Cablevision Still Cooking Up a Wireless Play
Company Hires Former Sprint Engineer For New Post
Cablevision appears to be considering a broader wireless play. A few years back Cablevision spent $300 million to not only upgrade customers to DOCSIS 3.0 and faster speeds, but the company started deploying Wi-Fi hotspots across their footprint as a free add-on for Optimum subscribers. Now Cablevision has hired former Sprint engineer Andrew Ip as vice president of wireless technology and operations
, suggesting they've got broader ambitions in the wireless space. Cablevision has been notably absent from the group of cable operators partnering with Verizon Wireless on LTE services, and as early as 2010 we noted
that Cablevision was tinkering with some kind of mobile phone service that relied on Wi-Fi. The service is rumored to be named "Optimum Mobile" but Cablevision has yet to iron out kinks such as getting suitable roaming partners in place for when users are outside of the range of Wi-Fi (Sprint? Clearwire?).
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
Re: Sprint? LMAO! Sprint has LTE in more places than T-Mobile at this point
Seriously though, Sprint has let their network go to crap over the past two years, because they thought Clearwire would be able to do a near-full WiMAX overlay. That didn't happen. So now they're a couple years behind, but they're coming back with a vengeance with LTE. NYC will be live with LTE on Sprint before T-Mobile even starts their LTE deployment (though TMo will go faster than Sprint because they already have the backhaul...and in some cases the tower equipment...in place).
Don't get me wrong. Sprint's network sucks in some areas. However I've used their LTE and it blows past T-Mobile H+. As far as WiFi calling goes, a Sprint MVNO is working on that (republic wireless). Though Sprint is choosing Clearwire TD-LTE as their offload strategy, rather than WiFi, for heavy-use areas.
Speaking of MVNOs, Sprint is by far the most MVNO-friendly company out there. Hence why there are a few Sprint MVNOs that aren't Sprint-owned in the news right now (Ting and republic), plus Boost and Virgin (Sprint-owned). T-Mobile has a much smaller MVNO portfolio, though they're expanding things now.
Saint Clair Shores, MI
Re: Sprint? LMAO!
said by hottboiinnc:Big dif between using Sprint vs stealing a Sprint guy to do the job. Also, I'm a beta test of Republic. Don't hold your breath . Service is cheap and so is a screw driver at the dollar store. You get what you pay for and it's NOT READY for prime time. Even with the new motorola phone they offer. Service (not sprints fault) gets jacked up because they software can't switch between CDMA/WiFi very well, phone locks up all the time and when you "report a problem", they blow you off and offer no solutions or fixes. Anyone who didn't pay and upgrade their POS Samsuck Opt-out-of=network S (optimus S) phone was told no more updates to the phone will be offered so whatever sucky software they had, your stuck with it. I rather pay virgin Mobile the extra 10 bucks and get a REAL phone the WORKS when you need it. Nuff said.
Republic is doing WiFi calling by running the voice part over their own SIP/VoIP network. Republic's parent company actually is the provider of GoogleVoice's backhaul and network; bandwidth.com who is a major CLEC.
It's common knowledge that Virgin Mobile USA and Boost are Sprint's Prepaid Unit. Sprint is the most friendly MVNO due to they bring in more $$$ by doing that than in their post-paid. Why not go into the MVNE business? They make a ton of $$$ by not providing anything but the network. Makes perfect sense for them. I also don't see why a 4g network has any play in who they select since they have wifi in major parts of their network.
But I do not see CV using Sprint due to them stating before they wanted to use TMO-USA for mobile service.
Re: I HOPE this is right...
said by KCrimson:Healthy competition is an oxymoron for most companies.. or just plain moron(ic) given the circumstances of the players in the market. However, more forefront on people's minds is the fact that Cablevision never introduced a 300mbit tier & still hock a 15/2 tier for $29.95 but only in bundles now. The change in marketing practices from punchy commercials (which I suspect were aimed at the Hispanic / Minority customer base) seemed to do all it could do and now have a generic (white?) marketing campaign.. apparently Cablevision feels that Verizon is "gentrifying" their product to cater to the upper middle class who could actually "AFFORD" higher prices of PREMIUM triple & quad play bundle$. Not sure how cablevision plans to go after the same customers without offering more than a-- "Hey, look, we're here.. you have a choice" tv commercial.. isn't that the essence of the Republican brand these days (with some added whining)? One can assume the commercial is aimed at the suburbs instead of NYC.. where they face new competition from Verizon. IMO, this can't spell it out any better, Cablevision is taking their eye off the "BALL" and the NYC market for granted.
During the last two years Verizon (FiOS) and Cablevision have gotten too comfortable in the markets they once competed VERY fiercely in. Gone are the endless win-back promotions that kept prices low. It seemed that Cablevision was hurting after their ABC-TV blackout fiasco, undertook a management change and switched the focus of their marketing. Lets hope that this brings back some healthy competition, as Cablevision attempts to step into one of Verizon's established markets.
A couple things of note.. cablevision is experimenting with allowing Voice customers to use SIP for calling over wifi connections.. but their video streaming apps just plain SUCK.. those will have to be hashed out better.. I don't have video or voice, but that's because they failed to offer a decent deal at the time and I made my choice for Ooma voice so it's unlikely they'll win back a voice customer. As much as (video) cord cutting is popular, should they sufficiently evolve the video business model they can always win customers back.. but it won't be easy or cheap (in terms of offering a lower price and better video/internet bundle).
Cablevision should max out it's docsis 3 speeds and offer tiers going up to the maximum capability (which apparently is about 300 - 350mbits). Speeds could look like this: 50, 100, 150, 300 instead of 15, 50, 100.. (the first three at the same or lower than current prices/bundle savings).
Re: I HOPE this is right... Well, first to MT: I tried to install the android app on a samsung galaxy tab, not only did it not work, but it was trying to "TEST" if the tab had an external screen on the website to even allow downloading.. it was only workable on the kindle fire.. so not of use to 99.9% of tablets.
Second, BOTH companies Verizon and Cableivsion have political messages in their advertising and corporate activism and to not see it is to stick your head in the sand.. even before Verizon became a content company, they had their hands in many local government pies lobbying hard to get video franchises for FIOS, and before that to keep AT&T out of the long distance wireline market for many years (the latter as both Bell Atlantic and later Verizon). What they do today to the extent that it's anti-consumer or ignoring what the consumer demands in products and services is open to interpretation of motives and where applicable political implications & critique. Conversely, when these companies to right by the consumer they are also open to praise.
However, the last bit of good news on internet access wasn't the fact that 2 companies introduced 300mbit internet plans.. but was google's intent to deliver 1 gigabit symmetric broadband for less than half the price. Companies might be attempting to evolve their business models, but you have to ask yourself evolve to what? What's motivating and driving this change? Is it really what the consumer wants-- or is in their best interest?
My appologies if you assumed I reduced who Cablevision's and Verizon's core customer bases are (along ethnic lines) it was merely a critique in the sudden change of Cablevision's advertising. And if that was your interpretation of what you think I was saying.. if these companies actually had those statistics, you could look to see if it were true or not, afterall ethnicity is not where people live but what they'd check or write-in on the Census.