Computerworld Article on Tiered versus Unlimited Data Plans--Tiered May be Coming to Verizon this Summer According to CFO

<http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215468/Data_caps_How_long_can_Verizon_Sprint_offer_unlimited_plans_?taxonomyId=16>

"Many smartphone users might respond to data caps (and threats of data
throttling) by resorting to heavy media downloads over their fast
Ethernet-based networks while at work or working at home over a
connection with fiber optic, DSL or cable modem. A smartphone on a home
Wi-Fi network connected to DSL or cable modem would only be governed by
the data limits, if any, of those wired services."

Of course if they would do this even without caps and throttling, the
carriers would not have to impose caps and throttling!

Maybe the carriers should try a carrot instead of a stick. Offer a
rebate for every GB under x GB used per month. Put limits on data but
offer "rollover."

Justin

2011-04-13 15:56:40 UTC

if any? AT&T is imposing caps, Time warner has caps, Comcast has caps

SMS

2011-04-13 16:12:20 UTC

if any? AT&T is imposing caps, Time warner has caps, Comcast has caps

That's true. But the reason for those caps is not because of network
capacity, it's that these companies want to sell customers TV service,
not have them use DSL or cable for downloading video instead of paying
big bucks for television services.

Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.

<http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/03/23/drilling-through-the-caps/>.

It's an interesting article, especially the part about what Bell Canada
is proposing; the quote by their CEO is priceless: “…as we see a growth
in video usage on the internet, making sure we’re monetizing that for
our shareholders through the bandwidth usage charges.”

Justin

2011-04-13 16:16:21 UTC

Post by SMS
Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.

Unfortunately DSL is noticable slower than cable modem.

We are about one block away from being within the local Fibre network
that would be faster and cheaper and better TV selection than the comcast
service have

News

2011-04-13 16:20:57 UTC

Post by SMS
Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.

Unfortunately DSL is noticable slower than cable modem.
We are about one block away from being within the local Fibre network
that would be faster and cheaper and better TV selection than the comcast
service have

So the wireless Data Hog won't move in range of fiber? With all you're
saving?

SMS

2011-04-13 16:38:15 UTC

Post by SMS
Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.

Unfortunately DSL is noticable slower than cable modem.

Depends how far you are from the c.o.. My ISP offers DSL at up to 20
mbps for $40/month (including landline phone service with unlimited LD)
or up to 40 mps for $70 a month (w/landline). The faster speed DSL is
"bonded" using two pairs.

The single line service is equivalent to Comcast's "Blast" service at
$69 per month (without phone service), and the bonded service is
comparable to Comcast's Extreme 50 service at $115 per month.

Of course you could be far from the c.o. and get slower speeds on DSL.
For me, the comparable (in terms of speed) Comcast service would be
their $50/month "Performance Starter" level package.

Justin

2011-04-13 17:52:16 UTC

Post by SMS
Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.

Unfortunately DSL is noticable slower than cable modem.

That's great for you, all we have here is AT&T
and their pricing is crap

and they offer speeds up to 18Mbps at 40 a month on a promo rate. yay

Dillon Pyron

2011-04-16 04:17:09 UTC

if any? AT&T is imposing caps, Time warner has caps, Comcast has caps

That's true. But the reason for those caps is not because of network
capacity, it's that these companies want to sell customers TV service,
not have them use DSL or cable for downloading video instead of paying
big bucks for television services.
Some ISPs have no caps, i.e. my DSL provider sent out a message stating
that they have "no plans" to cap data usage. They are also less
expensive than AT&T for higher speed plans.
<http://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/03/23/drilling-through-the-caps/>.
It's an interesting article, especially the part about what Bell Canada
is proposing; the quote by their CEO is priceless: as we see a growth
in video usage on the internet, making sure were monetizing that for
our shareholders through the bandwidth usage charges.

Even as the telcos and cable companies advertise downloading that very
same content. Of course (if you watch the idiot in the TW ads), it's
all from their services.

Lots of folks have been proclaiming WiMax & 4G (well, 4G LTE) as
"saviors". Of course, 3G was the savior. As long as there weren't
very many people actually using it.

The AT&T rep told us that as long as we're sending them a check every
month, we're grandfathered under the unlimited plan, even if we go off
contract, which is what we usually do until they make us an absurd
offer.

Of course, we all know that sooner or later grandfather dies.

--
- dillon I am not invalid

An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.

Joel Koltner

2011-04-19 01:07:20 UTC

Post by Dillon Pyron
The AT&T rep told us that as long as we're sending them a check every
month, we're grandfathered under the unlimited plan, even if we go off
contract, which is what we usually do until they make us an absurd
offer.
Of course, we all know that sooner or later grandfather dies.

At least with Sprint, what usually happens is that the phone dies; while they
really will keep a grandfathered plan around forever, it seems, as soon as you
want or need (due to breakage) a new phone, unless it's a phone that's 100%
identical to the one you're replacing, they may simply not allow you to
transfer your current plan to your new phone.

E.g., data plans for Windows Mobile phones couldn't be used with Android
phones, nor could data plans for 3G phones be used with 4G phones (...without
the $10/mo 4G surcharge).

---Joel

nospam

2011-04-19 04:29:36 UTC

Post by Joel Koltner
At least with Sprint, what usually happens is that the phone dies; while they
really will keep a grandfathered plan around forever, it seems, as soon as you
want or need (due to breakage) a new phone, unless it's a phone that's 100%
identical to the one you're replacing, they may simply not allow you to
transfer your current plan to your new phone.

nope. they'll do an esn swap without affecting an existing plan and the
phone need not be identical.

however, they will probably not go for a smartphone to replace a
dumbphone.

Post by Joel Koltner
E.g., data plans for Windows Mobile phones couldn't be used with Android
phones, nor could data plans for 3G phones be used with 4G phones (...without
the $10/mo 4G surcharge).

that's an add-on.

Todd Allcock

2011-04-19 23:48:07 UTC

nope. they'll do an esn swap without affecting an existing plan and the
phone need not be identical.
however, they will probably not go for a smartphone to replace a
dumbphone.

Tell that too everyone on a SERO plan who tried to swap a WinMo
smartphone with an Android.

SMS

2011-04-25 23:01:50 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
Tell that too everyone on a SERO plan who tried to swap a WinMo
smartphone with an Android.

You would think that Sprint would be anxious to keep those SERO
customers, but apparently that is not the case. Clearly none of the
carriers want Android smart phones on plans that don't include a $15-30
data plan, even if it means losing some customers completely.

It's amazing that Page Plus is allowed to continue offering their plans
on any Verizon compatible phone other than the iPhone. The only thing
protecting Page Plus is that so few consumers have ever heard of them.

George

2011-04-26 11:25:53 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
Tell that too everyone on a SERO plan who tried to swap a WinMo
smartphone with an Android.

You would think that Sprint would be anxious to keep those SERO
customers, but apparently that is not the case. Clearly none of the
carriers want Android smart phones on plans that don't include a $15-30
data plan, even if it means losing some customers completely.
It's amazing that Page Plus is allowed to continue offering their plans
on any Verizon compatible phone other than the iPhone. The only thing
protecting Page Plus is that so few consumers have ever heard of them.

Not really. Clearly you are very enthusiastic (some would say a fanboi)
about Pageplus and somehow believe all of the stuff you write totally
disregarding that there are lots of folks who are knowledgeable and
would welcome paying less and maintaining usability but know that free
WiFI doesn't exist as you describe.

SMS

2011-04-26 14:23:39 UTC

Post by George
Not really. Clearly you are very enthusiastic (some would say a fanboi)
about Pageplus and somehow believe all of the stuff you write totally
disregarding that there are lots of folks who are knowledgeable and
would welcome paying less and maintaining usability but know that free
WiFI doesn't exist as you describe.

Sprint's policy on SERO customers activating Android devices means that
many of those price-sensitive SERO customers will simply find another
low-cost carrier. Sprint did (belatedly) offer SERO customers the
"opportunity" to pay $10 more per month to use an Android or Palm device
on a SERO plan, and forced Blackberry users to do so (or leave).

What really sucked is that the Sprint policy of allowing Android devices
came after many SERO customers had left Sprint because they would not
allow Android activations. Clearly Sprint panicked over the churn
(mistakenly believing that most SERO customers would simply become
full-price customers), but did not let those that had left, because they
couldn't activate an Android, come back onto SERO.

What's working in favor of Page Plus at this time is the increased
availability and decline in price of smart phones with Wi-Fi. A
price-sensitive smart phone user that doesn't need massive amounts of 3G
data can easily stay within the 100MB data limit of Page Plus since
Wi-Fi has become so ubiquitous.

A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.

That same study showed that the average monthly data usage for Android
phones was 209MB/month in 2010. Break it down by percentages and 84MB
was used at home and 52MB was used at work, two places where it's highly
likely that there is other internet access available, but for someone
with an unlimited data plan there's no incentive to be frugal and use
Wi-Fi. 73MB was used away from home or work, and of that 73MB much of it
was probably used in places where Wi-Fi was available (Airports,
Bakeries, Barber Shops, Bars, Campgrounds, Car Repair Shops, Car
Dealers, Car Washes, Coffee Houses, Colleges, Copy Centers, Donut Shops,
Fwy Rest Areas, Government Buildings, Hospitals, Medical Centers,
Hotels, Laundromats, Libraries, Parks, Restaurants, Shopping Malls,
Friend’s Homes, Frozen Yogurt Shops, etc.).

The bottom line is that the vast majority of 3G/4G data is used by
subscribers that rightfully see no need to be frugal with 3G/4G data
usage since they are paying for an unlimited data plan. All studies show
that a 100 MB metered data plan is usually sufficient for users willing
to use 3G/4G only when there is no Wi-Fi or other internet access
available. AT&T stated that 65% of their smart phone users use less than
200MB per month (their smallest data plan for $15 extra per month). If
you used 200MB on Talk N Text 1200 it would be $45 per month ($30 plus
$15 for the 2nd 100MB) while the closest AT&T voice/text/data plan with
200MB per month would have a total cost of about $75 per month.

If you a) Use Wi-Fi When Available, b) Don’t Stream Movies & TV over 3G,
c) Don't Transfer Huge image/video files over 3G, d) Don’t Use a 3G
Based GPS (use an app that stores maps on the phone), e) Don’t Use Push
e-mail (use web-based e-mail), and f) Don’t be Stupid, you can use a lot
less data while not really negatively impacting your life.

Of course there are those that really need to use vast amounts of data
per month, and for them a Page Plus plan would not work, but the number
of those people is relatively small.

Paul Miner

2011-04-26 14:28:35 UTC

A price-sensitive smart phone user that doesn't need massive amounts of
3G data can easily stay within the 100MB data limit of Page Plus since
Wi-Fi has become so ubiquitous.
A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.

Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

--
Paul Miner

George

2011-04-26 17:56:00 UTC

Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

Not to mention that he seems to think everyone is stupid with his
incessant "Cisco study said".

As was pointed out to him companies do studies to advance their position
not because they are philanthropic and are doing a public service.

Cisco is a big vendor of wireless gear and telephony equipment. They
likely perceive that the need for their equipment could evaporate if
more users simply used the cell carrier systems. So they have to deliver
FUD to keep themselves needed.

Wes Groleau

2011-04-27 02:54:21 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.

With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.

And that's five minutes without a car.

--
Wes Groleau

There are two types of people in the world …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

SMS

2011-04-27 03:12:19 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

LOL, thanks. I don't care if someone wants to be upset over the word
"ubiquitous" meaning "everywhere" when the reality is as you stated,
close enough. Also, I would include not only free, open, and unsecure
Wi-Fi spots, but also no-charge Wi-Fi spots where a pass code or account
is provided at no charge. I.e. a restaurant, college campus, hospital,
or hotel that provides its guests with Wi-Fi, but that requires a
network security key or registration in order to use it, still would
qualify to be counted as wi-fi.

Still, I will concede that technically "nearly ubiquitous" more
accurately describes the state of no-charge Wi-Fi. Some people like to
argue for the sake of arguing.

Personally I would not go out of my way by driving anywhere for free
Wi-Fi, not with gasoline at $4.13 a gallon! I simply use Wi-Fi when it's
available, and use 3G at other times, and I don't hesitate to use 3G
data when I need it.

George

2011-04-27 14:16:03 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

LOL, thanks. I don't care if someone wants to be upset over the word
"ubiquitous" meaning "everywhere" when the reality is as you stated,
close enough. Also, I would include not only free, open, and unsecure
Wi-Fi spots, but also no-charge Wi-Fi spots where a pass code or account
is provided at no charge. I.e. a restaurant, college campus, hospital,
or hotel that provides its guests with Wi-Fi, but that requires a
network security key or registration in order to use it, still would
qualify to be counted as wi-fi.
Still, I will concede that technically "nearly ubiquitous" more
accurately describes the state of no-charge Wi-Fi. Some people like to
argue for the sake of arguing.

No, some people simply point out nonsense and bogus claims. You like to
come off like you are omniscient. But you aren't.

But I do enjoy getting the daily SMS "ubiquitous" free laugh...

Post by SMS
Personally I would not go out of my way by driving anywhere for free
Wi-Fi, not with gasoline at $4.13 a gallon! I simply use Wi-Fi when it's
available, and use 3G at other times, and I don't hesitate to use 3G
data when I need it.

Paul Miner

2011-04-27 03:16:54 UTC

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:54:21 -0400, Wes Groleau

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.

It's silly, alright, but not for that reason. It's silly because
arguing on Usenet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if
you win, well, you know...

Post by Wes Groleau
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

Your anecdote isn't convincing in the slightest. I can find areas with
plenty of WiFi, too, but a few very limited areas of availability do
not mean ubiquity. They illustrate just the opposite.

--
Paul Miner

Justin

2011-04-27 03:29:31 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:54:21 -0400, Wes Groleau

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.

It's silly, alright, but not for that reason. It's silly because
arguing on Usenet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if
you win, well, you know...

Post by Wes Groleau
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

Your anecdote isn't convincing in the slightest. I can find areas with
plenty of WiFi, too, but a few very limited areas of availability do
not mean ubiquity. They illustrate just the opposite.

I noticed SMS ignored my question about why he didn't use wifi when
he was at the end of his canoe run, where only verizon had cell coverage

Paul Miner

2011-04-27 06:17:57 UTC

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:29:31 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Paul Miner
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:54:21 -0400, Wes Groleau

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.

It's silly, alright, but not for that reason. It's silly because
arguing on Usenet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if
you win, well, you know...

Post by Wes Groleau
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

Your anecdote isn't convincing in the slightest. I can find areas with
plenty of WiFi, too, but a few very limited areas of availability do
not mean ubiquity. They illustrate just the opposite.

I noticed SMS ignored my question about why he didn't use wifi when
he was at the end of his canoe run, where only verizon had cell coverage

When a position, however strongly held, isn't supported by facts, I
guess a person has to choose wisely which questions will be addressed.

--
Paul Miner

George

2011-04-27 14:20:28 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:54:21 -0400, Wes Groleau

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.

It's silly, alright, but not for that reason. It's silly because
arguing on Usenet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if
you win, well, you know...

Post by Wes Groleau
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

Your anecdote isn't convincing in the slightest. I can find areas with
plenty of WiFi, too, but a few very limited areas of availability do
not mean ubiquity. They illustrate just the opposite.

I noticed SMS ignored my question about why he didn't use wifi when
he was at the end of his canoe run, where only verizon had cell coverage

Thats the problem with SMS. He frequently makes bogus claims (and thinks
they will become true if he keeps repeating them) and when someone calls
him he simply ignores it.

Justin

2011-04-27 03:28:49 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

Plenty of unsecured private wifi will be securing up really soon if
the news about being arrested by a SWAT team due to someone leeching
gets more coverage

Post by Wes Groleau
And that's five minutes without a car.

That's nice for you, useless information, but great for you. Within 10
minutes of walking from my house I can get to zero free open public wifi
services.

(PeteCresswell)

2011-04-27 12:27:19 UTC

Post by Justin
Plenty of unsecured private wifi will be securing up really soon if
the news about being arrested by a SWAT team due to someone leeching
gets more coverage

I Googled "WiFi Swat Team" and came away dismayed - but not
particularly shocked.

Devil's Advocate Position: If one password-protects their WAP,
maybe they would be in worse shape. At least with no password,
the guy had plausible deniability - as the police eventually
admitted. But with the router "protected" and somebody hacking
it, he'd be up a creek.

--
PeteCresswell

nospam

2011-04-27 17:29:37 UTC

Post by (PeteCresswell)
Devil's Advocate Position: If one password-protects their WAP,
maybe they would be in worse shape. At least with no password,
the guy had plausible deniability - as the police eventually
admitted. But with the router "protected" and somebody hacking
it, he'd be up a creek.

setting a password is evidence that he is blocking other users. anyone
who gains access by hacking the password is guilty of unauthorized
access, in addition to whatever else.

Steve Sobol

2011-04-27 23:23:40 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, (PeteCresswell)
says...

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Justin
Plenty of unsecured private wifi will be securing up really soon if
the news about being arrested by a SWAT team due to someone leeching
gets more coverage

I Googled "WiFi Swat Team" and came away dismayed - but not
particularly shocked.
Devil's Advocate Position: If one password-protects their WAP,
maybe they would be in worse shape. At least with no password,
the guy had plausible deniability - as the police eventually
admitted. But with the router "protected" and somebody hacking
it, he'd be up a creek.

Definitely an issue with WEP, which is why you need to use WPA2.

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net

(PeteCresswell)

2011-04-28 13:21:21 UTC

Post by Steve Sobol
Definitely an issue with WEP, which is why you need to use WPA2.

Is that to say that WPA2 is not hackable by ordinary means?

--
PeteCresswell

Steve Sobol

2011-04-28 15:45:37 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>, (PeteCresswell)
says...

Post by (PeteCresswell)

Post by Steve Sobol
Definitely an issue with WEP, which is why you need to use WPA2.

Is that to say that WPA2 is not hackable by ordinary means?

It's stronger encryption, and is harder to crack, although it's not
bulletproof.

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net

Steve Sobol

2011-04-27 03:35:52 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

Not me.

I can get to one or two, and they aren't very plentiful around here. At
least not yet.

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net

crkeehn

2011-04-27 09:28:43 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.
--
Wes Groleau
There are two types of people in the world .
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

and that's an army of one. I work in an area with a lack of open wifi.
Those businesses that have wifi secure it. The point is that making
generalizations based on a single or limited data points won't work. It is
clear that open wifi coverage is spotty with some areas offering much more
than other areas. I happen to work in an area that doesn't have wifi
readily available.

George

2011-04-27 13:52:05 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
Like someone pointed out recently, you obviously don't know what
ubiquitous means, but don't let that stop you from continually
repeating it.

It may not mean _exactly_ "everywhere" but it's close enough
that quarreling with SMS about it is silly.

Or not, that may be the case for you but it isn't for me. Stephen says
it is available in parks. Not so in the two local parks. Stephen says it
is available in food stores. Not so in the two stores where we shop.
Stephen says it is available where you work. I work at multiple
locations and no in each case. Stephen says it is available in
hospitals. That would be no in the the local hospitals and in a
university hospital in the nearest big city. Stephen says it is even
more ubiquitous in rural areas. I border on a rural area and that isn't so.

Post by Wes Groleau
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

So your experience is typical for everyone?

NightStalker

2011-05-03 06:36:13 UTC

In article <ip80gt$ose$***@dont-email.me>, Groleau+***@FreeShell.org
says...

Post by Wes Groleau
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

Sheesh - it's interesting how the US folks assume the rest of the world
is like theirs.

Here in Australia - and I live just outside one of the State capital
cities - we basically have a choice of McDonalds or McDonalds.

Sure, there are occasional coffee shops that have free wifi - VERY
occasional. Most publicly accessible Wifi here is expensive, and
charged by the 5-minute or 15-minute timeslots at exorbitant rates.
Even our domestic and international airports use Optus at about $10 for
a 15 minute timeslot.

Our City Library has Wifi, but you need a library card, barcode, and PIN
to access it. The nearest one of those to me is about a 20 minute
drive.

--
NightStalker

Paul Miner

2011-05-03 07:45:29 UTC

On Tue, 3 May 2011 16:36:13 +1000, NightStalker

Post by Steve Sobol
says...

Post by Wes Groleau
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

Sheesh - it's interesting how the US folks assume the rest of the world
is like theirs.
Here in Australia - and I live just outside one of the State capital
cities - we basically have a choice of McDonalds or McDonalds.
Sure, there are occasional coffee shops that have free wifi - VERY
occasional. Most publicly accessible Wifi here is expensive, and
charged by the 5-minute or 15-minute timeslots at exorbitant rates.
Even our domestic and international airports use Optus at about $10 for
a 15 minute timeslot.
Our City Library has Wifi, but you need a library card, barcode, and PIN
to access it. The nearest one of those to me is about a 20 minute
drive.

Please don't let one or two people speak for the entire US. Their
experiences are far from typical. In fact, typical is much closer to
what you just described.

--
Paul Miner

SMS

2011-05-03 15:16:23 UTC

Post by NightStalker
Sheesh - it's interesting how the US folks assume the rest of the world
is like theirs.

I don't think anyone was extrapolating the state of Wi-Fi on the U.S.
onto the ROW. These four newsgroups are about U.S. cellular carriers
(even though T-Mobile has networks outside the U.S., the T-Mobile group
essentially was a replacement for the old Voicestream group).

The Wi-Fi discussion all started with the idea that since the average
U.S. smart phone user is (allegedly, according to Cisco) using around
100MB per month of data (outside of home or work), that a lower cost,
limited data plan could be practical if a) the user chooses some other
Internet access at home or work (Wi-Fi on smart phone or other some
other wired or wireless device), and b) uses Wi-Fi, when available,
outside home or work, rather than automatically using cellular data all
the time (as many people do when they have unlimited data).

The savings can be substantial. On Verizon's network, to get unlimited
data, on a plan with 900 peak voice minutes and unlimited texts would
cost around $120 per month with taxes and fees. On Verizon's network to
get a 100MB, with 1200 peak minutes and 2000 texts, would cost about
$29.95 per month on Verizon's network. Is $90 per month worth being
frugal with data? It is to some people, it isn't to others.

In the U.S., besides McDonald's and libraries you can often find free
Wi-Fi at Airports, Beaches, Coffee Houses, Convention Centers, Medical
Centers, Bakeries, Colleges, Hotels, Barber Shops, Copy Centers,
Laundromats, Bars, Doughnut Shops, Campgrounds, Yogurt Shops, Parks, Car
Repair Shops, Freeway Rest Areas, Restaurants, Car Dealers, Government
Buildings, Shopping Malls, Car Washes, and Hospitals. No, not every one
of those places in every instance, and yes, sometimes you need to enter
a WEP/WPA key or some other code.

Look at <http://www.wififreespot.com/aus.html> for some free wi-fi
spots, but remember that this directory lists only a fraction of all
available spots.

In the U.S., if you're not into streaming audio and video to your phone
(or using other high data usage applications, such as a GPS without
locally stored maps), you can usually get by with a relatively small
amount of 3G data while mobile. If you commute by bus or train, rather
than by car, I can see wanting a lot more mobile data since you want to
use data during the commute, though many buses and trains (including in
Australia) now also provide Wi-Fi
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2008-04-10-wifi_N.htm>,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/education/12bus.html>,
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/21/wifi_metrobus/>.

Todd Allcock

2011-05-03 18:40:55 UTC

Post by NightStalker
Sheesh - it's interesting how the US folks assume the rest of the world
is like theirs.

The iPhone NG was also included, which tends to be a little more
international.

Post by SMS
The Wi-Fi discussion all started with the idea that since the average
U.S. smart phone user is (allegedly, according to Cisco) using around
100MB per month of data (outside of home or work), that a lower cost,
limited data plan could be practical if a) the user chooses some other
Internet access at home or work (Wi-Fi on smart phone or other some
other wired or wireless device), and b) uses Wi-Fi, when available,
outside home or work, rather than automatically using cellular data all
the time (as many people do when they have unlimited data).

You mean _YOU_ started this discussion...

Post by SMS
The savings can be substantial. On Verizon's network, to get unlimited
data, on a plan with 900 peak voice minutes and unlimited texts would
cost around $120 per month with taxes and fees. On Verizon's network to
get a 100MB, with 1200 peak minutes and 2000 texts, would cost about
$29.95 per month on Verizon's network. Is $90 per month worth being
frugal with data? It is to some people, it isn't to others.

True, but it unfortunately requires limiting the use of your smartphone
to essentially "dumbphone" type tasks.

I can save money with my car as well by simply never driving it anywhere.

Post by SMS
In the U.S., besides McDonald's and libraries you can often find free
Wi-Fi at Airports, Beaches, Coffee Houses, Convention Centers, Medical
Centers, Bakeries, Colleges, Hotels, Barber Shops, Copy Centers,
Laundromats, Bars, Doughnut Shops, Campgrounds, Yogurt Shops, Parks,
Car Repair Shops, Freeway Rest Areas, Restaurants, Car Dealers,
Government Buildings, Shopping Malls, Car Washes, and Hospitals. No,
not every one of those places in every instance, and yes, sometimes you
need to enter a WEP/WPA key or some other code.

God Bless America, Land of the Free, and Home of Ubiquitous Wireless
Connectivity!
If only. As many of us have continually pointed out, outside of some
"enlightened" high-tech industry areas, (like your neck of the woods,)
that blanket statement doesn't apply to the entire, or even the majority,
of the USA.

Here in the Denver suburbs, your list above is pretty much limited to
coffee shops, bookstores, libraries, hotels, McDonald's and the airport.
Exceptions exist, of course, but _far_ more parks, car repair shops, etc.
do _not_ offer WiFi than those that do. That's not a lot of free WiFi in
4500 square miles.

A problem with your "ubiquitous" premise is that the tide seems to be
turning. Because smartphones are so common in the US today, and the vast
majority of them have data plans forced on them by the carriers that
subsidized them, the likelyhood that a business that doesn't already
offer free WiFi will suddenly bother to do it now seems remote. You live
in an area where businesses were ahead of the curve and offered
connectivity before it was common to bring your own. I see more people
at the places you list poking around on their iPhones and smartphones
than firing up laptops. Consequently, free guest WiFi will likely go the
way of the now-rarely-used public pay telephone, except in those places,
like schools and libraries, where the intent is to offer internet access
to whatever small portion of the public doesn't have it.

Post by SMS
Look at <http://www.wififreespot.com/aus.html> for some free wi-fi spots,
but remember that this directory lists only a fraction of all available
spots.

Even if ten times that number of hotspots exists, it's hardly
"ubiquitous." There's a shopping mall near me with about 120 stores, and
only one free hotspot remaining; a Panera Bread restaurant (like McDonalds,
the whole chain offers free WiFi,) th e other two that also offered free
WiFi, a Borders bookstore, and the Qwest kiosk (Qwest is a local
telco/DSL provider who offers WiFi at their retail locations so you try
out their service) recently closed their locations in that mall. I'll
give you all three and say that 2.5% of the businesses there offer WiFi.
How ubiquitous!

Post by SMS
In the U.S., if you're not into streaming audio and video to your phone
(or using other high data usage applications, such as a GPS without
locally stored maps), you can usually get by with a relatively small
amount of 3G data while mobile.

Which leaves what? Email and WAP browsing? I could go back to a ten
year-old Nokia candy-bar for that.

Post by SMS
If you commute by bus or train, rather
than by car, I can see wanting a lot more mobile data since you want to
use data during the commute, though many buses and trains (including in
Australia) now also provide Wi-Fi
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2008-04-10-wifi_N.htm>,
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/education/12bus.html>,
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/21/wifi_metrobus/>.

A few isolated examples of limited bus routes in a handful of cities and
a couple of pilot programs are hardly "ubiquitous," but that shouldn't
stop you from adding "Buses" to your list of places above where you can
"often find free WiFi." ;)

Justin

2011-05-03 18:48:55 UTC

Hey, he can often find free wifi at the same place every day!

That's it, maybe SMS' definition of often is different as well

NightStalker

2011-05-03 22:20:55 UTC

Post by SMS
many buses and trains (including in
Australia) now also provide Wi-Fi

Thanks for the info, SMS, and all the background to it.

I'm not aware of any Aussie buses or trains that provide free wifi -
certainly not where I live in Brisbane.

And yes - I realise that I was generalising some comments about the
ubiquity of wifi, but not really intending to imply that ALL Americans
think there is no world beyond their own borders, or if there is, then
it all has the same facilities.

But I do know several USA citizens (I have been visiting there twice a
year for 15 years, work-related) who are surprised by things like
scarcity of wifi, data caps (including uploads), etc etc that we take
for granted here in Oz.

--
NightStalker

Justin

2011-05-03 22:24:52 UTC

Post by NightStalker
But I do know several USA citizens (I have been visiting there twice a
year for 15 years, work-related) who are surprised by things like
scarcity of wifi, data caps (including uploads), etc etc that we take
for granted here in Oz.

Wifi is pretty scarce in the middle of the USA as well, the data caps
are coming. 250GB total (up and down combined) on Comcast, the largest
ISP. 5GB caps on most mobile data.

SMS

2011-05-04 00:23:05 UTC

Post by SMS
many buses and trains (including in
Australia) now also provide Wi-Fi

Thanks for the info, SMS, and all the background to it.
I'm not aware of any Aussie buses or trains that provide free wifi -
certainly not where I live in Brisbane.
And yes - I realise that I was generalising some comments about the
ubiquity of wifi, but not really intending to imply that ALL Americans
think there is no world beyond their own borders, or if there is, then
it all has the same facilities.
But I do know several USA citizens (I have been visiting there twice a
year for 15 years, work-related) who are surprised by things like
scarcity of wifi, data caps (including uploads), etc etc that we take
for granted here in Oz.

We tend to take free wi-fi for granted in the U.S.. I took my son to get
an X-Ray today of his hand, and I had my netbook with me. The X-Ray
technician pointed out the wi-fi antennas in the ceiling to me. I said,
"it's a good thing those are there or we'd be switching health plans,"
but the fact is that most medical centers and hospitals in the U.S. have
free wi-fi.

Justin

2011-05-04 00:40:39 UTC

Post by SMS
many buses and trains (including in
Australia) now also provide Wi-Fi

Thanks for the info, SMS, and all the background to it.
I'm not aware of any Aussie buses or trains that provide free wifi -
certainly not where I live in Brisbane.
And yes - I realise that I was generalising some comments about the
ubiquity of wifi, but not really intending to imply that ALL Americans
think there is no world beyond their own borders, or if there is, then
it all has the same facilities.
But I do know several USA citizens (I have been visiting there twice a
year for 15 years, work-related) who are surprised by things like
scarcity of wifi, data caps (including uploads), etc etc that we take
for granted here in Oz.

Hospitals, maybe. Medical centers and immediate care places, never seen
one with wifi.

Even if the hospital has wifi, I have often encountered poorly implemented
where you can ONLY get to port 80 and port 443, so no VPN. And then you
have to be within signal range. Even then it's often dog slow.

nospam

2011-05-04 01:12:28 UTC

Post by SMS
We tend to take free wi-fi for granted in the U.S.. I took my son to get
an X-Ray today of his hand, and I had my netbook with me. The X-Ray
technician pointed out the wi-fi antennas in the ceiling to me. I said,
"it's a good thing those are there or we'd be switching health plans,"
but the fact is that most medical centers and hospitals in the U.S. have
free wi-fi.

Hospitals, maybe. Medical centers and immediate care places, never seen
one with wifi.
Even if the hospital has wifi, I have often encountered poorly implemented
where you can ONLY get to port 80 and port 443, so no VPN. And then you
have to be within signal range. Even then it's often dog slow.

completely opposite from my experience. i can't think of any medical
facility that didn't have wifi for guests and patients and none had any
ports blocked. the waiting rooms had excellent signal, but the patient
rooms at the very ends of the building might be a little weak (still
usable though). i think one place had a content filter because it
falsed on some tech web site i don't remember the specifics.

the only place i've encountered port blocking was at a barnes & noble
bookstore a few years ago (no idea if they still block) and one public
library. it's not a big deal, as i can ssh on an alternate port and i'm
not usually at either place just to surf.

Justin

2011-05-04 01:31:00 UTC

Post by nospam
the only place i've encountered port blocking was at a barnes & noble
bookstore a few years ago (no idea if they still block) and one public
library. it's not a big deal, as i can ssh on an alternate port and i'm
not usually at either place just to surf.

My wife spent a month in and out of the hospital here, they only allowed
port 80 and port 443 through. As a result to get ANY work done I had to
use goto my pc over port 80 to my machine at home which then VPNed to the
office. It was slow as hell and I could barely get much done.

My mother in law was in hospital last year for a few weeks, same
hospital system but in a different city. Same problem.

She then went to a long term care facility for three months, no wifi
at all. The only way I could get any internet there at all was
using the work supplied cell-modem.

nospam

2011-05-04 01:47:58 UTC

My wife spent a month in and out of the hospital here, they only allowed
port 80 and port 443 through. As a result to get ANY work done I had to
use goto my pc over port 80 to my machine at home which then VPNed to the
office. It was slow as hell and I could barely get much done.
My mother in law was in hospital last year for a few weeks, same
hospital system but in a different city. Same problem.
She then went to a long term care facility for three months, no wifi
at all. The only way I could get any internet there at all was
using the work supplied cell-modem.

family members have been in various doctor's offices, hospitals and
nursing homes over the last few years, about a dozen different
facilities, and only two did not have wifi. everywhere else did, which
made visiting easier. of the ones that had wifi, two required asking
for a password (freely available from the nurses desk), the rest were
wide open.

my auto dealer has wifi, my attorney's office has wifi, all the local
libraries have wifi (except the one who blocks non-80 which i
mentioned) and several restaurants i frequent have wifi.

wifi is not 'everywhere' but it's certainly not that hard to find.

Justin

2011-05-04 01:58:15 UTC

Post by nospam
wifi is not 'everywhere' but it's certainly not that hard to find.

I never disputed it wasn't hard to find, but if it's not where you need
it might as well not exist.

If I need to be a mile from the nearest wifi hotspot, it does me no good.

The ONLY restaurants I have been in with wifi in recent memory have been
macdonalds, a local bakery and almost every coffee shop (that includes
starbucks, panera and local joints).

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2011-05-04 10:52:41 UTC

Post by Justin
If I need to be a mile from the nearest wifi hotspot, it does me no good.

You're not wearing Larry's magical super WiFi antenna on your head? You
could get to spots a good couple of miles away.

SMS

2011-05-04 04:36:23 UTC

the only place i've encountered port blocking was at a barnes& noble
bookstore a few years ago (no idea if they still block) and one public
library. it's not a big deal, as i can ssh on an alternate port and i'm
not usually at either place just to surf.

My wife spent a month in and out of the hospital here, they only allowed
port 80 and port 443 through. As a result to get ANY work done I had to
use goto my pc over port 80 to my machine at home which then VPNed to the
office. It was slow as hell and I could barely get much done.
My mother in law was in hospital last year for a few weeks, same
hospital system but in a different city. Same problem.
She then went to a long term care facility for three months, no wifi
at all. The only way I could get any internet there at all was
using the work supplied cell-modem.

It's pretty rare these days to find large medical group offices or
hospitals without Wi-Fi, but smaller, independent, doctor's offices
probably don't have it.

Post by nospam
my auto dealer has wifi, my attorney's office has wifi, all the local
libraries have wifi (except the one who blocks non-80 which i
mentioned) and several restaurants i frequent have wifi.
wifi is not 'everywhere' but it's certainly not that hard to find.

Yeah, I concede that "ubiquitous" was the wrong word to use. "Nearly
ubiquitous" is more accurate.

Justin

2011-05-04 05:19:36 UTC

My wife spent a month in and out of the hospital here, they only allowed
port 80 and port 443 through. As a result to get ANY work done I had to
use goto my pc over port 80 to my machine at home which then VPNed to the
office. It was slow as hell and I could barely get much done.
My mother in law was in hospital last year for a few weeks, same
hospital system but in a different city. Same problem.
She then went to a long term care facility for three months, no wifi
at all. The only way I could get any internet there at all was
using the work supplied cell-modem.

It's pretty rare these days to find large medical group offices or
hospitals without Wi-Fi, but smaller, independent, doctor's offices
probably don't have it.

Yeah, I concede that "ubiquitous" was the wrong word to use. "Nearly
ubiquitous" is more accurate.

Until it's available in over 50% of the places I spend time, you shoudln't
call it anything ubiquitous

SMS

2011-05-04 06:13:42 UTC

On 5/3/2011 10:19 PM, Justin wrote:

<snip>

Post by Justin
Until it's available in over 50% of the places I spend time, you shoudln't
call it anything ubiquitous

You may find this difficult to believe, but the world doesn't revolve
around you.

George

2011-05-04 12:43:01 UTC

My wife spent a month in and out of the hospital here, they only allowed
port 80 and port 443 through. As a result to get ANY work done I had to
use goto my pc over port 80 to my machine at home which then VPNed to the
office. It was slow as hell and I could barely get much done.
My mother in law was in hospital last year for a few weeks, same
hospital system but in a different city. Same problem.
She then went to a long term care facility for three months, no wifi
at all. The only way I could get any internet there at all was
using the work supplied cell-modem.

It's pretty rare these days to find large medical group offices or
hospitals without Wi-Fi, but smaller, independent, doctor's offices
probably don't have it.

Really? that certainly isn't my experience. I have been to 3 major city
hospitals in the past month that don't have free WiFI.

So you are saying like today for example when I will be working at a
facility with no WiFi all day it would make much more sense to say take
a break every few hours and drive to the Starbucks that is a 20 minute
drive away instead of being able to use the WiFi on my phone?

Post by SMS
Yeah, I concede that "ubiquitous" was the wrong word to use. "Nearly
ubiquitous" is more accurate.

Not more accurate at all.

crkeehn

2011-05-04 10:04:56 UTC

Hospitals, maybe. Medical centers and immediate care places, never seen
one with wifi.
Even if the hospital has wifi, I have often encountered poorly implemented
where you can ONLY get to port 80 and port 443, so no VPN. And then you
have to be within signal range. Even then it's often dog slow.

completely opposite from my experience. i can't think of any medical
facility that didn't have wifi for guests and patients and none had any
ports blocked. the waiting rooms had excellent signal, but the patient
rooms at the very ends of the building might be a little weak (still
usable though). i think one place had a content filter because it
falsed on some tech web site i don't remember the specifics.
the only place i've encountered port blocking was at a barnes & noble
bookstore a few years ago (no idea if they still block) and one public
library. it's not a big deal, as i can ssh on an alternate port and i'm
not usually at either place just to surf.

Then you're fortunate. Neither my children's pediatric office or my doctor
offer wifi for patient use.

Paul Miner

2011-05-04 01:25:56 UTC

Post by SMS
We tend to take free wi-fi for granted in the U.S..

No, we don't. It's rather rare to find WiFi, and even more unusual to
find free WiFi, unless you're willing to drive around and especially
willing to be a customer where you normally wouldn't be a customer.

Post by SMS
I took my son to get
an X-Ray today of his hand, and I had my netbook with me. The X-Ray
technician pointed out the wi-fi antennas in the ceiling to me. I said,
"it's a good thing those are there or we'd be switching health plans,"
but the fact is that most medical centers and hospitals in the U.S. have
free wi-fi.

Sorry, but that's not even close to being a fact. Please don't take
your neighborhood and apply it generally, because it just isn't so.

My doctor's office, my nearest ER, and my nearest two hospitals are
alike in that they not only don't offer WiFi at all, but they also
prominently hang signs all over asking people to shut off their cell
phones.

I won't pretend my area is typical if you stop pretending your area is
typical, even though my area is far, far more typical of the country
than yours.

--
Paul Miner

nospam

2011-05-04 01:34:14 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
My doctor's office, my nearest ER, and my nearest two hospitals are
alike in that they not only don't offer WiFi at all, but they also
prominently hang signs all over asking people to shut off their cell
phones.

that's because they don't want them ringing and people yapping. it's
annoying to patients and visitors.

if cellphones were truly a danger, they would not let you into the
building without confiscating them and returning them when you exit.

i see doctors carrying blackberries, iphones and android phones and
they respond to pages or messages, so obviously, it's not a danger at
all.

doctors at beth israel deaconess in boston are using ipads, which means
wifi everywhere.
<http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-04/business/29380774_1_ipad-tablet-c
omputers-ulcer>

Paul Miner

2011-05-04 02:07:43 UTC

I didn't say they were a danger. I probably shouldn't have mentioned
the cell phone stuff at all since it only caused a distraction. I
should have simply said that WiFi isn't available in the medical
facilities near where I live, and left it at that.

--
Paul Miner

nospam

2011-05-04 02:12:34 UTC

I didn't say they were a danger.

i've seen signs saying cellphones can interfere with medical equipment,
which is a total crock. if it did, they'd not let you into the building
because it could kill someone and forbid doctors from using them too.

Post by Paul Miner
I probably shouldn't have mentioned
the cell phone stuff at all since it only caused a distraction. I
should have simply said that WiFi isn't available in the medical
facilities near where I live, and left it at that.

ok. almost all of the ones i've been in have it.

SMS

2011-05-04 04:46:46 UTC

Post by nospam
i see doctors carrying blackberries, iphones and android phones and
they respond to pages or messages, so obviously, it's not a danger at
all.

I like how the medical center we go to handles this. They have a
designated area that it's okay to use cell phones, but have signs in
waiting areas, pharmacies, etc., asking that they not be used. They have
an area for sitting down and connecting computers to AC, that also has
Wi-Fi, though Wi-Fi is available throughout most of the facility.

I think they've given up trying to promote the myth that cell phones
interfere with medical equipment, though, completely digressing, I was
shocked to overhear a nurse promulgating another myth. They were talking
to someone who was dehydrated and asked her what she had drank in the
past few hours. When she said "coffee" they told her that it didn't
count, and that the more coffee she drank the more dehydrated she would
become. In reality, drinking a liquid that's mostly water, whether it's
coffee, or even beer, hydrates you, and the small amount of caffeine or
alcohol makes little, if any, difference.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12187618?dopt=Abstract>

George

2011-05-04 12:30:58 UTC

Post by SMS
many buses and trains (including in
Australia) now also provide Wi-Fi

Thanks for the info, SMS, and all the background to it.
I'm not aware of any Aussie buses or trains that provide free wifi -
certainly not where I live in Brisbane.
And yes - I realise that I was generalising some comments about the
ubiquity of wifi, but not really intending to imply that ALL Americans
think there is no world beyond their own borders, or if there is, then
it all has the same facilities.
But I do know several USA citizens (I have been visiting there twice a
year for 15 years, work-related) who are surprised by things like
scarcity of wifi, data caps (including uploads), etc etc that we take
for granted here in Oz.

Do major hospitals in Philly and NYC count? I have had to visit
additional hospitals and in addition to the ones I previously noted the
ones I have been in the past week do not have free WiFi. You do know
that the lack of visible antennas means nothing since the network can be
secured just like it is at the hospitals I have visited. The local
market I was in on the way home last night also has a bunch of access
points and antennas attached to the T bar ceiling but they don't have
free WiFi either.

SMS

2011-05-04 04:31:40 UTC

Post by SMS
many buses and trains (including in
Australia) now also provide Wi-Fi

Thanks for the info, SMS, and all the background to it.
I'm not aware of any Aussie buses or trains that provide free wifi -
certainly not where I live in Brisbane.

Apparently there's a trial, see:
<http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/RailServices/City/Pages/wifi.aspx>
so be patient.

I find Wi-Fi at medical offices and hospitals to be very useful. Often
you're waiting a long time for appointments, or sitting in a hospital
room with someone for long hours, many of which the patient is sleeping
but you want to remain with them. I have not found a hospital or medical
building without Wi-Fi in a long time. One hospital I was at had a rule
against using their electrical outlets, "You may use battery-operated
electronic equipment in the hospital building; due to patient safety
concerns, we cannot allow our patients or visitors to use outlets within
the hospital building. To stay connected with family and friends, our
hospital has free WiFi internet access. Just use your WiFi enabled
device to connect to the "KP_guest" network."

I was really surprised when visiting south Florida, not the cutting edge
technologically, to find Wi-Fi covering whole cities, i.e.
<http://www.hollywoodfl.org/wifi/wireless_hollywood.htm>.

I'm sure Australia and the ROW will catch up to the U.S. eventually.

Ryan P.

2011-05-04 00:58:15 UTC

Post by Steve Sobol
says...

Post by Wes Groleau
With five minutes or less travel, I can get to
six free public WiFi sites and more unsecured
private ones than I can easily count.
And that's five minutes without a car.

Sheesh - it's interesting how the US folks assume the rest of the world
is like theirs.
Here in Australia - and I live just outside one of the State capital
cities - we basically have a choice of McDonalds or McDonalds.
Sure, there are occasional coffee shops that have free wifi - VERY
occasional. Most publicly accessible Wifi here is expensive, and
charged by the 5-minute or 15-minute timeslots at exorbitant rates.
Even our domestic and international airports use Optus at about $10 for
a 15 minute timeslot.
Our City Library has Wifi, but you need a library card, barcode, and PIN
to access it. The nearest one of those to me is about a 20 minute
drive.

Hey, its not all us "US folks." Just those in the Cult of Ubiquity.

I live in a large city, and wifi is certainly NOT everywhere. Sure,
there are McDonald's and Starbucks and the like... But like the library,
you have to be a customer. Sometimes the WIFI is open access, but its
useless more than 20 feet outside the doors of the establishment.

Todd Allcock

2011-04-26 17:27:18 UTC

Post by George
Not really. Clearly you are very enthusiastic (some would say a
fanboi) about Pageplus and somehow believe all of the stuff you write
totally disregarding that there are lots of folks who are
knowledgeable and would welcome paying less and maintaining usability
but know that free WiFI doesn't exist as you describe.

And what low cost carriers with unlimted data would they leave for? Oh,
that's right, SPRINT! ;) The best deals in unlimited right now come from
Sprint or their prepaid brand, Virgin Mobile. It's like complaining Taco
Bell is too expensive and threatening to go somewhere cheaper for lunch!
There's nowhere to go but up.

Post by SMS
What really sucked is that the Sprint policy of allowing Android
devices came after many SERO customers had left Sprint because they
would not allow Android activations. Clearly Sprint panicked over the
churn (mistakenly believing that most SERO customers would simply
become full-price customers), but did not let those that had left,
because they couldn't activate an Android, come back onto SERO.

I doubt it was panic. They took a risk, weighed the results, and changed
strategy. Personally, I'm limited in my phone selections on T-Mobile
because they won't allow Android phones on my grandfathered data plan, so
I use other devices.

If I liked Android enough, I'd consider changing plans or carriers, but
frankly I don't get the attraction. (It's mediocre at everything- it's
UI and app selection is mediocre compared to iOS, it's less configurable
than old-school WinMo, and it has the _worst_ native POP/IMAP email
client since the original Palm Pilot.) I have two Android devices now
(sort of- one is my WinMo-based HTC HD2 in a dual-boot WinMo/Android
config) and I rarely use them.

Post by SMS
What's working in favor of Page Plus at this time is the increased
availability and decline in price of smart phones with Wi-Fi. A price-
sensitive smart phone user that doesn't need massive amounts of 3G data
can easily stay within the 100MB data limit of Page Plus since Wi-Fi
has become so ubiquitous.

I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old and
now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use by
mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb Prices"
that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using PagePlus.
It suggested WiFi and QNC as alternatives to pricey 3G, and suggested
several good but "obsolete" smartphones (in this case WinMo-based,) for
salespeople who wanted more experience with smartphones but couldn't
personally justify the monthly cost of forced dataplans.

Post by SMS
A 2010 Cisco study on smart phone data usage showed that 65% of 3G data
was being used by smart phone owners while at home or work, with only
35% being used while away from home or work. Of that 35%, it's highly
likely that a large portion is being used where there is also Wi-Fi
available since Wi-Fi is becoming nearly ubiquitous.

"Becoming?" "Nearly?" You're really downgrading your mantra. Two weeks
ago WiFi was already ubiquitous to hear you tell it. Did this last trip
you took change your outlook at all? Your posting level was way down.
Couldn't find much WiFi to login to? ;)

And frankly, IMO, it'll only get worse. The ubiquity of smartphones is
making free WiFi redundant for so many people, I can't imagine many
businesses who haven't already offered it to start now. They might as
well install telegraphs or those wooden poles John Wayne would tie his
horse to when he stopped at the saloon or general store!

That same study you misappropriate for your argument also warned average
Android data use was increasing rapidly- likely to almost double every
year between now and 2015, IIRC.

So unless you expect PP's 100MB allotment to also double annually to keep
pace, your advice won't be very worthwhile for long. 35% of the 500MB-
600MB average monthly use in 2011 or 900MB in 2012 won't fit in your
100MB plan.

Post by SMS
That same study showed that the average monthly data usage for Android
phones was 209MB/month in 2010. Break it down by percentages and 84MB
was used at home and 52MB was used at work, two places where it's
highly likely that there is other internet access available, but for
someone with an unlimited data plan there's no incentive to be frugal
and use Wi-Fi. 73MB was used away from home or work, and of that 73MB
much of it was probably used in places where Wi-Fi was available
(Airports, Bakeries, Barber Shops, Bars, Campgrounds, Car Repair Shops,
Car Dealers, Car Washes, Coffee Houses, Colleges, Copy Centers, Donut
Shops, Fwy Rest Areas, Government Buildings, Hospitals, Medical
Centers, Hotels, Laundromats, Libraries, Parks, Restaurants, Shopping
Malls, Friends Homes, Frozen Yogurt Shops, etc.).

For a good number of people, that's probably true. And most of those
people use iPod Touches, and wish they had a smartphone when they're
Everywhere Else.

Even those on metered plans see no reason to be particularly careful.
Avoid excessive streaming and large downloads (which most mobile OSes
forbid anyway) and you can live comfortable in most tiered plans.

Post by SMS
All studies
show that a 100 MB metered data plan is usually sufficient for users
willing to use 3G/4G only when there is no Wi-Fi or other internet
access available.

"All studies" now equals "one study by Cisco"? This problem you seem to
have with quantities might explain why you equate a few dozen hotspots in
a couple of square miles with "ubiquitous."

Post by SMS
AT&T stated that 65% of their smart phone users use
less than 200MB per month (their smallest data plan for $15 extra per
month).

Very disingenous on both AT&T's part and yours. I would venture that the
vast bulk of that "65%" are Blackberry users, who have the advantage of
RIM's server-side compression reducing their email and browsing bandwidth
by up to 90%.

Post by SMS
If you used 200MB on Talk N Text 1200 it would be $45 per month
($30 plus $15 for the 2nd 100MB) while the closest AT&T voice/text/data
plan with 200MB per month would have a total cost of about $75 per month.

True. I'm not suggesting it isn't a good value. I'm suggesting fewer
people can make use of it than you claim. (Without impacting their
productivity and convenience.)

Post by SMS
If you a) Use Wi-Fi When Available, b) Dont Stream Movies & TV over
3G, c) Don't Transfer Huge image/video files over 3G, d) Dont Use a 3G
Based GPS (use an app that stores maps on the phone), e) Dont Use Push
e-mail (use web-based e-mail), and f) Dont be Stupid, you can use a
lot less data while not really negatively impacting your life.

That's not your call to make for anyone but yourself. Of your list,
"don't use 3G based maps" and "don't use push email" WOULD "negatively
impact my life." Those, IMO, are two of the "killer apps" for smartphones,

and probably represent half of my data usage. Without those, I could go
back to using a dumbphone and a Palm Pilot.

Post by SMS
Of course there are those that really need to use vast amounts of data
per month, and for them a Page Plus plan would not work, but the number
of those people is relatively small.

There are those for whom streaming media is a killer app, and several
companies base their model around it- not just small media compaies like
Pandora, but big companies in the mobile business themselves. Microsoft
is pushing Zune Pass (streaming/downloading any availalbe song in their
catalog on demand) as a differentiating feature of WP7, Apple gets major
revenue from the iTunes Store from both apps and media, many of which are
purchased on impulse, which requires data ubiquity, and they're getting
ready to release a cloud media service. Amazon's new music cloud service
is obviously banking on mobile usage to help sell it- none of us need a
cloud service to enjoy our media at home, do we?

There is no shortage of bits and bytes. There IS a finite amount of
3G/4G bandwidth available without additional capital investment, and
mobile companies are trying to monetize it the best way possible for
THEM. Trust me- AT&T, Verizon, et al, will be happy to supply as much as
you want, as long as something is in it for them. They just don't want
to be selling unlimited data for only $30/month that is facilitiating
revenue for MS, Apple, Amazon, Pandora, Hulu, Netflix, and every other
company but the carriers themselves.

tlvp

2011-04-26 18:28:45 UTC

As a public service for those who missed the original article, Todd, would
you be able/willing to list again the smartphones (yes, old or outdated,
yet still perhaps available for a song on eBay) you mentioned there?
And, especially, which of them shift easily into/out_of wi-fi mode?

TIA! And cheers, -- tlvp

--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Todd Allcock

2011-04-26 21:39:40 UTC

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0400, Todd Allcock

Given that Page Plus is a Verizon reseller, I limited the discussion to
Verizon phone models from 2005-2008 or so (old enough to be plentiful and
cheap second-hand) IIRC, I suggested phones like the Samsung i730 and i760,
and the HTC 6600 and 6700.

None of them are really great phones, but met the criteria for the
article- they were similar enough to (then) modern Windows-based
smartphones to provide hands-on experience for salespeople to better
understand the product they sold.

tlvp

2011-04-27 06:29:13 UTC

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0400, Todd Allcock

Prices"

Post by Todd Allcock
that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using

PagePlus.

As a public service for those who missed the original article, Todd,

would

you be able/willing to list again the smartphones (yes, old or outdated,
yet still perhaps available for a song on eBay) you mentioned there?
And, especially, which of them shift easily into/out_of wi-fi mode?

Given that Page Plus is a Verizon reseller, I limited the discussion to
Verizon phone models from 2005-2008 or so (old enough to be plentiful and
cheap second-hand) IIRC, I suggested phones like the Samsung i730 and i760,
and the HTC 6600 and 6700.
None of them are really great phones, but met the criteria for the
article- they were similar enough to (then) modern Windows-based
smartphones to provide hands-on experience for salespeople to better
understand the product they sold.

Thanks, Todd. These all seem to go for $40 or so on eBay; and several seem to come
in multiple versions -- for Sprint/Nextel, or for Verizon. I presume only the Verizon
versions are suitable for use with Page Plus (my ultimate goal is to be ready to bail
if the at&t takeover of T-Mo leaves me terribly unhappy once it jells).

Any other, newer, or more interesting candidates you'd add to that list today?

Cheers, -- tlvp

--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

Todd Allcock

2011-04-27 15:21:22 UTC

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:39:40 -0400, Todd Allcock

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0400, Todd Allcock

Prices"

Post by Todd Allcock
that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using

PagePlus.

As a public service for those who missed the original article, Todd,

would

Given that Page Plus is a Verizon reseller, I limited the discussion to
Verizon phone models from 2005-2008 or so (old enough to be plentiful and
cheap second-hand) IIRC, I suggested phones like the Samsung i730 and i760,
and the HTC 6600 and 6700.
None of them are really great phones, but met the criteria for the
article- they were similar enough to (then) modern Windows-based
smartphones to provide hands-on experience for salespeople to better
understand the product they sold.

Thanks, Todd. These all seem to go for $40 or so on eBay; and several seem to come
in multiple versions -- for Sprint/Nextel, or for Verizon. I presume only the Verizon
versions are suitable for use with Page Plus (my ultimate goal is to be ready to bail
if the at&t takeover of T-Mo leaves me terribly unhappy once it jells).
Any other, newer, or more interesting candidates you'd add to that list today?

I've never really used CDMA all that much. I have two ancient Samsung
WinMo phones on PagePlus that let me take advantage of the free QNC
loophole (14.4k dialup data is neither counted as data nor minutes) that
I use when I'm outside T-Mo coverage, but that's the sum total of my
hands-on experience. My wife loves her iPhone too much for us to go with
PagePlus as a primary carrier if AT&T ruins T-Mo, so I'll probably stay
put after the merger.

Of recent Verizon smartphones, I'd probably look at the Droids or, if you
like WinMo, the Samsung Omnias.

tlvp

2011-04-27 17:53:26 UTC

Post by tlvp

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:39:40 -0400, Todd Allcock

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0400, Todd Allcock

Post by Todd Allcock
I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old

and

Post by Todd Allcock
now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use

Post by Todd Allcock
mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb

Prices"

Post by Todd Allcock
that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using

PagePlus.

As a public service for those who missed the original article, Todd,

would

you be able/willing to list again the smartphones (yes, old or

outdated,

yet still perhaps available for a song on eBay) you mentioned there?
And, especially, which of them shift easily into/out_of wi-fi mode?

Given that Page Plus is a Verizon reseller, I limited the discussion

Post by Todd Allcock
Verizon phone models from 2005-2008 or so (old enough to be plentiful

and

Post by Todd Allcock
cheap second-hand) IIRC, I suggested phones like the Samsung i730 and

i760,

Post by Todd Allcock
and the HTC 6600 and 6700.
None of them are really great phones, but met the criteria for the
article- they were similar enough to (then) modern Windows-based
smartphones to provide hands-on experience for salespeople to better
understand the product they sold.

Thanks, Todd. These all seem to go for $40 or so on eBay; and several

seem to come

in multiple versions -- for Sprint/Nextel, or for Verizon. I presume

only the Verizon

versions are suitable for use with Page Plus (my ultimate goal is to be

ready to bail

if the at&t takeover of T-Mo leaves me terribly unhappy once it jells).
Any other, newer, or more interesting candidates you'd add to that list

today?
I've never really used CDMA all that much. I have two ancient Samsung
WinMo phones on PagePlus that let me take advantage of the free QNC
loophole (14.4k dialup data is neither counted as data nor minutes) that
I use when I'm outside T-Mo coverage, but that's the sum total of my
hands-on experience. My wife loves her iPhone too much for us to go with
PagePlus as a primary carrier if AT&T ruins T-Mo, so I'll probably stay
put after the merger.

Understood.

Post by tlvp
Of recent Verizon smartphones, I'd probably look at the Droids or, if you
like WinMo, the Samsung Omnias.

I have no experience with WinMo. I *would* probably appreciate an internationalized
'Droid, if my suspicion that these incorporate a SIM tray and GSM/GPRS/EDGE/LTE
radio technology that'll let them utilize foreign GSM networks with a prepaid SIM.

Or am I dreaming?

Cheers, -- tlvp

--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

SMS

2011-04-27 18:01:52 UTC

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:21:22 -0400, Todd Allcock

Post by tlvp

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:39:40 -0400, Todd Allcock

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:27:18 -0400, Todd Allcock

Post by Todd Allcock
I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old

and

Post by Todd Allcock
now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use

Post by Todd Allcock
mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb

Prices"

Post by Todd Allcock
that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using

PagePlus.

As a public service for those who missed the original article, Todd,

would

you be able/willing to list again the smartphones (yes, old or

outdated,

yet still perhaps available for a song on eBay) you mentioned there?
And, especially, which of them shift easily into/out_of wi-fi mode?

Given that Page Plus is a Verizon reseller, I limited the discussion

Post by Todd Allcock
Verizon phone models from 2005-2008 or so (old enough to be plentiful

and

Post by Todd Allcock
cheap second-hand) IIRC, I suggested phones like the Samsung i730 and

i760,

Thanks, Todd. These all seem to go for $40 or so on eBay; and several

seem to come

in multiple versions -- for Sprint/Nextel, or for Verizon. I presume

only the Verizon

versions are suitable for use with Page Plus (my ultimate goal is to be

ready to bail

if the at&t takeover of T-Mo leaves me terribly unhappy once it jells).
Any other, newer, or more interesting candidates you'd add to that list

Understood.

Post by tlvp
Of recent Verizon smartphones, I'd probably look at the Droids or, if you
like WinMo, the Samsung Omnias.

I have no experience with WinMo. I *would* probably appreciate an internationalized
'Droid, if my suspicion that these incorporate a SIM tray and
GSM/GPRS/EDGE/LTE
radio technology that'll let them utilize foreign GSM networks with a prepaid SIM.
Or am I dreaming?

The Droid 2 Global meets those criteria, but you'd need to have the GSM
side unlocked.

SMS

2011-04-26 19:05:14 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
And what low cost carriers with unlimted data would they leave for? Oh,
that's right, SPRINT! ;) The best deals in unlimited right now come from
Sprint or their prepaid brand, Virgin Mobile. It's like complaining Taco
Bell is too expensive and threatening to go somewhere cheaper for lunch!
There's nowhere to go but up.

That assumes that they actually were on an unlimited data plan because
they use vast amounts of data, rather than because the unlimited plan
was the only data plan available. If they fit the profile of the
"average" user, then their data usage was such that a non-unlimited data
plan would work just as well.

The Virgin deal is good, but there is absolutely no roaming, not even
for voice, not even at extra cost, which makes it useless for anyone
that travels outside of Sprint's limited native network. MetroPCS is
increasingly attractive with their "TravelTalk®" extra-cost roaming, and
$40 for unlimited talk, text, and data, and the ability to use Verizon
phones flashed to MetroPCS. Supports 4G LTE too.

Post by Todd Allcock
I doubt it was panic. They took a risk, weighed the results, and changed
strategy. Personally, I'm limited in my phone selections on T-Mobile
because they won't allow Android phones on my grandfathered data plan, so
I use other devices.

Perhaps "panic" was too strong of a word. They were likely "concerned"
that part of the reason they were hemorrhaging customers was their
policy regarding Android phones on SERO.

Post by Todd Allcock
If I liked Android enough, I'd consider changing plans or carriers, but
frankly I don't get the attraction. (It's mediocre at everything- it's
UI and app selection is mediocre compared to iOS, it's less configurable
than old-school WinMo, and it has the _worst_ native POP/IMAP email
client since the original Palm Pilot.) I have two Android devices now
(sort of- one is my WinMo-based HTC HD2 in a dual-boot WinMo/Android
config) and I rarely use them.

I expect that most Android users are using Android because they could
not get an iPhone on their carrier. I find the Android acceptable. The
web browser works fine and I may be one of the few users that appreciate
the MicroSD card slot for more than just additional storage capacity.
There are a few aps not available on Android yet, but as Android devices
continue to increase their market share the app difference will go away.

For an e-mail client, use MailDroid Pro (not the free version).

Post by Todd Allcock
I wrote an article nearly two years ago about PagePlus for the old and
now defunct Windows Mobile Training site (a Microsoft site for use by
mobile phone sales and support people) called "Smart Phones, Dumb Prices"
that explained the low-cost smartphone options available using PagePlus.
It suggested WiFi and QNC as alternatives to pricey 3G, and suggested
several good but "obsolete" smartphones (in this case WinMo-based,) for
salespeople who wanted more experience with smartphones but couldn't
personally justify the monthly cost of forced dataplans.

I've been asked to give a presentation on low-cost smart phone options,
and have prepared a Powerpoint presentation. I only have 45 minutes and
have prepared 12 slides. I like your title better than my "Smart Phones
on the Cheap" title.

Post by Todd Allcock
That same study you misappropriate for your argument also warned average
Android data use was increasing rapidly- likely to almost double every
year between now and 2015, IIRC.

And _why_ is it increasing? It's not because of bill paying or e-mail,
or even normal web browsing. It's mainly because of streaming audio and
video.

Post by Todd Allcock
There are those for whom streaming media is a killer app, and several
companies base their model around it- not just small media compaies like
Pandora, but big companies in the mobile business themselves.

Those users would obviously not be happy with a metered data plan, not
even 2GB, let alone 100MB.

Todd Allcock

2011-04-26 23:01:40 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
And what low cost carriers with unlimted data would they leave for?

Oh,

Post by Todd Allcock
that's right, SPRINT! ;) The best deals in unlimited right now come from
Sprint or their prepaid brand, Virgin Mobile. It's like complaining Taco
Bell is too expensive and threatening to go somewhere cheaper for lunch!
There's nowhere to go but up.

Probably, but Sprint's $69 "everything plan" is both competitive and
includes unlimted texting and data. It's not $35 (or was it $30?) SERO
cheap, but there's no better deal for unlimited users that includes phone
subsidies, not is there any real competiton from other "big 4" carriers
either even with tiered data. AT&T's minimum voice plan with a texting
add-on and only 200MB of data is barely cheaper than Sprint's unlimited
plan.

Post by SMS
The Virgin deal is good, but there is absolutely no roaming, not even
for voice, not even at extra cost, which makes it useless for anyone
that travels outside of Sprint's limited native network. MetroPCS is
increasingly attractive with their "TravelTalk®" extra-cost roaming,
and $40 for unlimited talk, text, and data, and the ability to use
Verizon phones flashed to MetroPCS. Supports 4G LTE too.

That's pretty ironic that you slam Sprint's native coverage in one
breath, and suggest Metro as an alternative! Sure, Metro offers extra-
cost roaming, but you'll need it far more often than you would have if
Sprint offered the same. Metro's native coverage is but a fraction of
Sprint's. Sprint has been around for nearly two decades now- they may
not have quite Verizon's level of coverage, but they have a pretty
extensive native network, and to put them in the same category as
MetroPCS is a bit insulting.

Perhaps "panic" was too strong of a word. They were likely "concerned"
that part of the reason they were hemorrhaging customers was their
policy regarding Android phones on SERO.

I think you vastly overestimate the total number of SERO customers, never
mind the subset who may or may not have walked because of upgrade
policies! I turned my neighbor on to SERO a few years back, and she
muddled through with an old Motorola smartphone that was practically
falling apart until Sprint finally allowed her to upgrade (for $10/month
more.)

configurable

Post by Todd Allcock
than old-school WinMo, and it has the _worst_ native POP/IMAP email
client since the original Palm Pilot.) I have two Android devices now
(sort of- one is my WinMo-based HTC HD2 in a dual-boot WinMo/Android
config) and I rarely use them.

I expect that most Android users are using Android because they could
not get an iPhone on their carrier.

That may be part of it, but I think the varied form factors help as well.
Some people want big phones, some want small, and many will not part
with a hardware keyboard. Android gives users those options, unlike the
one-size-fits-Apple form factor of the iPhone.

Post by SMS
I find the Android acceptable. The
web browser works fine and I may be one of the few users that
appreciate the MicroSD card slot for more than just additional storage
capacity. There are a few aps not available on Android yet, but as
Android devices continue to increase their market share the app
difference will go away.

From your description of your smartphone usage, you don't need much more
than a web browser anyway, so I suspect Android is fine. For all of the
good press Android has received, I expected much more. The navigation
app is no better than MS' Bing for Mobile, (and much worse in some
respects, like voice clarity and UI) I've already bashed the horrible
email client, and for all of the "openness" and "customizability" (is
that a word?) there are no global text size/font settings and the
defaults are ridiculously tiny (does anyone over 30 years old code for
Google?) Honestly, I can't explain why Android is the darling OS of the
moment- it makes the old WinMo UI look positively intuitive by comparison!

Post by SMS
For an e-mail client, use MailDroid Pro (not the free version).

I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide to use Android regularly. Every
time I boot into it on my HD2, I find myself running screaming back to
WinMo. I really only use Android for a few games to entertain the kids,
and for Google SkyMap- the best app I've seen on Android.

Go ahead and borrow the title. Don't forget to include the pathetic old
Samsung i600 (no touchscreen) and i730 (touchscreen) and their ability to
still use free QNC. Neat WinMo trick #243: you can configure the email
client to poll with a different data connection than other apps. This way,
the email client can poll IMAP or POP email on free QNC, but you can
configure the browser to use 3G/EVDO. always up-to-date email with no
KB/MB usage, leaving your 100MB for browsing and MMS.

Also recommend Opera Mini for any compatible phone there are versions for
Android, Blackberry and WinMo. It uses server-side compression courtesy
of Opera and uses "up to 90% less data" (aacording to Opera.) In my
experience it certainly cuts data usage quite a bit (about 1/2 to 3/4 less,
depending on what you browse, and how low-res you set the images.) The
latest WinMo version (5.1) can be set as the device default browser, so
links in emails will open up directly in Opera Mini rather than the
native browser, saving bandwidth. I even use it to browse over QNC.
It's still no picnic, but with the compression QNC's 14.4k seems more
like 56k dialup or EDGE than sub-dialup speed.

Post by Todd Allcock
That same study you misappropriate for your argument also warned average
Android data use was increasing rapidly- likely to almost double every
year between now and 2015, IIRC.

And _why_ is it increasing? It's not because of bill paying or e-mail,

or even normal web browsing. It's mainly because of streaming audio and
video.

Sure, that's part of it, but so is feature creep- the silent updating of
applications in the background, the large number of apps that sync data
with _something_, (Facebook, Twitter, Kindle, Evernote, etc. etc. etc.)
ridiculous 8-12MP phone cameras taking the same crappy, blurry pictures
the old 1-3MP cameras did with much larger file sizes, etc.

And so what if people want to stream media with a phone? "Smart"
streaming that compensates for mobile deivces/bandwidth uses
comparetively little data. The Pandora client on my phone sounds pretty
crummy compared to the desktop version. By sound alone, I'd estimate it
only runs 40k or so- it works fine over EDGE, which on T-Mo tells me it's
certainly less than 90k (the average EDGE speed I seem to get in my
neighborhood.) BeatlesRadio.com offers a low bandwidth mono stream that
even works over GPRS (keeps me company on overnight drives out in the
boondocks where even EDGE is sometimes elusive.)

Those users would obviously not be happy with a metered data plan, not

even 2GB, let alone 100MB.

Again, if the streaming is handled effectively, it shouldn't be an issue
on 2GB plans. If companies like Pandora or Netflix want to pursue the
current mobile market, they need to be as leanas possible, and make sure
users and carriers know exactly how little (or how much!) bandwidth their
services use. In the days when dial up was still more prevalent than
broadband, remember how almost every web site with any type of audio or
video would have a dialog box asking what type of connection you have?
Where's that functionality on mobile apps and sites where it's even more
important? Netflix, for example, handles bandwidth dynamically on
iPhones and Windows Phones based on available connection speed alone, but
if I'm on a metered plan, I might _always_ opt for the lowest-bandwidth
feed even if I'm on 4G! I tend to stream the little audio I stream at as
low a bandwidth as possible, because that way I tend to build up a larger
buffer to get me through dead spots with fewer drop outs. If I was on a
metered plan, that'd be even more important.

SMS

2011-04-27 00:19:51 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
Probably, but Sprint's $69 "everything plan" is both competitive and
includes unlimted texting and data. It's not $35 (or was it $30?) SERO
cheap, but there's no better deal for unlimited users that includes phone
subsidies, not is there any real competiton from other "big 4" carriers
either even with tiered data. AT&T's minimum voice plan with a texting
add-on and only 200MB of data is barely cheaper than Sprint's unlimited
plan.

It's a very good deal, plus there are corporate discounts of up to 25%
on top of it (I could get a 23% discount). Yet for some strange reason
there is no stream of customers heading to Sprint stores to take
advantage of this deal.

Post by Todd Allcock
That's pretty ironic that you slam Sprint's native coverage in one
breath, and suggest Metro as an alternative! Sure, Metro offers extra-
cost roaming, but you'll need it far more often than you would have if
Sprint offered the same. Metro's native coverage is but a fraction of
Sprint's.

Most urban areas are covered under Metro PCS. The coverage maps of Metro
PCS native coverage and Virgin (Sprint native coverage) look pretty
close, but with Metro PCS at least you have the option of coverage in
other areas at extra cost.

Sprint has been around for nearly two decades now- they may

Post by Todd Allcock
not have quite Verizon's level of coverage, but they have a pretty
extensive native network, and to put them in the same category as
MetroPCS is a bit insulting.

Read what I wrote again. I was slamming Virgin Mobile's coverage, not
Sprint's. Sprint's coverage, when you include roaming, is okay, though
you do run into the problem of Sprint phones not roaming even when the
Sprint signal is too weak to make or receive call; the workaround to
this problem used to be to force roaming, but Sprint doesn't offer this
anymore in newer phones because too many subscribers had figured out the
trick.

Post by Todd Allcock
I think you vastly overestimate the total number of SERO customers, never
mind the subset who may or may not have walked because of upgrade
policies!

Perhaps, we don't know how many people took advantage of Sprint's
desperation pricing when they offered SERO to everyone that wanted it.
But you probably are well aware that there are subscribers, on all
carriers, that search for the best prices and keep those grandfathered
plans for a very, very long time, often until they are forced off of
them in one way or another. I think both you and I fall (or fell) into
that category. I finally let my original "America's Choice 300" plan
lapse. It was $30 a month (total) after discounts, and had 8:00 p.m.
off-peak. For a while, one major advantage over America's Choice 2 was
that only the older plan allowed analog roaming, but that advantage is
largely gone (except in a very few places).

Post by Todd Allcock
I'll keep it in mind if I ever decide to use Android regularly. Every
time I boot into it on my HD2, I find myself running screaming back to
WinMo. I really only use Android for a few games to entertain the kids,
and for Google SkyMap- the best app I've seen on Android.

I don't understand why people hated WinMo so much. I liked it.

Post by Todd Allcock
Go ahead and borrow the title. Don't forget to include the pathetic old
Samsung i600 (no touchscreen) and i730 (touchscreen) and their ability to
still use free QNC. Neat WinMo trick #243: you can configure the email
client to poll with a different data connection than other apps. This way,
the email client can poll IMAP or POP email on free QNC, but you can
configure the browser to use 3G/EVDO. always up-to-date email with no
KB/MB usage, leaving your 100MB for browsing and MMS.

Most of the audience is not that sophisticated.

Post by Todd Allcock
Also recommend Opera Mini for any compatible phone there are versions for
Android, Blackberry and WinMo. It uses server-side compression courtesy
of Opera and uses "up to 90% less data" (aacording to Opera.) In my
experience it certainly cuts data usage quite a bit (about 1/2 to 3/4 less,
depending on what you browse, and how low-res you set the images.) The
latest WinMo version (5.1) can be set as the device default browser, so
links in emails will open up directly in Opera Mini rather than the
native browser, saving bandwidth. I even use it to browse over QNC.
It's still no picnic, but with the compression QNC's 14.4k seems more
like 56k dialup or EDGE than sub-dialup speed.

Thanks, I'll add a slide with that.

Post by Todd Allcock
Sure, that's part of it, but so is feature creep- the silent updating of
applications in the background, the large number of apps that sync data
with _something_, (Facebook, Twitter, Kindle, Evernote, etc. etc. etc.)
ridiculous 8-12MP phone cameras taking the same crappy, blurry pictures
the old 1-3MP cameras did with much larger file sizes, etc.

One Android app, for rooted Droids, stops that sort of nonsense. It lets
you specify which apps are allowed data access.

I don't have high hopes for Pandora. I use it at home, but for mobile
use it has drawbacks besides the data usage and the sound quality. There
are just too many places I drive through with no data coverage, and
those are the types of drives where I would most want something like
Pandora. I had a rental car with XM this past week and it was kind of
nice, but I was disappointed with the dropouts under overpasses and
trees, and the variety of content.

Paul Miner

2011-04-27 00:55:42 UTC

Post by SMS
I don't have high hopes for Pandora. I use it at home, but for mobile
use it has drawbacks besides the data usage and the sound quality. There
are just too many places I drive through with no data coverage, and
those are the types of drives where I would most want something like
Pandora.

Too many places with no data coverage? Well fortunately, we have
"ubiquitous WiFi" to the rescue! Right?

--
Paul Miner

Todd Allcock

2011-04-27 04:06:07 UTC

Sprint hasn't released their Q1 numbers yet, but in Q4 '10 they added as
many customers as Verizon did: 1.1 million. Given that they were
hemorraging customers not too long ago, that's pretty impressive.

Most urban areas are covered under Metro PCS. The coverage maps of
Metro PCS native coverage and Virgin (Sprint native coverage) look
pretty close, but with Metro PCS at least you have the option of
coverage in other areas at extra cost.

Fair enough- I'd forgotten that Metro's "native" coverage is now enhanced
by a reciprocal roaming agreement with Cricket. Metro shows coverage in
the Denver/Colorado Springs corridor but Metro doesn't offer service here
(Cricket does.) To the end-user, of course, this doesn't matter since
the coverage "counts" as Metro to them.

Post by SMS
Sprint has been around for nearly two decades now- they may

Post by Todd Allcock
not have quite Verizon's level of coverage, but they have a pretty
extensive native network, and to put them in the same category as
MetroPCS is a bit insulting.

Virgin's coverage (by population, not necessarily geography) is
comparable to Metro/Cricket- about 90% of the US.

Post by Todd Allcock
I think you vastly overestimate the total number of SERO customers, never
mind the subset who may or may not have walked because of upgrade
policies!

Perhaps, we don't know how many people took advantage of Sprint's
desperation pricing when they offered SERO to everyone that wanted it.

Everyone who asked for it, you mean. Other than us phone geeks hanging
out here or at HoFo, or actual friends and families of employees (the
actual targets of the plan!) few "regular" consumers knew of it.

We can guess the number was fairly low since Sprint's ARPU was never
significantly lower than the other three, and a significant number of $30
customers would've scragged it down a bit.

Post by SMS
But you probably are well aware that there are subscribers, on all
carriers, that search for the best prices and keep those grandfathered
plans for a very, very long time, often until they are forced off of
them in one way or another. I think both you and I fall (or fell) into
that category.

Certainly. I plan to bequeath my plan to my descendants! ;)

Post by SMS
I finally let my original "America's Choice 300" plan
lapse. It was $30 a month (total) after discounts, and had 8:00 p.m.
off-peak. For a while, one major advantage over America's Choice 2 was
that only the older plan allowed analog roaming, but that advantage is
largely gone (except in a very few places).

Yeah, even the best grandfathered plans can outlive their usefulness. I
assume mine will after the AT&T-Mobile buyout if/when AT&T forces our
unlocked iPhones onto "real" iPhone plans.

I don't understand why people hated WinMo so much. I liked it.

I love it, and still do. It got a (much deserved) bad rap for stability
issues and MS' lack of investment to keep it current as the iPhone and
Android pushed it into irrelevance.

WinMo shared the same problem that Android currently does- it took the
blame for any problems caused by bad hardware or poor implementation by
OEMs, and fragmentation caused by carriers or OEMs who don't provide
updates or obscure the OS behind custom UIs or shells (HTC is certainly
guilty of all of the above!) I hated this HD2 at first and almost sent
it back to T-Mo, but after a little work managed to remove most of HTC's
customizations and got it to "stock" WinMo. Now, other than the lack of
a dpad, it's a decent device, and Android compatibility is a nice bonus.

This way,

Post by Todd Allcock
the email client can poll IMAP or POP email on free QNC, but you can
configure the browser to use 3G/EVDO. always up-to-date email with no
KB/MB usage, leaving your 100MB for browsing and MMS.

Most of the audience is not that sophisticated.

They'd better get sophisticated if they're going to try and coerce an
Android phone to stay under 100MB! ;) That'll take every data-sipping
trick in the book and then some! Disabling Google/PIM sync, app updates,
email polling, location services, etc.

The

Post by Todd Allcock
latest WinMo version (5.1) can be set as the device default browser, so
links in emails will open up directly in Opera Mini rather than the
native browser, saving bandwidth. I even use it to browse over QNC.
It's still no picnic, but with the compression QNC's 14.4k seems more
like 56k dialup or EDGE than sub-dialup speed.

Thanks, I'll add a slide with that.

It makes a big difference over the course of a month, and frankly is much
faster than the native Android browser, since Opera is doing all the
heavy-lifting on their end.

One Android app, for rooted Droids, stops that sort of nonsense. It
lets you specify which apps are allowed data access.

That app (and therefore rooting) would practically be a necessity for the
use you're advocating.

I don't have high hopes for Pandora. I use it at home, but for mobile
use it has drawbacks besides the data usage and the sound quality.
There are just too many places I drive through with no data coverage,
and those are the types of drives where I would most want something
like Pandora. I had a rental car with XM this past week and it was kind
of nice, but I was disappointed with the dropouts under overpasses and
trees, and the variety of content.

Pandora, like many internet services, is a neat idea that has no clear
plan how to actually make money! Their mobile strategy was a mess- pre-
iPhone they only offered their service and software on a handful of phones,
and charged anywhere from nothing to $8/month depending on the carrier.
They made a WinMo client and only offered it pre-installed by carriers on
only three or four models. The one I use was "liberated" from the model
most similar to mine, and is a version that doesn't require a subscription.
Post iPhone, they abandoned the carrier-pre-installed model, using
mobile more as a value-add for the desktop service.

A couple of my British friends love the "Spotify" music service available
in Europe. It allows you to choose specific songs and create playlists
unlike Pandora, and has an "offline" mode so you can download them ahead
of time for playback later when data isn't available. (Much like
Microsoft's Zune Pass, which is actually very cool, but I couldn't
justify the $15/month for the little I used it.)

SMS

2011-04-27 04:43:44 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
We can guess the number was fairly low since Sprint's ARPU was never
significantly lower than the other three, and a significant number of $30
customers would've scragged it down a bit.

You had (have) Nextel customers to drag it back up.

Post by Todd Allcock
They'd better get sophisticated if they're going to try and coerce an
Android phone to stay under 100MB! ;) That'll take every data-sipping
trick in the book and then some! Disabling Google/PIM sync, app updates,
email polling, location services, etc.

The "data sipping" "trick" I use is to turn on mobile data only when I
need mobile data.

Post by Todd Allcock
A couple of my British friends love the "Spotify" music service available
in Europe. It allows you to choose specific songs and create playlists
unlike Pandora, and has an "offline" mode so you can download them ahead
of time for playback later when data isn't available.

Ultimately Pandora should do the same thing, but I wonder about
licensing issues and if the record labels would allow that sort of
thing. You could use Spotify in the U.S. if you signed up for a VPN
account with a company like StrongVPN which offers the capability to VPN
into servers in the U.K..

SMS

2011-04-27 15:51:28 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
Virgin's coverage (by population, not necessarily geography) is
comparable to Metro/Cricket- about 90% of the US.

That's true, but with Metro PCS (don't know about Cricket) you don't
just get "No Service" if you travel outside their area--you have the
option of coverage at a modest additional cost. For whatever reason, too
complicated, or too enabling, Sprint has chosen not to offer Virgin
customers the option of roaming coverage.

Virgin's web site used to have this gem on it:

Q. Does Virgin Mobile coverage include roaming?
A. Roaming is for buffalo. All our services are supported by 100%
digital coverage. No roaming means no roaming charges, so you
pay the same rate for all calls.

The truth is that with Virgin Mobile's inability to roam, even for an
extra charge, your coverage is severely limited. The answer to this
question should be:

No roaming means no roaming charges, so you pay the same rate for
all calls but you won't be able to make calls in many areas of the
country, including some local areas.

Of course you probably recall Sprint's "Clear Alternative to Cellular"
campaign, including, "We built the largest all digital PCS network."
There were four modifiers in that eight word sentence: 'built,' 'all,'
'digital,' and 'PCS.' Sprint did indeed build the largest all digital
PCS network. But they did not build the biggest network, or the biggest
digital network, or even have the biggest all-digital network (at the time).

Post by Todd Allcock
WinMo shared the same problem that Android currently does- it took the
blame for any problems caused by bad hardware or poor implementation by
OEMs, and fragmentation caused by carriers or OEMs who don't provide
updates or obscure the OS behind custom UIs or shells (HTC is certainly
guilty of all of the above!)

Microsoft Windows had the exact same problems in the early days.
Microsoft finally solved the problem with WHQL and certified drivers.
Chip and box makers grumbled, but the carrot Microsoft held out was
lower licensing fees for Windows. Microsoft actually listened to the
concerns of chipmakers and box makers and made many concessions in terms
of minimum hardware requirements, as well as required and forbidden
connectivity (they originally wanted the legacy I/O interfaces like PS/2
ports, serial ports, and parallel ports, removed far earlier than the
customers of the box makers would tolerate). They actually are a very
responsive company.

Paul Miner

2011-04-27 18:52:50 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
Virgin's coverage (by population, not necessarily geography) is
comparable to Metro/Cricket- about 90% of the US.

There's nothing extreme about it. You and Todd agreed above that about
90% of the country's population is covered. If so, that's far from
extremely limited.

--
Paul Miner

Justin

2011-04-27 19:17:25 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
Virgin's coverage (by population, not necessarily geography) is
comparable to Metro/Cricket- about 90% of the US.

There's nothing extreme about it. You and Todd agreed above that about
90% of the country's population is covered. If so, that's far from
extremely limited.

Shoot, that's ubiquitous.

Paul Miner

2011-04-27 19:28:35 UTC

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Justin

Post by Todd Allcock
Virgin's coverage (by population, not necessarily geography) is
comparable to Metro/Cricket- about 90% of the US.

There's nothing extreme about it. You and Todd agreed above that about
90% of the country's population is covered. If so, that's far from
extremely limited.

Shoot, that's ubiquitous.

That's the word I was looking for! ;-)

WiFi is available in what, maybe .001% of the country, maybe a tenth
of that, and it's ubiquitous, but VM covers 90% of the country and
it's extremely limited? What happened? I remember when words had
meaning. These days words like ubiquitous and extremely are like
taffy, getting pulled so far as to be unrecognizable.

--
Paul Miner

Todd Allcock

2011-04-27 20:22:22 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
Virgin's coverage (by population, not necessarily geography) is
comparable to Metro/Cricket- about 90% of the US.

True. The ability to roam is handy. From the carrier's POV, however, it
dilutes their "message." I'd happily pay extra for my T-Mo phone to roam
on AT&T when needed, but T-Mo is too proud of their "no roaming" mantra.

Post by SMS
Q. Does Virgin Mobile coverage include roaming?
A. Roaming is for buffalo. All our services are supported by 100%
digital coverage. No roaming means no roaming charges, so you
pay the same rate for all calls.
The truth is that with Virgin Mobile's inability to roam, even for an
extra charge, your coverage is severely limited. The answer to this
No roaming means no roaming charges, so you pay the same rate for
all calls but you won't be able to make calls in many areas of the
country, including some local areas.
Of course you probably recall Sprint's "Clear Alternative to Cellular"
campaign, including, "We built the largest all digital PCS network."
There were four modifiers in that eight word sentence: 'built,' 'all,'
'digital,' and 'PCS.' Sprint did indeed build the largest all digital
PCS network. But they did not build the biggest network, or the biggest
digital network, or even have the biggest all-digital network (at the time).

It _was_ the biggest all-digital network at that time. Verizon, Cingular
and AT&T had larger networks, buut they were hybrid analog/digital, not
"all-digital." It's like when DirecTV bragged they're the largest "100%
digital" Pay TV provider. A bunch of terrestrial cable companies were
larger, but they all ran hybrid analog/digital systems.

Microsoft Windows had the exact same problems in the early days.
Microsoft finally solved the problem with WHQL and certified drivers.
Chip and box makers grumbled, but the carrot Microsoft held out was
lower licensing fees for Windows. Microsoft actually listened to the
concerns of chipmakers and box makers and made many concessions in
terms of minimum hardware requirements, as well as required and
forbidden connectivity (they originally wanted the legacy I/O
interfaces like PS/2 ports, serial ports, and parallel ports, removed
far earlier than the customers of the box makers would tolerate). They
actually are a very responsive company.

The difference is that MS has leverage with PC makers. With WinMo
licenses, which sold for about $8-10, there wasn't that same carrot to
dangle! ;) ("Ok, HTC, make a phone that doesn't crash and doesn't
replace our home screen with a graphical representation of a circa-1972
alarm clock, and you can have the licenses for _$6_ each...")

SMS

2011-04-27 20:31:45 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
It _was_ the biggest all-digital network at that time.

I'm pretty sure that at the time of that ad campaign, Nextel had a
geographically larger "all-digital" iDEN network, and Nextel still has
some coverage that Sprint lacks natively.

Todd Allcock

2011-04-27 21:33:08 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
It _was_ the biggest all-digital network at that time.

I'm pretty sure that at the time of that ad campaign, Nextel had a
geographically larger "all-digital" iDEN network, and Nextel still has
some coverage that Sprint lacks natively.

There you go! By strict definition, Nextel was neither "cellular" nor
"PCS," but SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) so Sprint's claim, which, IIRC,
was actually "the nation's largest all-digital PCS network" would still
pass muster! ;)

(Although I'm pretty sure even then Sprint had more coverage than Nextel.)

SMS

2011-04-28 09:55:33 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
It _was_ the biggest all-digital network at that time.

I'm pretty sure that at the time of that ad campaign, Nextel had a
geographically larger "all-digital" iDEN network, and Nextel still has
some coverage that Sprint lacks natively.

But iDEN _is_ all-digital. And if you look at the old maps, Nextel had
coverage in places that Sprint lacked native coverage (and they still
do). I was parsing Sprint's claim "All," "Digital" "PCS" and "Largest"
to show that only when they got extremely specific did their claim have
any validity. Clearly, they meant to imply that they had a larger
digital network than AT&T, Verizon, or Cingular, even though they
didn't, but their competitors were keeping AMPS turned on because the
FCC required it. I guess, to their credit, they didn't just out-and-out
lie, like the carrier that claimed that they had the fewest dropped
calls, or the carriers that have recently engaged in G inflation ("we
don't have LTE so we'll just say that what we do have is 4G").

Post by Todd Allcock
(Although I'm pretty sure even then Sprint had more coverage than Nextel.)

>. They are very
similar, but Nextel did have some coverage that Sprint lacked (natively).

Todd Allcock

2011-04-28 13:24:05 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
It _was_ the biggest all-digital network at that time.

I'm pretty sure that at the time of that ad campaign, Nextel had a
geographically larger "all-digital" iDEN network, and Nextel still has
some coverage that Sprint lacks natively.

But iDEN _is_ all-digital.

But it's not "PCS," so Sprint's claim was accurate by advertising
standards.

Post by SMS
And if you look at the old maps, Nextel had
coverage in places that Sprint lacked native coverage (and they still
do).

And vice versa.

Post by SMS
I was parsing Sprint's claim "All," "Digital" "PCS" and "Largest"
to show that only when they got extremely specific did their claim have
any validity.

Of course. Welcome to Madison Avenue... (I still laugh when I think of
the ads in Ricky Gervais' "The Invention of Lying," a movie set in an
alternate reality where people never discovered how to lie. A TV ad tag
line proclaims "Pepsi: When they don't have Coke...")

Post by SMS
Clearly, they meant to imply that they had a larger
digital network than AT&T, Verizon, or Cingular, even though they didn't,

Actually, at the time they started the ad campaign, they probably did.
The legacy analog carriers wee fairly slow too adopt digital; it was a
fairly expensive upgrade, the analog system worked very well, and the
only real advantage to digital was an increase in capacity in congested
areas, which were few at the time (NY, LA, SF, much like today!) and that
was already partially mitigated by N-AMPS (Narrow band analog.)

Post by SMS
but their competitors were keeping AMPS turned on because the FCC
required it.

That was much later. When Sprint launched there was competitively little
digital on the legacy 800 MHz carriers.

Post by SMS
I guess, to their credit, they didn't just out-and-out
lie, like the carrier that claimed that they had the fewest dropped
calls, or the carriers that have recently engaged in G inflation ("we
don't have LTE so we'll just say that what we do have is 4G").

I was actually impressed with the stones T-Mo displayed with their 4G
campaign. In many ways it made sense. Their implementation of 21 and
42Mb HSDPA _is_ faster than Sprint/Clear's WiMax, so if Sprint is "4G"
why not T-Mo?

Post by Todd Allcock
(Although I'm pretty sure even then Sprint had more coverage than Nextel.)

Sprint did (and does) have better coverage than Nextel overall since
there are so few iDEN networks on which to roam (I think Southern LINC
is the only other one of any significant size in the U.S.).
Compare old maps at <http://i55.tinypic.com/o7t7ix.jpg>. They are very
similar, but Nextel did have some coverage that Sprint lacked (natively).

...and vice versa. Plus Sprint did have some reciprocal roaming on the
old PrimeCo PCS network Sprint later acquired.

Paul Miner

2011-04-28 15:17:21 UTC

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:24:05 -0600, Todd Allcock

Post by SMS
And if you look at the old maps, Nextel had
coverage in places that Sprint lacked native coverage (and they still
do).

And vice versa.

Post by SMS
Compare old maps at <http://i55.tinypic.com/o7t7ix.jpg>. They are very
similar, but Nextel did have some coverage that Sprint lacked (natively).

...and vice versa. Plus Sprint did have some reciprocal roaming on the
old PrimeCo PCS network Sprint later acquired.

I've also pointed out the 'vice versa' aspect, but he ignores it. I
guess it doesn't fit the agenda.

--
Paul Miner

Justin

2011-04-28 17:07:15 UTC

Post by Paul Miner
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:24:05 -0600, Todd Allcock

Post by SMS
And if you look at the old maps, Nextel had
coverage in places that Sprint lacked native coverage (and they still
do).

And vice versa.

Post by SMS
Compare old maps at <http://i55.tinypic.com/o7t7ix.jpg>. They are very
similar, but Nextel did have some coverage that Sprint lacked (natively).

...and vice versa. Plus Sprint did have some reciprocal roaming on the
old PrimeCo PCS network Sprint later acquired.

I've also pointed out the 'vice versa' aspect, but he ignores it. I
guess it doesn't fit the agenda.

shoot, nextel was ubiquitous

crkeehn

2011-04-29 09:43:29 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
It _was_ the biggest all-digital network at that time.

I'm pretty sure that at the time of that ad campaign, Nextel had a
geographically larger "all-digital" iDEN network, and Nextel still

has

Post by SMS
some coverage that Sprint lacks natively.

There you go! By strict definition, Nextel was neither "cellular" nor
"PCS," but SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) so Sprint's claim, which,

IIRC,

Post by Todd Allcock
was actually "the nation's largest all-digital PCS network" would

still

Post by Todd Allcock
pass muster! ;)

But iDEN _is_ all-digital.

But it's not "PCS," so Sprint's claim was accurate by advertising
standards.

Post by SMS
And if you look at the old maps, Nextel had
coverage in places that Sprint lacked native coverage (and they still
do).

And vice versa.

Post by SMS
I was parsing Sprint's claim "All," "Digital" "PCS" and "Largest"
to show that only when they got extremely specific did their claim have
any validity.

Thank you for the movie suggestion. I've put it on my Netflix queue.

Todd Allcock

2011-04-29 13:31:24 UTC

Post by crkeehn

Post by Todd Allcock
It _was_ the biggest all-digital network at that time.

I'm pretty sure that at the time of that ad campaign, Nextel had a
geographically larger "all-digital" iDEN network, and Nextel still

has

Post by SMS
some coverage that Sprint lacks natively.

There you go! By strict definition, Nextel was neither "cellular" nor
"PCS," but SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio) so Sprint's claim, which,

IIRC,

Post by Todd Allcock
was actually "the nation's largest all-digital PCS network" would

still

Post by Todd Allcock
pass muster! ;)

But iDEN _is_ all-digital.

But it's not "PCS," so Sprint's claim was accurate by advertising
standards.

Post by SMS
And if you look at the old maps, Nextel had
coverage in places that Sprint lacked native coverage (and they still
do).

And vice versa.

Post by SMS
I was parsing Sprint's claim "All," "Digital" "PCS" and "Largest"
to show that only when they got extremely specific did their claim have
any validity.

Thank you for the movie suggestion. I've put it on my Netflix queue.

No problem. It's not a great movie, but it has some great moments. It
looks like it started out as a quirky indie film idea that got the
Hollywood treatment, and ended up failing at being either, but it has a
good cast and enough funny and thoughtful moments to be worth a viewing.

Paul Miner

2011-04-27 21:46:18 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
It _was_ the biggest all-digital network at that time.

I'm pretty sure that at the time of that ad campaign, Nextel had a
geographically larger "all-digital" iDEN network, and Nextel still has
some coverage that Sprint lacks natively.

Doesn't every carrier have some coverage that other carriers lack
natively?

--
Paul Miner

George

2011-04-27 14:27:33 UTC

Most urban areas are covered under Metro PCS. The coverage maps of Metro
PCS native coverage and Virgin (Sprint native coverage) look pretty
close, but with Metro PCS at least you have the option of coverage in
other areas at extra cost.
Sprint has been around for nearly two decades now- they may

Post by Todd Allcock
not have quite Verizon's level of coverage, but they have a pretty
extensive native network, and to put them in the same category as
MetroPCS is a bit insulting.

Post by Todd Allcock
I think you vastly overestimate the total number of SERO customers, never
mind the subset who may or may not have walked because of upgrade
policies!

I don't understand why people hated WinMo so much. I liked it.

Post by Todd Allcock
Go ahead and borrow the title. Don't forget to include the pathetic old
Samsung i600 (no touchscreen) and i730 (touchscreen) and their ability to
still use free QNC. Neat WinMo trick #243: you can configure the email
client to poll with a different data connection than other apps. This
way,
the email client can poll IMAP or POP email on free QNC, but you can
configure the browser to use 3G/EVDO. always up-to-date email with no
KB/MB usage, leaving your 100MB for browsing and MMS.

Most of the audience is not that sophisticated.

Thanks, I'll add a slide with that.

One Android app, for rooted Droids, stops that sort of nonsense. It lets
you specify which apps are allowed data access.

"There are just too many places I drive through with no data coverage,"

Me too. You should talk to that SMS guy about ubiquitous WiFi...

Steve Sobol

2011-04-27 23:20:49 UTC

Post by George
"There are just too many places I drive through with no data coverage,"
Me too. You should talk to that SMS guy about ubiquitous WiFi...

<High-Five>

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
***@JustThe.net

Paul Miner

2011-04-27 00:50:53 UTC

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:01:40 -0600, Todd Allcock

Post by Todd Allcock
And so what if people want to stream media with a phone? "Smart"
streaming that compensates for mobile deivces/bandwidth uses
comparetively little data. The Pandora client on my phone sounds pretty
crummy compared to the desktop version. By sound alone, I'd estimate it
only runs 40k or so- it works fine over EDGE, which on T-Mo tells me it's
certainly less than 90k (the average EDGE speed I seem to get in my
neighborhood.) BeatlesRadio.com offers a low bandwidth mono stream that
even works over GPRS (keeps me company on overnight drives out in the
boondocks where even EDGE is sometimes elusive.)

Good news! Forget EDGE, forget GPRS. I heard that WiFi is ubiquitous,
so all of our connectivity problems are solved. ;-)

--
Paul Miner

Paul Miner

2011-04-26 23:05:19 UTC

In other words, useful for most people?

--
Paul Miner

Justin

2011-04-27 00:08:29 UTC

Did that Cisco study state that everyone of those users had wifi available
for use at work, or are you once again ignoring facts?

Post by SMS
The bottom line is that the vast majority of 3G/4G data is used by
subscribers that rightfully see no need to be frugal with 3G/4G data
usage since they are paying for an unlimited data plan. All studies show
that a 100 MB metered data plan is usually sufficient for users willing
to use 3G/4G only when there is no Wi-Fi or other internet access

Using the false assumption that everyone has wifi available at work

Post by SMS
Of course there are those that really need to use vast amounts of data
per month, and for them a Page Plus plan would not work, but the number

I'm sorry, but over 200 MB of data is not a vast amount of data.

SMS

2011-04-27 01:04:18 UTC

Did that Cisco study state that everyone of those users had wifi available
for use at work, or are you once again ignoring facts?

What the Cisco study probably meant to imply is that people were using
their smart phones, at work, for data usage, even when there was other
Internet available, whether it was Wi-Fi for a phone or wired or
wireless access for a desktop or laptop computer.

I suppose it could be argued that some companies forbid the use of
company computers for personal use, but by the same token those
companies probably don't like people doing web browsing when they are
supposed to be working. The companies I've worked for have all
officially allowed occasional and reasonable personal use, and AFAIK it
was not abused.

Justin

2011-04-27 01:28:43 UTC

Post by SMS
What the Cisco study probably meant to imply is that people were using
their smart phones, at work, for data usage, even when there was other
Internet available, whether it was Wi-Fi for a phone or wired or
wireless access for a desktop or laptop computer.
I suppose it could be argued that some companies forbid the use of

SOME?!?!?!? I'd argue most.

Post by SMS
company computers for personal use, but by the same token those
companies probably don't like people doing web browsing when they are
supposed to be working. The companies I've worked for have all
officially allowed occasional and reasonable personal use, and AFAIK it
was not abused.

Companies can monitor anything and everything you do on company
computers. Every company I have worked for has an acceptbale us policy
that all use of company equipment will be for business purposes only.
Using a company PC to send and receive email is stupid. Let alone facebook
or anything else of the sort.

Of course companies don't want you browsing unless it's work related
and there is a LOT of browing that IS work related. The best troubleshooting
you can do it by pasting an error message into google to see what it
actually means.

A lot of companies block access to sites they don't want you to see,
and I run into a lot of issues with this due to problem solutions
for many technical issues posted on personal blogs that are blocked.

SMS

2011-04-27 01:35:18 UTC

Post by Justin
A lot of companies block access to sites they don't want you to see,
and I run into a lot of issues with this due to problem solutions
for many technical issues posted on personal blogs that are blocked.

I had to once order some equipment from a company called Essex Computer.
The site was automatically blocked because of "sex" in the URL. When I
called IT to have it unblocked they first wanted to know if I could just
order the equipment from somewhere else. I told them that I would be
happy to do that, as long as the $200 or so in extra cost from another
vendor could be billed to the IT department and not my department--they
didn't like this idea so they unblocked the site for me, but I got the
feeling that it was a lot of work for them to unblock individual sites
that their software automatically blocked.

Company's differ in their policies, but every company I've worked for
has allowed occasional personal use.

Wes Groleau

2011-04-27 02:59:47 UTC

got the feeling that it was a lot of work for them to unblock individual
sites

No, it's not a lot of work. It's just more work than not doing it.
And every exception (we fear) will inspire three more requests.

(Yeah, I'm an IT guy)

--
Wes Groleau

There are two types of people in the world …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

Justin

2011-04-27 03:31:23 UTC

got the feeling that it was a lot of work for them to unblock individual
sites

No, it's not a lot of work. It's just more work than not doing it.
And every exception (we fear) will inspire three more requests.
(Yeah, I'm an IT guy)

IT is supposed to be there to help the users. I'm sorry that to get my
job done I have to access a blocked website. That sort of thing inspires me
to subvert the controls that IT have in place so I don't need to submit
a request that Joe's Websphere Blog be unblocked because it looks like the
search snippet google provides that it has the answer I need.

Paul Miner

2011-04-27 01:56:34 UTC

Did that Cisco study state that everyone of those users had wifi available
for use at work, or are you once again ignoring facts?

What the Cisco study probably meant to imply

*groan* It wasn't enough that you were making up 'facts' to support
your unsupportable position? Now you have to tell us what the Cisco
study "meant to imply"? Geeze...

Post by SMS
is that people were using
their smart phones, at work, for data usage, even when there was other
Internet available, whether it was Wi-Fi for a phone or wired or
wireless access for a desktop or laptop computer.

--
Paul Miner

George

2011-04-27 14:45:47 UTC

Did that Cisco study state that everyone of those users had wifi available
for use at work, or are you once again ignoring facts?

Really, it isn't silly enough that you keep trotting out the Cisco study
as if it meant something to anyone besides the Cisco marketing folks and
now you know what it meant to imply?

Post by SMS
I suppose it could be argued that some companies forbid the use of
company computers for personal use, but by the same token those
companies probably don't like people doing web browsing when they are
supposed to be working. The companies I've worked for have all
officially allowed occasional and reasonable personal use, and AFAIK it
was not abused.

Todd Allcock

2011-04-26 16:37:10 UTC

Post by Todd Allcock
Tell that too everyone on a SERO plan who tried to swap a WinMo
smartphone with an Android.

This wasn't the first time Sprint tossed "dead weight" customers overboard.
I've got a friend who's in Sprint management that told me long ago that
Sprint was cutting loose a bunch of low-usage customers on low-fee (sub
$15/month) plans because the cost of keeping them just wasn't worth it.
I suspect the same was true of SERO. SERO users got a lot of value for
their $30, and Sprint took the gamble that enough would convert for the
shiny device of the moment to justify churning the others. Sprint
already offers the best "unlimited" deal of the major carriers (that
include a phone subsidy,) so it's not like those SERO customers would
find a better deal elsewhere.

Post by SMS
It's amazing that Page Plus is allowed to continue offering their plans
on any Verizon compatible phone other than the iPhone. The only thing
protecting Page Plus is that so few consumers have ever heard of them.

That and the contract they have with Verizon. You act as if PagePlus is
sneaking something past Verizon. If that were true, PP would offer plans
with more data (at higher cost, of course) to attract higher-use customers.

Hachiroku ハチロク

2011-04-30 02:24:04 UTC