Sprint, the "unlimited data war" and consumer ill-will

[NGeorge]

I posted this in another forum in response to Sprint's slow data speeds, and I thought I would share it here... I occurred to me that Sprint started the "unlimited data war" circa 2002--and that from a marketing perspective, had they "one upped" AT&T and the others repeatedly, we would have gradually got to modern data caps, vs. the situation we have about ticked off consumers losing their "unlimited data plans" when they upgrade to new phones and networks that supposedly have a lot more bandwidth and capacity over what they replace:

I think the overall feeling I have with the wireless companies is that they now seem to be going against the overall grain of "technology tends to get cheaper". I remember when wireless data services first came out; I paid $14.99 per month for "unlimited data" on Qwest, which at the time really wasn't much "data" (it was on my Motorola StarTac at ~56k speeds), but compared to what the competition was offering (either no data, or 14.4k speeds) was pretty good--I got news headlines, directions, weather, e-mail, and could tether to the laptop in a pinch when I was on the road and get full internet at 56k on the road--which was actually faster than a dialup modem, which would never connect at that mythical 56k. That was COOL for 1999. I never abused the service (e.g. made my wireless connection my home ISP)--in fact, since I was probably ahead of my time a bit, there weren't even any tethering notes in the terms & conditions.

I came to Sprint just as (the old) AT&T network was just bringing out GPRS services (same 56k, which CDMA had always enjoyed), and they started their "new" data plans, which were priced truly insane... IIRC the tiers were 8, 16, 200 meg and 500 meg, with that high end being something like $100 per month. Sprint stayed Unlimited, even when they launched "Vision"--which bumped the 56k to around 200k and a nice color screen phone. The other carriers STILL clung to this INSANE megabye pricing before it came crashing down around them (mainly because of Sprint).

Had they just adjusted this "per megabyte" pricing up to more modern standards slowly over the years (e.g. from 8, 16, 200, 500 meg to 2, 6, 8, 15 gig for the same prices) they wouldn't have this "ill will" from consumers--instead, they took the "it's all unlimited" tact--and when they realized that some consumers would abuse it, they started putting caps on the service. BAD PR MOVE. I work in marketing, and could have seen this coming. It's a problem with marketing in the US, and is part of our "more is better" way of life. What the OTHER carriers have created is ill-will because they made the bed of "we can offer unlimited data" (when they never really could) -- especially now when it comes to 4G ("You mean you could give me unlimited on the OLD crappy 3G network, but on the brand new network with TONS of capacity you have to charge me MORE and cap me at 2 gigs??") -- and now they have to deal with it. Technology STILL does get cheaper, but NOT when you create a false sense of cheapness. It's the same mindset that has recently hit Apple with the Ipad in Australia: In the US they call HSDPA a "4G" technology, when in fact it really is still "3G". Australia will not allow a non-LTE device to be called 4G--because it's NOT. But in the US, because we are so driven by "more is better" T-Mobile and AT&T are at such a huge disadvantage if they can not call their HSDPA devices "4G" while Verizon (and even Sprint, because technically WiMax is, as well as the soon-to-launch new LTE network) "technically are 4G", that Apple tried selling their HSDPA Ipad as a "4G" Ipad there--Australia said "Nope".

I have to hand it to Sprint for keeping with the Unlimited theme--although it has allowed their network to slow to a crawl, which dissapoints me. I hope Network Vision really allows them to keep this Unlimited Data at reasonable rates--it's the reason I have kept Sprint as long as I have. From a business standpoint, I see exactly why the other carriers have implemented data caps and have raised their prices--people actually took them up on what they said they would offer them! Sprint has stuck with it, and their network suffered because of it (honestly if I was Sprint I'd cull out the top 5% of high data users and just drop them so they don't ruin it for everyone else--I can't imagine they are making the company any money).

At this point, Sprint can't put a limit on their data--not because they SHOULDN'T (technically they should), but that ship sailed a long time ago--the time to do it was when AT&T had 8 meg data for $20 per month: Sprint could have said "At Sprint, $20 gets you 20 megs of data"--the limits of data would have been pushed up a lot faster (because the other carriers would have upped Sprint), but I don't think the entire "unlimited data war" would have happened, and the carriers wouldn't be in such a bad position of having to look like the price of data and technology is getting more expensive--when it really hasn't.

--Nat

[n2jtx]

At this point, Sprint can't put a limit on their data--not because they SHOULDN'T (technically they should), but that ship sailed a long time ago--the time to do it was when AT&T had 8 meg data for $20 per month: Sprint could have said "At Sprint, $20 gets you 20 megs of data"--the limits of data would have been pushed up a lot faster (because the other carriers would have upped Sprint), but I don't think the entire "unlimited data war" would have happened, and the carriers wouldn't be in such a bad position of having to look like the price of data and technology is getting more expensive--when it really hasn't.

--Nat

While Sprint does not put a cap on the amount you can use, their poor backhaul in many places is the equivalent of throttling that is employed by T-Mobile. It would be like the water company saying you can have as much as you want and then sending it to you with an eye dropper. Since I can usually get between 200K-300K down with their service when I deign to use it, which is almost never, it might as well have a 200MB or 500MB cap because I would be hard pressed to ever use that much. When I did use the 3G service on my iPhone, I maxed out at about 193MB in one cycle though I was hardly able to do anything and I am not even sure what that 193MB was. I had about 3GB of WiFi usage recorded in the same period and my last billing period which ended last night shows 0KB for 3G data and 2.5GB for WiFi. I have not turned the iPhone's 3G radio on at all in the past 90 days. Battery life is great BTW and Sprint even quotes Apple in saying "...if you frequently use your iPhone to browse the web, battery life may be improved by using Wi-Fi instead of cellular data networks" (http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.html).

[Liquidxt]

That is in my experience true of every phone. Instead of using the network data using wifi typically gives me longer battery life.

[mdasen]

You're really right, but I think that the push (from the carriers and from consumers) for unlimited data had reasons.

1. It's hard to know how much data you're using. You can talk about pictures, videos, music, or whatever else, but when it comes down to it, it's less easily knowable (experientially) than something like voice usage. Sure, someone says, "wow, I didn't realize we were talking for an hour," but I think that people understand time - or at least society expects them to understand it. So much of our life is done via time. Charging per MB or GB is like paying employees based on value created. Sure, it's more accurate. However, people don't really get value created. They do understand being at a desk between the hours of 9am and 5pm.

2. There can be a lot of variance in data usage. Let's say that you talked on your phone for 12 hours per day every day. That's 21,600 minutes. Now let's say that a user maxed out an average EV-DO connection (1Mbps). That's 162GB with 12 hours per day usage. When you compare that to "average"consumption, the voice usage would probably be around 18x average usage while the data usage would be around 300x average usage. The problem only gets worse with faster networks and, frankly, that's being conservative. Data can easily be consumed while you sleep and work in a way that voice usually isn't. Not only that: voice services usually rely on another party wanting to be in on the usage (so even if you don't work or sleep, there's no one to talk to) and data services can be used in more locations (for example, at a ballpark to check something while a voice conversation would be considered rude and interrupt the interaction you were having with your friends more). So, it's a lot easier to use an order of magnitude more data than it is to use an order of magnitude more voice.

3. When phones had black and white screens, how much data could they consume? I remember having a Sanyo 4700. Data services didn't have me download a 100kb web page. They had a server download 100kb and strip out most of it and compress the very little that remained. It barely made sense to meter out data - it would just be something to scare customers away from data. There wasn't much of a possibility for abuse (it was so slow and the phones had such low capabilities). This way, customers would adopt it rather than being hesitant about it.

4. As a marketing person, you must know the power of "unlimited". Let's say that the average user uses 2MB of data and is offered a 5MB plan for $10 and an unlimited plan for $15. I'm guessing that unlimited plans gave them the chance to get users to shell out more money than their limited plans even if they would have fit nicely within the limited plan.

The one area where you're off is about HSPA+. What makes something 4G? If you're basing it on speed, HSPA+ easily matches what Sprint is pushing over WiMAX. The problem was that Sprint started marketing WiMAX as 4G at 2-3Mbps. Heck, LTE wasn't even 4G until the ITU lowered the definition. LTE Advanced and WiMAX 801.16m were going to be 4G, but LTE and WiMAX 802.16e (the standards that have been deployed by AT&T, Verizon, and Clearwire) were to be 3G technologies. Frankly, many countries labeling policies are dictated by politics rather than technology. T-Mobile's HSPA+ 42 service is about 2x faster than Sprint's WiMAX (http://www.pcworld.com/article/25380...e_fastest.html). Shouldn't user experience be the meaningful benchmark? Wouldn't a carrier marketing 1Mbps LTE as 4G be more fraudulent than a company marketing 6Mbps HSPA+ as 4G? MetroPCS is offering "4G LTE" that's significantly slower than HSPA 14.4 speeds from AT&T and T-Mobile.

--

Yes, maybe they should never have offered unlimited plans. However, at the start, any limit (like 20MB) could have really hit people the carrier didn't want to hit since the variance would be large. At the same time, a limit of 500MB would put consumers off and who is going to believe the store person who says "this is just so that we can up that limit in the future when cooler devices come out and you don't get used to the idea of unlimited". Frankly, I think caps and overages are a terrible idea. I think AT&T and Verizon would be smarter to offer 3GB (or 2GB for Verizon) of data with speeds throttled to 300kbps (or something) after that limit is reached. That way, they can offer people the opportunity to purchase varying amounts of data for their purposes while not feeling like they're going to get hit with terrible overages. I think a lot of people would rather 2GB of data plus 300kbps after that limit than 3GB of data with overage charges - even if the 3GB plan works out better for users in reality. There's something nice about not feeling on some nebulous clock.

It could also be useful if they improved WiFi on phones. For example, I don't want WiFi on my phone most of the time - it wastes battery. However, when I'm at home or at work, it is useful. It would be nice if my phone would turn WiFi on when I'm connected to certain cell sites and off when I leave those cell sites. It already has the overhead of knowing what cell site I'm on and there's only a few that I ever connect to in those locations. It wouldn't be too hard to let a user manually connect to WiFi networks, store which cell sites the user was connected to while on those WiFi networks, and then go into an automatic mode where the phone doesn't even look for WiFi unless it's connected to one of those cell sites or the user goes in and connects manually. Granted, that probably works better in cities where cells are on the smaller end.

[NGeorge]

4. As a marketing person, you must know the power of "unlimited". Let's say that the average user uses 2MB of data and is offered a 5MB plan for $10 and an unlimited plan for $15. I'm guessing that unlimited plans gave them the chance to get users to shell out more money than their limited plans even if they would have fit nicely within the limited plan.

The one area where you're off is about HSPA+. ..... Wouldn't a carrier marketing 1Mbps LTE as 4G be more fraudulent than a company marketing 6Mbps HSPA+ as 4G? MetroPCS is offering "4G LTE" that's significantly slower than HSPA 14.4 speeds from AT&T and T-Mobile.

Well first off, you are correct about the power of "unlimited"--and as a marketing person, I agree--it's a great way to get people to jump in and try your services. You also have to be smart about monitoring client/consumer expectations, and being able to deliver what you promise--especially when you move into a case of "unlimited* within reason"--and society in general doesn't really understand what that means, or in the case of mobile data, is a moving target (e.g. it was as much effort to use 1 gig in 2000 as it was to use 10 in 2010).

The best example I can give is "All You Can Eat"--for the most part, everyone generally accepts that you don't go back more than 3 times, and it's "excessive use" if you load up a doggie bag and take some home with you or scrape of your plate and split with everyone at the table. It's not "truly unlimited"--but is "unlimited within reason, and for the purposes that you have paid for" (dinner that night for you).

My main point is that this was never laid out--and had mobile data never been marketed as an "unlimited consumable", the carriers wouldn't have been in the negative PR position of taking something away, that by all appearances should be getting cheaper every day. I have friends in Germany and the UK... Mobile data over there was never marketed as unlimited. People still use smartphones--they just don't expect unlimited use.

As for 3G/4G, it all depends on which way you want to market it: Do you consider "4G" and experience, or do you consider it "4th Generation"--I generally consider it "4th Generation", which sticks along the lines of WiMax/LTE being the dividing line--and as you pointed out, technically LTE was previously only considered "3.5 G" until they pushed for it to be considered 4G.

So even though HSDPA provides better service than Metro PCS's low-end LTE service-"right now"--I tend to stick to the party lines: the LTE roadmap goes much longer than the HSDPA one, so that is a true 4G network (by definition). I don't really even think 42 meg HSDPA is my issue--I think my issue is with AT&T, who is launching their own LTE network, calling a 14.4 meg IPhone 4G merely for marketing purposes--when they have their own true LTE network launched. This will just cause confusion once their LTE coverage is more widespread. It's short term gain (so they can say they have a "4G IPhone" until the LTE one comes out and then both Verizon and AT&T can say they have one).

--Nat

[larryt510]

I think the overall feeling I have with the wireless companies is that they now seem to be going against the overall grain of "technology tends to get cheaper".

I've been saying this for years and it carries over to handsets as well. Compare the price of a good PC from what it was back in 1999 (about $2000) to today (about $500). Blu-Ray DVD players ($600 when first released to $100 today). LCD and Plasma TV's started out at $3000+ and now can be bought for less than $500. Digital cameras too.

But yet the full retail price of a modern smartphone (about $500+) is much higher than what it was in 1999 (about $150) for the technology we had back then. Yes today's smartphones do a lot more than the ones from 10+ years ago but computers and TV's are also much better than they used to be and have more features but yet prices continued to drop. So why haven't smartphones kept up with the trend of "technology tends to get cheaper"?

[theemaster]

So why haven't smartphones kept up with the trend of "technology tends to get cheaper"?

The answer is simple.. because they make tons of money off them.. iphone exclusivity.. who do you think is feeding the massive profits of apple..?? verizon, sprint and their first partner AT&T and that's of course why service from them costs up the a$$

I think in all true reality the only reason we can't get cheaper smartphones is they all have to built for a custom network and their costs is all about acquiring new customers.. say the phone is $500 but we'll sell it to for nothing if we get a 2 year agreement meaning we get a $1000 out of you for the phone

You can't compare the computer market to phones.. because phones have to be on a network.. and their turned into modern hip gadgets like the iphone.. the iphone is as much a "marketing trend" or a cool/wow factor as it is a maybe useful piece of technology..

Supposedly the SIM card and universal radios or something was supposed to make smartphones cheaper.. but the mere fact you can't go buy a universal ANY network phone at best buy or walmart.. mainly means the consumer will continue to get the REBATE/contract shaft from carriers.. if we could have phones that were just DUMMIES for any network.. the phone prices would be way more reasonable.. and carriers would be left to compete on usable service and features and plans..

And then peoples outrageous bills of $100-150 a month for iphone with all the features.. might be.. $10 or $30 a month with any phone you chooose.. iphone at $500 or nokia/htc android smartphone for $100

While carriers are holding over smartphones to continue the cycle of we'd like your $100+ a month.. (give or take ) if you’re paying attention the resellers are filling up the cheaper plans/phone spot nicely.. but the carriers are using their money/power to force you to $100 plans if you want SMARTPHONES..

And as you know people act like sheep a lot.. so that's why avatar can make 1 billion.. and that's why people continue to pay $100 a month for a iphone.. the sheep need their "product"

[Sam73065]

I think in all true reality the only reason we can't get cheaper smartphones is they all have to built for a custom network and their costs is all about acquiring new customers.. say the phone is $500 but we'll sell it to for nothing if we get a 2 year agreement meaning we get a $1000 out of you for the phone

You can't compare the computer market to phones.. because phones have to be on a network.. and their turned into modern hip gadgets like the iphone.. the iphone is as much a "marketing trend" or a cool/wow factor as it is a maybe useful piece of technology..

But the reason that we cannot use cellphones universally is partially artificial. You can take your GSM phone to pretty much any GSM carrier, both ATTM & TMo along with many MVNOs. But step over to the CDMA side and you find that Verizon and Sprint restrict you from just buying any CDMA branded phone and activating it. You are forced to buy a phone intended solely for that network. This also allows the cell phone manufacturers to continue offering inflated retail prices while selling for unknown prices to the carriers, continuing to hide the true prices of these phones from the consumer. It is time for cell phones sales to be taken out of the hands of the carriers and enable true competition. Carriers should be regulated to accept any compatible phone on their network, no matter who sells the phone. Have a new iPhone 4S, then you should be able to activate it on the carrier of your choice, regardless of the phone retailer. If you have a droid Rzr Maxx or HTC Evo 4G... no reason you should be able to activate it on either Sprint or Verizon as long as you're smart enough to realize, your EVO will never get Wimax from Verizon(and probably not Sprint either) and that your Rzr Maxx will not be getting LTE from Sprint anytime in the near future. And lets not forget the number of BB global phones that work on GSM & CDMA, not that I expect BB and Rim to be long for this world, unless they make some major changes soon.

[monkeyboy]

But yet the full retail price of a modern smartphone (about $500+) is much higher than what it was in 1999 (about $150) for the technology we had back then. Yes today's smartphones do a lot more than the ones from 10+ years ago but computers and TV's are also much better than they used to be and have more features but yet prices continued to drop. So why haven't smartphones kept up with the trend of "technology tends to get cheaper"?

I'm not sure what $150 smartphones you are remembering from 1999, but that can only be the subsidized pricing much like the $199 pricing of a contract iPhone.

Indeed there weren't hardly any devices in 1999 that would qualify for "smartphone" status. In Oct 1999, for example, Palm debuted the Palm Vx, for $300. So, no, no $150 smartphones in 1999.

The Kyocera 6035 was introduced in 2001 and was arguably one of the earliest smartphones to get significant uptake -- it retailed for $600 ($400 with contract) -- which in 2001 dollars is MORE than most smartphones today. Before the 6035, there were the PDQ 800, in 1999, which ran around $700-800, and some semi-functional offerings from Handspring (around $500, in 2000), which barely qualify -- those were modules stuck on PDAs. The pdQ 800 was really the beginnings of the modern day smartphone. Nothing anywhere close to your $150 figure (unless again you are talking about slashed, sell-off discounted or contract pricing).

[larryt510]

I'm not sure what $150 smartphones you are remembering from 1999, but that can only be the subsidized pricing much like the $199 pricing of a contract iPhone.

I wasn't referring to smartphones. Just regular phones. Technology get better over time so I am comparing a full featured phone (non-smart phone) from that time period to a full featured phone now (smartphone). Full retail price for a decent phone was between $129 and $199. I didn't have to renew my contract to buy one at that price and you could buy one any time you wanted. Didn't have 1 and 2 year upgrade eligibility back then either. Like I said all technology gets better over time and tends to drop in price. So I think it's fair to include smartphones in that as well and it's not unreasonable to think that they should have dropped in price as well to be equivalent to 1999 pricing of feature phones. Don't production costs of smartphones get cheaper over time (like LCD's, dvd players, computers, etc) as technology gets better?

[monkeyboy]

I wasn't referring to smartphones. Just regular phones. Technology get better over time so I am comparing a full featured phone (non-smart phone) from that time period to a full featured phone now (smartphone).

I see, I guess I didn't parse your English correctly...

But yet the full retail price of a modern smartphone (about $500+) is much higher than what it was in 1999 (about $150)...

also not sure why you thought its fair to compare a dumb phone price to a smartphone price... 1) you can certainly run out and buy a good dumb phone today for $50, 2) If you are trying to compare the BEST phone technology then and now, well the BEST phone technology then was the pdQ 800, at $700-800, which is MORE than the "best" phone now. Mixing the best dumbphone then with the best smartphone now seems not a fair comparison...

[larryt510]

also not sure why you thought its fair to compare a dumb phone price to a smartphone price...

So smartphones should never drop in price like all other technology as advances are made? I think it's a very fair comparison when you look at all other electronics. You can compare a higher end tube TV set from 1999 (which is junk by today's standards) to a much better Plasma or LCD but yet prices on today's much more advanced technology is about the same. A dumb tv compared to a smart tv and today's smart tv's have dropped considerably (even though new features are continually added) and are about the same as what a dumb tv used to be.

[NGeorge]

Well the problem is that with all the bands available, it makes it very hard to have a universal experience... Even if I *could* take a Razr Maxx to Sprint, why would I want that great of a smartphone if it will ONLY be able to get Sprint's EV-DO service, even after the launch LTE? The problem is that the carriers are able to talk the manufacturers into not only making devices specific with their specific software, but their specific bands. Sprint's LTE is launching at 1900. Verizon's is at 700. Sprint's LTE phones don't have 700 band support. Verizon's don't have 1900. Verizon has even made some of their devices specific to their licensed 700 mhz. bands--want to take it to AT&T's 700 LTE? Nope--because it only see's Verizon's channels at 700. It's a crippled limitation put there by Verizon, and is burned to the device.

The technology is there to make a pentaband+ phone... for a while the carriers seemed cool about the whole "world phone" idea--and with 2G and to a lesser extent 3G, it seems like they are still playing ball (even though it is still hard to find HSDPA+ phones that have 850/1900 AND AWS together -- they are out there but most phones are either "aimed" at AT&T, blocking T-Mobile with no AWS, or "aimed" at T-Mobile with AWS and no 850/1900 support). With LTE being so new, it either hasn't happened yet--or the carriers are just fighting it more.

If the FCC wanted to fix this (and not like they ever would since they are in the carrier's back pockets) they would make a condition of approval for all devices to support all LTE bands in use in the country--so no matter which LTE phone you buy, it would support 700/extended 800/1900 and even 2500 for Clear's upcoming network. The software locks could stay in place to protect subsidy--but as soon as the subsidy is paid/unlocked, you pop the SIM in, and move along to any network you choose, and it would just work similar to the seamless experience of a quad-band GSM phone, which is the closest we've been able to get to this so far.

The thing that ticks me off the most is the whole "we do this to optimize the device for our network" crap. At least be honest about it and explain the real reason is because of the subsidy. A Galaxy Nexus on Sprint is a Galaxy Nexus on Verizon is a Galaxy Nexus on AT&T: Why can't there be ONE Galaxy Nexus that supports all the bands that the chipset can handle (plus the 2/3G?)--the FCC could make it so, if they wanted to. What's even more hilarious is how Apple really hides the fact that there is only ONE Iphone 4S--they ALL support CDMA and GSM. They could just as easily have a menu button in the phone like my old Samsung IP-830w Windows Phone that could switch to "GSM" or "CDMA" modes with the touch of a toggle button (or a complete reboot if you were completely changing the settings/number). From what I understand, Apple has that CDMA mode locked down quite hard on the "non-CDMA" Iphone 4S (they may have done a hardware disable--even though the guts are all there)--yet pretends it doesn't exist: For all technical reasons I could switch between AT&T and Sprint at will if I had an Iphone, regardless where it came from.

--Nat

[Sam73065]

Well the problem is that with all the bands available, it makes it very hard to have a universal experience... Even if I *could* take a Razr Maxx to Sprint, why would I want that great of a smartphone if it will ONLY be able to get Sprint's EV-DO service, even after the launch LTE? The problem is that the carriers are able to talk the manufacturers into not only making devices specific with their specific software, but their specific bands. Sprint's LTE is launching at 1900. Verizon's is at 700. Sprint's LTE phones don't have 700 band support. Verizon's don't have 1900. Verizon has even made some of their devices specific to their licensed 700 mhz. bands--want to take it to AT&T's 700 LTE? Nope--because it only see's Verizon's channels at 700. It's a crippled limitation put there by Verizon, and is burned to the device.

The technology is there to make a pentaband+ phone... for a while the carriers seemed cool about the whole "world phone" idea--and with 2G and to a lesser extent 3G, it seems like they are still playing ball (even though it is still hard to find HSDPA+ phones that have 850/1900 AND AWS together -- they are out there but most phones are either "aimed" at AT&T, blocking T-Mobile with no AWS, or "aimed" at T-Mobile with AWS and no 850/1900 support). With LTE being so new, it either hasn't happened yet--or the carriers are just fighting it more.

If the FCC wanted to fix this (and not like they ever would since they are in the carrier's back pockets) they would make a condition of approval for all devices to support all LTE bands in use in the country--so no matter which LTE phone you buy, it would support 700/extended 800/1900 and even 2500 for Clear's upcoming network. The software locks could stay in place to protect subsidy--but as soon as the subsidy is paid/unlocked, you pop the SIM in, and move along to any network you choose, and it would just work similar to the seamless experience of a quad-band GSM phone, which is the closest we've been able to get to this so far.

The thing that ticks me off the most is the whole "we do this to optimize the device for our network" crap. At least be honest about it and explain the real reason is because of the subsidy. A Galaxy Nexus on Sprint is a Galaxy Nexus on Verizon is a Galaxy Nexus on AT&T: Why can't there be ONE Galaxy Nexus that supports all the bands that the chipset can handle (plus the 2/3G?)--the FCC could make it so, if they wanted to. What's even more hilarious is how Apple really hides the fact that there is only ONE Iphone 4S--they ALL support CDMA and GSM. They could just as easily have a menu button in the phone like my old Samsung IP-830w Windows Phone that could switch to "GSM" or "CDMA" modes with the touch of a toggle button (or a complete reboot if you were completely changing the settings/number). From what I understand, Apple has that CDMA mode locked down quite hard on the "non-CDMA" Iphone 4S (they may have done a hardware disable--even though the guts are all there)--yet pretends it doesn't exist: For all technical reasons I could switch between AT&T and Sprint at will if I had an Iphone, regardless where it came from.

--Nat

I understand that the Rzr Maxx experience using LTE would be lost on Sprint, but there are other advantages that may lead somebody to want to use the device on Sprint and suffer the EVDO experience. Just as there are iPhone users on TMo, who are stuck on Edge. Otherwise I'd say we're pretty much in agreement.

[aneftp]

Smartphone prices are determined by market forces.

Nokia's high end N series phones were routinely $700 and no one complained.

People thought the 2007 original iPhone at $499/599 was a "steal" and when apple reduced the price to $399 it was a bargain.