Jump to content

What will Sprint do with Clearwire now that it owns it?


newgroundsguru

Recommended Posts

My guess is that Sprint will stop Clearwire LTE deployment on CLWR sites. Sprint will only add TD-LTE on Network Vision sites, as needed for capacity. After 2014, Sprint would then start dismantling the CLWR network.That's what I would do. Sprint will need to get rid of all those redundant CLWR sites to reduce operational expenses. And CLWR doesn't really offer any additional coverage to Sprint, especially after Sprint deploys 800. CLWR just has denser site spacing within the Sprint footprint.Expect CLWR sites to go away after the WiMax commitment disappears. Of course, this is all dependent on whether Sprint ends up with CLWR and DISH does not end up with Sprint or Clearwire. And these are just my educated guesses.Robert via Nexus 7 with Tapatalk HD

If I owned Clearwire I'd pillage it for the spectrum. This is Sprint's opportunity to get fat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I owned Clearwire I'd pillage it for the spectrum. This is Sprint's opportunity to get fat.

Boy, looking back at my quote, I'm amazed that Sprint has even exceeded my expectations. Yeehaw! :tu:

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, looking back at my quote, I'm amazed that Sprint has even exceeded my expectations. Yeehaw! :tu:

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

For sure! They blew those expectations out of the water! Pure Awesomeness!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh they already do, so yes?

Sprint is not a home ISP. If Sprint offers 50Mbps home service via TD-LTE, it will have a lot more takers than WiMax. And it will fill up the airwaves in no time. We all have just been asking for years to have a usable smartphone experience. I'm not willing to give that up for home users.

 

And if they do consider it, you can forget unlimited on it. They will do something like Verizon has done with their home ISP LTE service with data tiers.

 

If I was the head of Sprint I would offer service specifically in rural unserved areas and maybe offer those people unlimited, or very high caps. Or just streaming caps and unlimited browsing.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint is not a home ISP. If Sprint offers 50Mbps home service via TD-LTE, it will have a lot more takers than WiMax. And it will fill up the airwaves in no time. We all have just been asking for years to have a usable smartphone experience. I'm not willing to give that up for home users.

 

And if they do consider it, you can forget unlimited on it. They will do something like Verizon has done with their home ISP LTE service with data tiers.

 

If I was the head of Sprint I would offer service specifically in rural unserved areas and maybe offer those people unlimited, or very high caps. Or just streaming caps and unlimited browsing.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

 

I think i am the one with the expendable spectrum for the home users.. I have enough to take on several years of abuse; In which time I can get a fiber connection to as many homes as possible. 

 

I as well need 50K cell sites. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they offered home internet based on Clear's offerings, like capped at 6 Mbps with a 50-100 GB limit, that would be better than nothing, IMO. I would settle in for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i am the one with the expendable spectrum for the home users.. I have enough to take on several years of abuse; In which time I can get a fiber connection to as many homes as possible. 

 

I as well need 50K cell sites. 

 

That's a bold claim... if you can match FiOS's 10TB soft cap that would be something. A 50/40 connection could in theory move up to about 28 TB a month if my math is correct.

 

If they offered home internet based on Clear's offerings, like capped at 6 Mbps with a 50-100 GB limit, that would be better than nothing, IMO. I would settle in for that.

 

Agreed. With all that spectrum and the addition of small cells that will be deployed throughout most of Clearwire's old footprint, I'd say offer two options- high speed (match the local cable ISP's standard tier, which is likely around 20/5 Mbps but with a lower cap of about 100GB) to a 2600 LTE-only modem, or lower speed (6/1 Mbps, same cap) on either 2600 or 1900 LTE. 800 LTE should stay off limits as a last resort for mobile/rural users. Even in urban areas the competition would be welcome to keep the cable/telco duopoly in check until residential fiber arrives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bold claim... if you can match FiOS's 10TB soft cap that would be something. A 50/40 connection could in theory move up to about 28 TB a month if my math is correct.

 

 

 

Agreed. With all that spectrum and the addition of small cells that will be deployed throughout most of Clearwire's old footprint, I'd say offer two options- high speed (match the local cable ISP's standard tier, which is likely around 20/5 Mbps but with a lower cap of about 100GB) to a 2600 LTE-only modem, or lower speed (6/1 Mbps, same cap) on either 2600 or 1900 LTE. 800 LTE should stay off limits as a last resort for mobile/rural users. Even in urban areas the competition would be welcome to keep the cable/telco duopoly in check until residential fiber arrives.

Over a FTTH connection I would be able to leave bandwidth relatively unlimited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over a FTTH connection I would be able to leave bandwidth relatively unlimited.

 

Yes, a fiber service (GPON?) should be able to be left uncapped, but I didn't mean that. You mentioned how your wireless service could withstand abuse for a long time, so I was curious as to what extent. Forget 10TB- even a 200GB cap would exceed any other mobile option I can think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a fiber service (GPON?) should be able to be left uncapped, but I didn't mean that. You mentioned how your wireless service could withstand abuse for a long time, so I was curious as to what extent. Forget 10TB- even a 200GB cap would exceed any other mobile option I can think of.

 

I was thinking something along the lines of 5,20,50,90,150 cap plans for Fixed wireless.  Choose what suits you, if you exceed it 3 times you will be forced to move up.  I think it's fair.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking something along the lines of 5,20,50,90,150 cap plans for Fixed wireless.  Choose what suits you, if you exceed it 3 times you will be forced to move up.  I think it's fair.  

 

Considering Comcast will be capping most of their residential-class subscribers at 300GB, and AT&T DSL is 150GB (250GB for U-Verse), a top offering of 150GB sounds pretty fair for a home ISP in this market, depending on the overage rate. A permanent bump-up makes more sense than just terminating the account. I can't imagine there would be many who opt for the 5 or 20GB tiers, but maybe that's just the bubble I live in. Will there be different caps and prices for small businesses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering Comcast will be capping most of their residential-class subscribers at 300GB, and AT&T DSL is 150GB (250GB for U-Verse), a top offering of 150GB sounds pretty fair for a home ISP in this market, depending on the overage rate. A permanent bump-up makes more sense than just terminating the account. I can't imagine there would be many who opt for the 5 or 20GB tiers, but maybe that's just the bubble I live in. Will there be different caps and prices for small businesses?

No overage fees, I don't believe in it. I'd rather make exceptions for the high usage folks and work out an agreement so that everyone has a plan that fits their usage best. A portion of folks, especially those that have had limited or no prior access to broadband will fit the lower tier packages well, as it will be an affordable alternative to anything currently available and if you end up using more than expected you will just have to move up to a higher tier package.   The only thing available to small businesses will be the mobile portion of the network, the fixed wireless & FTTH will only be for residential.  Many businesses already have access to some sort of a metro fiber provider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No overage fees, I don't believe in it. I'd rather make exceptions for the high usage folks and work out an agreement so that everyone has a plan that fits their usage best. A portion of folks, especially those that have had limited or no prior access to broadband will fit the lower tier packages well, as it will be an affordable alternative to anything currently available and if you end up using more than expected you will just have to move up to a higher tier package. The only thing available to small businesses will be the mobile portion of the network, the fixed wireless & FTTH will only be for residential. Many businesses already have access to some sort of a metro fiber provider.

Can't wait till you release your big plan and the technology you'll be using and stuff, maybe a preview post in Premier Sponsors?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't wait till you release your big plan and the technology you'll be using and stuff, maybe a preview post in Premier Sponsors?

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

Days before the public announcement I'll put something in the premier section, there was a little bit of info that got leaked out here earlier this week. http://s4gru.com/index.php?/topic/4525-why-didnt-sprint-jump-for-5g/page-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising they have not incorporated clears unlimited plans into sprint, but Lame none the less.

 

They certainly are not competitive with clears $50 unlimited plan, that is for sure.

Clear's unlimited plans were really designed for another era. Before Netflix, before YouTube HD, before file sharing gigabytes and gigabytes of videos, which are all things normal people do now.

 

What I could see are some bandwidth capped plans with unlimited WEB BROWSING up to a certain point, or something like that.

 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No overage fees, I don't believe in it. I'd rather make exceptions for the high usage folks and work out an agreement so that everyone has a plan that fits their usage best.

 

I think it's great that you've decided to forgo overage fees on the lower usage plans, but what if someone who is already on the 150 plan consistently uses, say, 200GB? When you contact them individually, are you saying you think the network will have enough capacity that you could just ask them to pay a bit more monthly for that usage, or would you have to ask them to find another provider? I suppose some of that is dependent on how many subscribers (and thus spare capacity) you end up having, but I am curious if you'll be adopting a wait-and-see approach with that or take action from the beginning to throttle the extra usage or suspend service.

 

What I could see are some bandwidth capped plans with unlimited WEB BROWSING up to a certain point, or something like that.

 

How enforceable would that be though? Couldn't customers just use a VPN to get around such deep packet inspection? I think if someone is truly just doing "web browsing", that a smaller cap of 50GB or so would be enough for an entire month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's great that you've decided to forgo overage fees on the lower usage plans, but what if someone who is already on the 150 plan consistently uses, say, 200GB? When you contact them individually, are you saying you think the network will have enough capacity that you could just ask them to pay a bit more monthly for that usage, or would you have to ask them to find another provider? I suppose some of that is dependent on how many subscribers (and thus spare capacity) you end up having, but I am curious if you'll be adopting a wait-and-see approach with that or take action from the beginning to throttle the extra usage or suspend service.

 

 

Capacity shouldn't be much of an issue, backhaul will be sufficient to support multiple home fiber connections.  If a site is overburdened  by wireless customers they will not see so much of a slowdown in throughput; they will just have a longer wait time to get through the ''que.''  For example on an unloaded sector you may be able to pull 60/60 with a 10ms ping, and on an overloaded sector you may pull 22/15 with a 100ms ping.  To the customer that difference is not so noticeable for normal internet usage, even streaming.  Back to your question, with my thought process at this time I had planned to provide some form of notification to the customer when they reach 80-90% of their monthly usage.  When you do exceed your data plan, be it 20GB or 150GB you will not be hard capped and shut off; however you will be throttled down to a speed that only allows you to communicate in emergencies (100kbps).  I have though that we could offer "Top off" data points that would allow you to keep using your connection at a high speed and this would be available to all tiers.  So you exceed 150GB & you add 40GB in top off points to keep yourself in action for the remainder of the month.  Keep in mind if you are a customer that is in constant excess of 150GB you will be one of the first that I'll try to push to a fixed fiber connection for your home.  Heavy data users on fiber, lighter users on wireless & everyone has plenty of speed to go around.  I won't charge your arms and legs off, I'm a practical/ethical guy & I have strong views about the importance of affordable reliable internet access. 

-Will-

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the throttle + top off idea- that way there are no surprise bills at the end of the month. If the throttle ends up being just 100kbps, then it probably wouldn't be necessary to force a subscriber to a higher tier. At that speed their extra usage couldn't exceed 1GB/day even if they used the throttled speed 24/7. However, no one likes being throttled so I'm sure if you encourage them to move to a higher tier when they hit their high-speed cap, many will. I'd also assume that something like the 20 plan + a 30GB top off would cost a bit more than the 50 plan, so you'd make more from people who end up doing that anyway.

 

On second thought, a user on the lowest 5GB plan could use well beyond what they paid for even with a 100kbps throttle if they hit their cap early enough... assuming they don't top off, I'd probably use an unadvertised buffer (10-20% beyond the initial allowance) to determine whether or not to move that user to a higher tier. For example, if a 5GB plan subscriber uses in excess of 6GB (1GB throttled) three times, then they'd have to move to the 20 plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the throttle + top off idea- that way there are no surprise bills at the end of the month. If the throttle ends up being just 100kbps, then it probably wouldn't be necessary to force a subscriber to a higher tier. At that speed their extra usage couldn't exceed 1GB/day even if they used the throttled speed 24/7. However, no one likes being throttled so I'm sure if you encourage them to move to a higher tier when they hit their high-speed cap, many will. I'd also assume that something like the 20 plan + a 30GB top off would cost a bit more than the 50 plan, so you'd make more from people who end up doing that anyway.

 

On second thought, a user on the lowest 5GB plan could use well beyond what they paid for even with a 100kbps throttle if they hit their cap early enough... assuming they don't top off, I'd probably use an unadvertised buffer (10-20% beyond the initial allowance) to determine whether or not to move that user to a higher tier. For example, if a 5GB plan subscriber uses in excess of 6GB (1GB throttled) three times, then they'd have to move to the 20 plan.

 

Yes for example the 50GB plan $32.99/month is about $12 cheaper than a 20GB plan plus 30GB ala carte.

If a sub hits their 5GB cap day 6 of 30 and doesn't top off or move up in tiers they can continue to use 100kbps for the entire duration of the billing cycle if they so choose.

 

Each site will be able to move around 10 Terabytes [TB] of data daily so I think individual capacity will not be an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes for example the 50GB plan $32.99/month is about $12 cheaper than a 20GB plan plus 30GB ala carte.

If a sub hits their 5GB cap day 6 of 30 and doesn't top off or move up in tiers they can continue to use 100kbps for the entire duration of the billing cycle if they so choose.

 

Each site will be able to move around 10 Terabytes [TB] of data daily so I think individual capacity will not be an issue.

 

Sounds good. I'll definitely be looking forward to the launch. Will you have somewhere to sign up for news alerts, or is it enough to keep a sharp eye around here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds good. I'll definitely be looking forward to the launch. Will you have somewhere to sign up for news alerts, or is it enough to keep a sharp eye around here?

Days before a public announcement I'll post something on here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprint is not a home ISP. If Sprint offers 50Mbps home service via TD-LTE, it will have a lot more takers than WiMax. And it will fill up the airwaves in no time. We all have just been asking for years to have a usable smartphone experience. I'm not willing to give that up for home users.

 

And if they do consider it, you can forget unlimited on it. They will do something like Verizon has done with their home ISP LTE service with data tiers.

 

If I was the head of Sprint I would offer service specifically in rural unserved areas and maybe offer those people unlimited, or very high caps. Or just streaming caps and unlimited browsing.

 

Robert via Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 using Tapatalk

I would like to see a 5 Mbps fixed service on 2.5 only.  I think that is a reasonable basic broadband for home for someone who is not data intensive and doesn't want to deal with wired ISPs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see a 5 Mbps fixed service on 2.5 only.  I think that is a reasonable basic broadband for home for someone who is not data intensive and doesn't want to deal with wired ISPs.

 

Not likely, that spectrum was too expensive for affordable home use.  I would be embarrassed for a client to receive less than 8mbps. 

-Will-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not likely, that spectrum was too expensive for affordable home use. I would be embarrassed for a client to receive less than 8mbps.

-Will-

Providing affordable fixed services is an integral part of a BRS spectrum license. I don't see why you call it expensive, a piece of Cellular 850 or even PCS is far more valuable.

 

The entire point of the 2500/2600 block is that it is easy to use for high capacity fixed broadband services. Mobile use was never part of the equation until Sprint was granted an exception for Xohm WiMAX, although they (and Clearwire) were required to provide fixed services at prices relatively competitive with wired connections. This requirement has not been removed, so I do expect to see an affordable fixed solutions in the near future.

 

It's like Verizon and AT&T with the open access stipulation on their 700MHz spectrum. Like it or not, they are required to both allow all compatible devices to operate, and to allow data connections on all connected devices to be used in any manner and to access any connectable content or services without carrier interference.

 

As far as speeds, 5 Mbps is the maximum fixed connection BRS is required to provide as I recall. It is also slow enough to not substantially interfere with higher speed operations, while being fast enough for every day use. Therefore, such a speed cap would be acceptable. I'm not a speed snob like a lot of people are. I understand the difference between usable and not. Frankly, a 2Mbps connection will help you get a job if you are unemployed as well as a 20Mbps or 200Mbps one will. It will also keep you hooked up with your corporate email, letters to grandma, recipes for dinner, travel planning, etc. I am talking about using a connection as an essential tool, not for high quality video and media content here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Providing affordable fixed services is an integral part of a BRS spectrum license. I don't see why you call it expensive, a piece of Cellular 850 or even PCS is far more valuable.

 

The entire point of the 2500/2600 block is that it is easy to use for high capacity fixed broadband services. Mobile use was never part of the equation until Sprint was granted an exception for Xohm WiMAX, although they (and Clearwire) were required to provide fixed services at prices relatively competitive with wired connections. This requirement has not been removed, so I do expect to see an affordable fixed solutions in the near future.

 

It's like Verizon and AT&T with the open access stipulation on their 700MHz spectrum. Like it or not, they are required to both allow all compatible devices to operate, and to allow data connections on all connected devices to be used in any manner and to access any connectable content or services without carrier interference.

 

And now Sprint will likely use it exclusively for mobile usage.  They were very "Clear" about their intentions when purchasing Clearwire.  And the feds are more interested in having a competitor to the duopoly in mobile wireless data services than a Home ISP that is only providing coverage in urban areas that already have competition (in most instances).

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...