Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1.    #1  
    Want to see how much better off you are/would be using one of these carriers?

    Check out this comparison...

    Cheers, W.
    Last edited by wanderman; 09/12/2004 at 07:01 AM.
  2. #2  
    I thought this would talk about data performance and sound quality. It is only talking about price incentives when switching to the Treo 600 when staying within the respective companies as well as the price of data plans.
  3.    #3  
    Silverado, thanks for your comment :-(

    I take your point but who would really care much about this when there's some $1,000 at stake to start off with? How big would the differences in performance have to be to warrant this additional cost? Would you pay this much more if the sound or data was fractionally better? This is why we thought that the cost comparison was such an important one to make.

    Also, from all the various discussions taking place here and elsewhere it would appear that Sprint are delivering an excellent service...

    Cheers, W.
  4. #4  
    Don't get me wrong... I'm sure this is interesting to some, but I think this is largely a comparison between the two carriers that can be made regardless of the phone. The only thing the Treo adds is the unit's price differtial. People who wanted Verizon were/are probably paying more for service already but they wanted Verizon for specific reasons, like better coverage.
  5.    #5  
    Again, I can agree with your point.

    There was a view on our part to try to bring the "Treo on Verizon" fanfare down to a realistic and objective level. Essentially the same point that you make that it's really no big deal at all...

    Cheers, W.
  6. #6  
    Actually, for light data users like myself, Verizon is the better alternative, since we can access the data services on a Minutes-of-Use basis, while in Sprint we'd be forced to pay $15/month for unlimited Vision.
  7. #7  
    VZW will never favorably compare to SPCS from strictly a cost standpoint. Those of us who are sticking with VZW do so for other reasons (coverage is usually #1). It also can translate to cost when most of your contacts are on the VZW network.

    Given that, I do appreciate these reports. It only incents VZW to rethink how they charge their customers. Competition is a good thing for everyone.
  8.    #8  
    Thanks all for your feedback!

    Beryl, I really like the point that you raise. There's really not much sense to choose a mobile carrier that cannot provide ubiquitous reception but is affordable (Sprint) but at the same time paying $1,000 more per year for one that seems to have better coverage (Verizon) is just as difficult a choice.

    Ultimately, those that are looking for good value will choose the one while the ones that are willing to spend more will choose the other...

    Finally, this whole thing begs the question: "Why is wireless coverage + carriers so crap in the US?" Seems like a perfect opportunity for an innovative player to come and gobble the market...
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by wanderman
    ...snip...Finally, this whole thing begs the question: "Why is wireless coverage + carriers so crap in the US?" Seems like a perfect opportunity for an innovative player to come and gobble the market...
    Blame free enterprise and lack of government involvement in the infrastructure. In the U.S., the private companies are left to their own devices to develop and build the infrastructure on which their service rides. The government doesn't subsidize or build any of that infrastructure. Consequently, the carriers concentrate on selling their "network" versus selling additional services/innovation or improving the quality of service.

    For example, while some countries in Europe enjoy being able to buy a soft drink from a vending machine via their cell phone, that kind of innovative purchase infrastructure doesn't exist in the U.S. because some company would have to spend money to put the infrastructure in place to make it possible. In the meantime, no cell phone company would back it until there was enough demand/prevalence to make it profitable and the federal/state governments simply stay out of it and provide zero funding. No infrastructure, no devices that would utilize it. No devices that would utilize it, no infrastructure. Chicken versus Egg syndrome.

    As far as the various carriers are concerned, the U.S. has competing technologies (CDMA, 1xRTT, GSM, GPRS, EVDO, EDGE, etc). Instead of being able to concentrate on making the service better, U.S. companies are concentrating on simply getting people to actually use THEIR particular network (e.g. Sprint PCS vs. Verizon vs. T-Mobile vs. Cingular/AT&T). They all own separate cell towers and/or infrastructure. There are a few agreements for roaming between them, but without a unified/universal standard that EVERYONE can agree to (and common infrastructure that ALL can use), we will always be behind on the quality of service and innovation of usage.

    The only saving grace with the way things are in the U.S. is the fact that the competition between the carriers (infrastructure and all) has forced prices to come down. We have options for UNLIMITED data usage versus the per/minute charges in Europe.

    The bottom line: Money, money, money. That is why coverage is what it is in the U.S. Once everyone learns how to play nice in the sandbox, then it will improve. Until then, we can expect that we'll have to settle for a few inconveniences and incompatibilities between carriers.
    Last edited by Insp_Gadget; 07/27/2004 at 02:16 PM.
    --Inspector Gadget

    "Go Go Gadget Pre!!"
    Palm Pre on Sprint

    Palm V--> Palm IIIc--> Visor Prism--> Visor Phone--> Treo 270--> Treo 600--> Treo 650-->
    Treo 700wx--> HTC Touch Diamond--> Palm Pre & HTC EVO 4G.
  10. skidoo's Avatar
    Posts
    345 Posts
    Global Posts
    366 Global Posts
    #10  
    Gadget, your screed sounds like typical Keynesian economics.

    > The only saving grace with the way things are
    > in the U.S. is the fact that the competition
    > between the carriers (infrastructure and all)
    > has forced prices to come down.

    As if this is some small thing. No one said supply-side is necessarily "fun" or "flashy" (a la Pretty Euro Plastic), but profit is what matters, ultimately. Profitability translates to stability.

    Plus, Europe's a LOT smaller. :-)
  11. Minsc's Avatar
    Posts
    967 Posts
    Global Posts
    974 Global Posts
    #11  
    Don't forget that without the competitive nature of the US's approach to wireless service, CDMA might never have been born. (or at least not until years later)
    This would have reduced our high-speed data options to GPRS, with no relief in sight.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by skidoo
    Gadget, your screed sounds like typical Keynesian economics.

    > The only saving grace with the way things are
    > in the U.S. is the fact that the competition
    > between the carriers (infrastructure and all)
    > has forced prices to come down.

    As if this is some small thing. No one said supply-side is necessarily "fun" or "flashy" (a la Pretty Euro Plastic), but profit is what matters, ultimately. Profitability translates to stability.

    Plus, Europe's a LOT smaller. :-)
    I never said it was a small thing, so don't imply that I did. Your tone is insulting. Re-read my post.

    I was answering why there are a hodge-podge of carriers/networks in the U.S. versus a more unified (and universally adopted standard) as other countries in Europe have adopted. I also pointed out that there is commercial innovation that will be slower to be adopted in the U.S. due to competing standards.

    As for "Keynesian" economics, I was stating how things ARE, not how I think they SHOULD be. Never did I state what the government SHOULD do or NOT do. I'm no fan of Mr. Keynes, so don't make me out to be one. I like things just the way they are.

    And if I took longer than you would have to answer the question, or if I was too wordy for you, I won't appologize for it.
    --Inspector Gadget

    "Go Go Gadget Pre!!"
    Palm Pre on Sprint

    Palm V--> Palm IIIc--> Visor Prism--> Visor Phone--> Treo 270--> Treo 600--> Treo 650-->
    Treo 700wx--> HTC Touch Diamond--> Palm Pre & HTC EVO 4G.
  13.    #13  
    Monsieur Gadget, Thanks for the economics lesson!

    Really (no kidding) enjoyed it + actually learned something.

    Cheers, W.
  14. #14  
    If the note at the bottom admits that a current VZ customer can get the phone for $349 ($449 with 2 year contract, minus $100 for "new every two") why not correct the chart?
  15. #15  
    wait until cell phones become critical to the infrastructure of the US (perhaps it already is) and you'll see the US put some tax dollars into that infrastructure. The US has subsidized telephone and cable TV (uh... WHY, exactly?) so why not cell phone infrastructure.

    i'm not now nor ever have been in no way even remotely been confused w/ a liberal but I think in this matter a little standardization would help the consumer and the country at large.

    I hope it never happens, but if there ever is a terrorist attack in the US again, show me one US senator or congressman NOT on his cell phone or anyone in govt. to think cell ph infrastructure isn't critical to the operation of our economy and national way of life is to be a little on the naive side.

    just my .02
  16. #16  
    Doesn't Sprint charge $5 for unlimited voice roaming on VZ's network? If VZ people only care about coverage then that fulfills that demand. The only thing missing is VZ data coverage but the only way to get that is ala carte or $49/month. Besides that, the "fair and flexible" plan is great for people who use a lot of minutes some months and hardly any on others.

    All in all, Sprint probably still looks better for most people.
  17.    #17  
    w@ntonsoup: please read all of the comments and you'll note that VZ customers 'may' be able to get this discount (not 100% confirmed)... thus we left the chart unchanged...

    Cheers, W.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Minsc
    Don't forget that without the competitive nature of the US's approach to wireless service, CDMA might never have been born. (or at least not until years later)
    This would have reduced our high-speed data options to GPRS, with no relief in sight.
    Hmmm, if that's true, then why is Japan using full-blown 3G broadband wireless while the U.S. is just getting started with its broadband wireless rollout?

    I think the U.S. is so full of people/companies/government trying to get their "cut" of the profits that the amount of red tape to get things done has increased to the point that any innovation coming out of the U.S.'s "approach" is gobbled up and takes years to reach anyone in the U.S. Elsewhere, that doesn't seem to be as much of a problem.

    Don't get me wrong...I love competition. But I ask myself...Why run the race if you're going to let everyone else cross the finish line first? (And use the track shoes that you invented to do it?)
    --Inspector Gadget

    "Go Go Gadget Pre!!"
    Palm Pre on Sprint

    Palm V--> Palm IIIc--> Visor Prism--> Visor Phone--> Treo 270--> Treo 600--> Treo 650-->
    Treo 700wx--> HTC Touch Diamond--> Palm Pre & HTC EVO 4G.
  19. #19  
    Not that I don't envy all the gee wiz phones the people in European countries have, but population densities in Europe/Japan have a lot to do with the carriers being able to deploy upgrades to their infrastructures at a faster pace.

    For the sake of discussion, say (hypothetically) one cell site in Japan may be able to serve 10,000 users while a cell site in the US may only serve 2000 users. The cost per user is greater and technological advancements may have to come at a slower pace. The burden on the US carriers is greater due to the vast distances involved.

    I would think that comparing cell service in countries with similar population densities as the US would be a more accurate.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by wanderman
    w@ntonsoup: please read all of the comments and you'll note that VZ customers 'may' be able to get this discount (not 100% confirmed)... thus we left the chart unchanged...
    I just got this deal. It's confirmed. $349 for any existing VZW customer who is not currently under contract and wants to upgrade. It's not a special deal. You ask for it, you get it. Hopefully you'll change the chart.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions