didn't rally against it. I just said that what you're trying to do is make a demand and justify that your mobile phone SHOULD work at your BILLING ADDRESS which I don't agree with. If you're not on the coverage map, close to it, or your house is blocking the signals, then that's not the radio providers fault. I can't always get AM radio in my home, should the government or the individual radio stations provide me a repeater? or should I buy an antenna?

PEOPLE have to take responsibility. There is a point where demarcation has to take place; it exists in phone, power, cable, water, and sewer, and even over the air television so why should cellular phones be different?

In case you don't know, the demarc is where they stop, and your responsibility starts. My home has no issues with cell phones working in it. If yours does, maybe its your houses make up. I believe that if you can use your phone outside and you walk inside, its not necessarily the fault of the radio provider. After all, your 'cellular/mobile' phone is really a radio device.

I do understand that there are still costs associated with the network usage. However, would you agree that these type of devices actually reduce stress on the cellular network? It's a cost/benefit. Yes, it will still cost Sprint money to route these calls from femtocells, but it's cheaper for them than if they were routed over the traditional mobile network. I'm not implying calls made from femtocells shouldn't carry a cost (i.e part of a users monthly minute allowance), I'm just saying that it doesn't necessitate the $4.99+$15.00 monthly cost and $100 equipment charge that they want.

Here's an example. I have a digital cable box from Comcast. Yes, I pay a small rental fee ($2.50?) a month for the box. However, the box allows me to access On-Demand, Premium channels, etc., therefore providing more revenue for Comcast. These femtocells afford the consumer more opportunities to use their phone (i.e data usage, minute usage) thereby increasing revenue for Sprint.

For a company like Sprint that is hanging on by a thread financially, they need to stop nickle and diming customers, and look at the bigger picture at how they can increase their revenue. Maybe by making customers happy and enticing them to purchase devices that provide more revenue? I know the Instinct is a good start, but they need to be INNOVATIVE! Femtocells do not come across as an innovative technology to the consumer, and IMO they wont shell out money for this thing.

Do I believe it's a cost benefit for Sprint? No. For the customer? Yes. Think of it in this term. If you DIDN'T have the device, and you used your phone, you'd be charged per minute, right? Sending a call over the towers is somewhat costly. Partially, minutes are a way to "traffic shape" people's use. If everyone paid, say, $50 a month for unlimited service, then what? .... people don't understand "in moderation" and would sit on the phone and yak and yak all day long. What does this do? It stresses the most delicate system. Remember, mobile phones roam and tower usage can be impacted at anytime. So, keeping in mind why you have a minute bucket monthly, and remembering that there is still a cost associated with providing calls, unlimited LD, etc as well, your call still bears a cost per minute.

In comes this new option. What they are saying is they'd offer you a way to gain more use of your phone on an "unlimited" basis (which nothing is really unlimited anyway) for a small extra feature charge. (Remember, your per minute still costs them) Your end of the deal, remove yourself from the tower and pay a small fee. Their end, they don't charge you for the minutes you use. Sounds like a good deal.

You, however, are feeling that since it's over the net, there should be no charge as you're doing them a favor. Don't forget, if you had what you wanted, better signal inside, and used your phone on the network, your calls would still count.

Cell companies are, yes, trying to generate more revenue, however, people are currently hanging up the land line or trying to reduce it by taking triple plays, 3rd party voips, or cutting the cord all together - but, that also means people have to regulate their time on the phone. Sprint, and others, are saying that for $10 more, you can have the one provider, use your cell as mobile as you are away, and at home, you have a voip service. To me, this is a great offer.

People that are using their cell phones as primary lines now are also doing something that land lines don't make you do.. live with in minutes per month.

What these cell providers are doing is going head on with the likes of Vonage. You can have a mobile phone and a "land line" type service in one. Vonage would charge you $14.95 for 500 minutes or $24.95 for their unlimited 5000 plan. Sprint and TMobile are offering you a competing service for just $10.00 a month, AND, something better.. one number and you're not tethered. If you also didn't know, some of their lower ended plans carried a $5.00 charge for mobile to mobile calls and those were in network. Count in the termination costs, long distance fees where they carry, and the $10.00 ($5 over mobile to mobile) isn't so bad.

Comcast charges about $6.95 for a box, so you know, not $2.50. OnDemand content is largely free except for PPV events which not all use. This example actually works against you. In the case of comcast, the box is required to receive digital services. The rental saved you from purchasing a box of your own or a digital cable ready set where you get a cable card free. With a rental charge, you didn't have to put the upfront cost of the box purchase and you didn't have to repair the box when they inevitably fail.

Sprint, however, is selling you a box for $100. (Not overly priced in my opinion - slightly higher than a good network routers) And, the $10 a month benefits YOU, more than it does Sprint. It benefits Sprint because of the small revenue potential on the monthly fee, but you're more likely to stay a subscriber. Further, YOU benefit because you can increase the use, thus, value of your cell phone. If you had a $40 plan with 400 minutes a month, you're stuck at 400 minutes. You sound like you want to use your phone at home - probably more than your land line. You're stuck at 400 minutes and overage at 40 cents per minute.

Guess what happens when you hit that 425th minute... you have $10 in overage, and it doesn't stop until the next month. (That $10 sound better yet?)

You have a choice, don't buy the feature. Up your monthly minutes so you can use your phone more and not receive over charges.

Further, your statement about Sprint hanging on by a thread is overstated. Sprint isn't dying. Companies can go up and down all the time. If they don't adjust their overhead and internal operation to compensate, then they are hurting. I'm sorry to say, but maybe 2% of the user base of BBR has any clue about high finance and corporate affairs and rarely have people predicted any demise right. Sprint isn't hurting as people would believe they are.

And, you are confusing a nickle and dime with new features. I'm sorry you fail to see the value in this - it's a shame. Nickle and diming, to me, is when you raise txt rates, raise per minute overage, charge for calling customer service, etc. Offering people a way to get MUCH more out of their phones at a reduced rate... that's a benefit.

Remember, cells are still premium services. What you want is simple.. you want a $40 a month service, unlimited home phone service (which you'd have to pay a VOIP provider at LEAST $24.99 a month for no in addition to your cell phone) to have the best of both worlds.. and pay not a dime more. Explain that please.

Also, Sprint is not in the business of selling hardware, another fact you're not realizing. They make their money in 1) air time and 2) keeping customers around. Hardware does bring them some revenue, but it's not their bread and butter. In your post, you state that "Femtocells do not come across as an innovative technology to the consumer" another mistake you're making. YOU don't know. YOU have not done a study. You are simply applying YOUR feeling to the "consumer"... People said that the likes of voip would not take business away from land lines.. I think those people need to stop making predictions.

People who have an ounce of financial brain in their head WILL shell out money for the service. A family of 4, for example, who shares a small pool of minutes WOULD be smart especially if they are looking at getting rid of their landlines or adding a voip service. How does this benefit? Easy.. they save on minutes at home, they all have their own lines now and don't have to share, and they can kill the land line often costing them upwards to $60+ a month. See, providers like Sprint DO get it and DO understand that it's a model that will cell. T-mobile gets it and put their marketing behind it.

I will put my money on my argument any day. This IS innovative and IS the future. It's what people have been asking for over the past several years. Seriously, I think you're missing the mark on this one.. and, to be honest, being just a tad bit cheap too. Remember.. cell = premium service. You're wanting a Cadillac at a Scion price.

You're not understanding me. I'm not trying to say customers should just get unlimited service without femtocells, at anything less than they charge for an unlimited plan now, what is it $99.99? I think that calls made WHEREVER, inside the house or outside the house should count against your minute pool, whatever it may be.

What I'm trying to say is that these devices are a way for Sprint to differentiate themselves by saying, "hey, we'll give you this box, and it will help you get better coverage inside your home", if needed by the customer. Even charge them the $99 or $100 dollars whatever it may be. Now if people WANT a plan that combines cellular and femtocell usage (unlimited), and tacks on more fees/costs whatever, then that's fine.

Why can't they provide the box (at cost), as a way to improve someone's coverage?

What you want is to try to move people that are accustomed to unlimited usage on their phone, landline, internet, television, to a tiered and metered service. Telco's are slowly beginning to feel the pinch as they try to all offer triple plays, yet don't have the infrastructure to sustain it. You cannot move the American consumer who is accustomed to unlimited usage, to limits and caps. Call it American excess all you want, but consumers are not going to stand for LESS SERVICE AT HIGHER PRICES! These corporations need to pony up and actively invest in their infrastructure instead of patching and hodgepoding their systems together!

reply to mike12806
Nothing is for free, you are merely paying access to the net, but the pipe is not your own. It's that of the company, you are bound to a contract to behave while using that access and at any time your access can be terminated.

Second, this device will clearly need some form of server back end to offset all these incoming calls from all these devices and that costs money and a massive infrastructure that your yearly income is just enough to pay for the steel that the servers run on. That's where your 20.00 a month goes into with a 4.99 more than likely access fee.

Third, a phone is a piece of equipment. There is a one time charge for this equipment, but the problem is that people complain, saying that the radio technology is to expensive, so a way that benefits the company and benefits you, contracts are in place if the carrier covers for a certain portion of your phone. The only problem is that YOU the consumer are never satisfied, and your fat happy ass wants more and more so you eat another contract for another phone that offers a 2.0megapixel camera vs the 1.3 you currently have. Yet when that phone does not meet your expectations you sit and complain about your mistake because you cannot cancel your contract.

Fourth, these devices are successful, the problem is the users who demands so much from a NATIONWIDE network that coverages THOUSANDS OF MILES across the United States and expect for everything to go without a hiccup. Cell networks can only handle so much, but the capacity nor the technology is there yet. We are JUST NOW moving over to faster higher speed cell networks, this is a transition that's probably been happening for a while now, but the deployments have just started.

These devices would be much more successful to everyone if some form a REASONABLE expectation can be reached out of them.

reply to mike12806
Unlimited service, at $99.00 a month, which I have, is unlimited minutes all the time. I don't need the fem to cell.

but, you're not getting it.. it's not about "improving coverage" necessarily.. it's about expanding use, offloading the tower haul and customers get a bene of unlimited home minutes WHILE at their home WHERE they can use their net connection.

And, now you're absurd in thinking.. why should anyone give you anything free or at cost? That's silly.

I've explained all this to you in many ways.. it's not that you're not understanding it.. it's about the fact that you don't like this and feel jipped. Problem is, you're not. You're expectations are out of line..

This isn't a patch.. and to say they aren't investing is foolish. I'm sorry, you're just being silly and not listening to facts.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for the conversation.

reply to HEDP
I'll have to side with mike on this one. While Sprint still needs resources to terminate calls over the 'net, just imagine how much it costs to build/operate a tower to cover a dead spot. Most of these towers need bonded T-1's, which sometimes cost as much as $400-500/month. Plus, you must get the appropriate permits, and get the T1's, power lines, and backup batteries/gensets at that tower, JUST to cover a few customers. Instead, with the femtocell, Sprint's just paying for the 'net-based call terminations, and a small server farm to manage the calls, which ends up being a fraction of the cost of putting up towers and expanding coverage. So at the end of the day, what would've appeared as a loss on Sprint's checkbook now is a net gain, and yet another revenue stream.
And seriously, anyone who thinks that the cost of hauling calls from actual towers, and those from femtos is the same (not to mention that you have to build NEW towers to cover areas femtos are going in), is out of their mind.
So, in a nutshell, the customer should be able to pay for the femto and use it as a way to burn up minutes in exch. for better coverage. Take it this way, if their home HAD been covered, they (the sub) would've been consuming a part of a tower's rather expensive airtime and T1 bandwidth, which they're not. Hence, unless you want the 'unlimited' option, the ongoing fees should be nada, zilch.
Peace,
a333