Cable/Sprint Pivot Project on HoldNo new markets coming for the moment ( old news - 05:07PM Friday Nov 02 2007) tags: business · cable · Sprint Mobile Broadband · RoadRunner Cable · Cox HSICable companies and Sprint have been grumbling about their co-branded Pivot wireless service -- which for $15-$25 (on top of a traditional Sprint mobile plan) nets cable customers mobile video content, email access and web browsing. Comcast's CEO had admitted there's limited consumer interest, while Sprint has complained that the cable operators (Cox, Time Warner Cable, Advance/Newhouse are also on board) aren't pushing the service very hard. In a conference call, Sprint CFO Paul Saleh says the Pivot service is "very complex to provision," so they're putting expansion on hold right now. As it stands, Pivot is only available in portions of 33 markets -- and in those markets, marketing has been minimal. "We are looking at alternative ways of just really simplifying the offering and make it a whole lot simpler at the point of sale," says the CFO. While I'm sure it's hard to get everyone on the same page, I'm also sure they're taking a hard look at why many users aren't biting. While the name may be unified, the cable operators advertise and price the service differently (see Time Warner Cable, Cox, Comcast). Consumers are probably confused as to why they need to shell out $25 for the service (or $5 per TV channel), and the operators aren't selling the idea of wireless convergence very well in order to justify the price tag.
Related:- Kevin Martin Doesn't Hate Cable, He Just Loves Ma Bell
- Time Warner Cable: Caps 'Make Your Internet Experience Better'
- Shift To SDV Leaving Some CableCARD Owners Stranded
- Cox Raising Broadband Prices In Several States
- Time Warner Cable Sells Off Some Systems
- Cox Offers Upstream Powerboost
- Time Warner Cable Powerboost Hits Texas
- Time Warner Cable Using Fine Print To Foist Caps On Customers
|
 Cogdis
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY | Cable isn't promoting Cable companies aren't promoting this service at all. If it wasn't for dslr I wouldn't even know it existed... | |
|  | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: Cable isn't promoting My TWC office has a little metal rack that tells about it with fake phones and the price tag for the service. If you don't really watch the tvs in their office or look when going in you don't even see it and they don't say anything. | |
| | | 
dadkins
Living on a Blu Planet
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | I'd take one... ... just tag it on my Comcast bill!
Been waiting for this since... Nov 2004? 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Consumer interest? After looking at what you get with Pivot, I have to wonder how many people will want it, even if it's promoted properly. Mobile TV? VZW is doing that now with V CAST, and I don't see a flood of customers getting that. Free calls to your Comcast Digital Voice home number? How about calls to your home number, no matter the carrier? Or how about calls to all CDV customers? Maybe I don't have CDV. If not, how does this help me? And mobile e-mail? Anyone with wireless data can do that. Granted, there may be data charges, but how often are you in a situation where you absolutely must check your mail, yet you can't locate a computer? I know it happens, but does it happen often enough to justify the cost?
And, let's see, where is the ability to use my Comcast HSI service to connect my phone directly to the Internet and make unlimited calls, like T-Mobile allows? Ah, but if I had that, I wouldn't need CDV. OK, never mind.
I just can't see a compelling reason to get something like this, especially since I already have service with AT&T. But even if I had a reason to switch, I'm not going with SPCS. Been there, done that, and service was awful. IMHO, Sprint would be better served by beefing up their network to offer a better signal than doing deals like this Pivot thing. | |
| | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: Consumer interest? I could actually see either the cable companies or Sprint giving up on this project rather soon since nobody is happy with the deal. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
edit:
November 2nd, @08:15PM
| Re: Consumer interest? I'm wondering how long it will be before Comcast simply buys sprint and rolls it into the Comcast Media Center. After all, this would fit their model well and then could tailer this to other cable operators on a MUCH better manipulate the service.
I don't think it's over.. I just think that this leg is being rethought.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
 ·Time Warner VOIP
 ·1and1
| 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. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| I agree with you at large - except the home calling to just any home phone as it would defeat the purpose.
Honestly.. the co-branding for the cable companies is a bit strange. What they should have done was simply have worked out a package with Sprint for an add-on connector package to interface with the home cable services such as DVR - etc.
And even then, they can do it with out the need to co-brand with any specific cell provider. All they need to do is develop a cell data site that can be accessed through the phone's browser. Why pay any particular provider?
Any customer with wifi, web, or cell phone could simply connect to their home services. Why charge? It should be part of the cable service and an added value service anyway.
I think all the cable companies went about this wrong to begin with.
I just don't think that most people are willing to tie their cell phone to their cable company directly. I know that I'd not drop Nextel and my two-way service just to program my DVR and call home for free, or give up my free incoming plan for a more expensive bill. People's cell phone use varies a lot by the user. Pivot doesn't offer enough flexibility to sell the masses, not to mention, right off the bat, you lose access to any customer that was already upset with the Sprint service.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·Time Warner VOIP
·1and1
| Re: Consumer interest? As far as the co-brand id like to know that as well. Because with Qwest they use the Qwest name instead of the Sprint brand. I wonder why the cable companies couldnt have done that with the service or with anyone. Hell even TM does it with iWireless but just stamps an affiliate on it; but still iWireless is iWireless. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Consumer interest? I think in the line of Qwest, they did it as a way to end their own failing wireless service.
Qwest, it you recall, in the time things were unfolding, had two choices.. pursue DSL or Wireless. They felt that wireless phones were not the way to go and that DSL/Data to the home was going to be a better seller. (Which is why Qwest was pretty much the leader of DSL) However, they neglected wireless at the time. (This is very much simple explanation and could be explained better in detail - yet not important for this message)
Qwest stopped their own network and moved all their customers on the the new sprint/qwest branded service and still sell it under their own name with their own logos on the phone, etc.
So far, for qwest, it's been ok as far as marketing.
But, if you think about it, to Qwest, how much of an embarrassment is it to be the only phone company with out a wireless service of their own?
On the other side, they do DSL very well and don't mess with their customers like at&t and verizon do.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·Time Warner VOIP
·1and1
edit:
November 2nd, @10:39PM
| Re: Consumer interest? Actually its probably better for Qwest to have Sprint or someone else (if they choose) to outsource the network saves them money on network upgrades and such but the only thing it really limits is what Sprint or who ever else wants to offer in that area or expand when they want; Qwest really has no power over that.
But I have used Qwest as a long distance company and a T-1 carrier; loved them for both very friendly and great customer service and support. The only actual telco I'd care to do business again thats a RBOC. | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Consumer interest? I will say this - I have had some bad run-ins with Qwest on the residential side. But also good ones as well. Business has always been well..
However, of all three major telephone companies, it still seems today that Qwest is the last of the major companies that isn't finding new ways, daily, on how to annoy the consumer and make it harder and harder to buy their product.
As much as I can say I really don't like the company for my past experiences, I can still say that they are still one of the last good ones. (and their efforts to improve a history of absolute horrid service has not gone un-noticed.)
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | 
RRMAN
Premium
join:2007-04-02
Cleveland, OH | Re: Consumer interest? Well I have had it for a while now...it is great! Fast video, fast internet...one bill. Nice!
--
Two people shorten a road. | |
| | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: Consumer interest? The video should be fast its on a rebuilt EVDO network in most areas. But wait for the service to degrade like it does after you sign up or something happens they'll be passing the buck on that service.
It's a no no service to sign up with. | |
| Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
edit:
November 2nd, @07:44PM
| MVNOs are played out MVNOs aren't fairing to well in the marketplace. For the most part the wireless market has settled. There is no more room for new players. | |
| | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·Time Warner VOIP
·1and1
| Re: MVNOs are played out it depends. Some MVNOs are very successful at what they do look at Virgin Mobile or TracFone and Net10 Net10 is owned by TracFone but was one of the newest that entered the market. They have a large customer base as well. Leap Wireless/Cricket and Revol Wireless are MVNOs as well. And they have large customer bases. | |
| | | ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL | Re: MVNOs are played out Actually, Cricket isn't an MVNO. They own their own networks in the areas they serve. | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: MVNOs are played out Not all of them. When they were in my area they were an MVNO with Sprint, in Fresno Cali they are the same. Their stores will even tell you in areas they do not own their own networks. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·