|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > February 2008 > How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?
|
|
|
| For the cost of one of those $99 unlimited plans (which will be about
$115 after taxes and fees), you could buy about 2150 minutes on a
prepaid network (at about 5.3¢ per minute). That's about 35 hours a
month. Other than certain business people, i.e. realtors, field service,
etc., how many users actually use over 2000 minutes per month?
PagePlus charges as low as 5.3¢/minute for voice, and as low as 3.5¢ per
text message (when you buy the $80 "1400 minute" card at a discounted
price of $74). They also offer unlimited voice minutes for $2.49 a day,
or $75 for a 30 day month.
It seems that too many consumers look at the "unlimited" part, without
understanding that $99 is a) not really $99, and b) not such a great
deal compared to non-unlimited plans, and c) a lot more than they have
to pay for unlimited voice.
| |
|
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:02:25 -0500, "Ben Skversky"
<bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote:
>Great post. You are 1000% correct. I don't even need the 1000 minutes I get
>from T-mobile, but I'm only paying $39.99 & that includes free nights &
>weekends.
>
>
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:47bdabbd$0$3638
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
ATTs previous plans offered 2000 minutes for $99.99
4000 for $149.99 and
6000 for $199.99
Many folks prefer the greater convienence of post-paid plans,
so anyone with any of those three previous plans would be a candidate
for a $99.99 unlimited plan, as would anyopne one the 1350 minutes
$79.99 plan that ever went over and paid 35 cents a minute for that
overage.
| |
|
| Ron wrote:
> ATTs previous plans offered 2000 minutes for $99.99
> 4000 for $149.99 and
> 6000 for $199.99
>
> Many folks prefer the greater convienence of post-paid plans,
> so anyone with any of those three previous plans would be a candidate
> for a $99.99 unlimited plan, as would anyopne one the 1350 minutes
> $79.99 plan that ever went over and paid 35 cents a minute for that
> overage.
I suppose, but if I were those people I'd definitely choose the PagePlus
unlimited at about $75 per month, plus it's not "plus taxes, fees, etc."
Actually you can get it for about $2.30/day or about $69/month, if you
buy the refill cards at a discount. I.e. the $80 card can be purchased
for $73.72, a discount of 7.85%.
The biggest benefit is that it's on Verizon, which has the best coverage
of any U.S. network.
| |
| Richard B. Gilbert 2008-02-21, 12:33 pm |
| Ron wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:02:25 -0500, "Ben Skversky"
> <bskv19114@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ATTs previous plans offered 2000 minutes for $99.99
> 4000 for $149.99 and
> 6000 for $199.99
>
> Many folks prefer the greater convienence of post-paid plans,
> so anyone with any of those three previous plans would be a candidate
> for a $99.99 unlimited plan, as would anyopne one the 1350 minutes
> $79.99 plan that ever went over and paid 35 cents a minute for that
> overage.
35 cents a minute? Gawd! If my mother or my stepmother had lived to
see cell phones, they would have talked sixteen hours per day and the
family would have been bankrupt!
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-21, 12:33 pm |
|
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:47BDC0D0.8090000@comcast.net...
>
> 35 cents a minute? Gawd! If my mother or my stepmother had lived to see
> cell phones, they would have talked sixteen hours per day and the family
> would have been bankrupt!
Really? My mother, after having a cellphone for several years still wonders
why there's no dial tone.
I think she's used 10 minutes in the last 12 months. (Thank you, T-Mobile,
for a $10/year minimum refill policy!) ;-)
| |
|
| Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> 35 cents a minute? Gawd! If my mother or my stepmother had lived to
> see cell phones, they would have talked sixteen hours per day and the
> family would have been bankrupt!
35¢ a minute is actually pretty low for overage charges.
That's actually one of the big advantages of prepaid, you don't pay
outrageous overages, you just pay the normal per minute rate. Prepaid is
available on Verizon's network for as little as 5.3¢ per minute.
Sprint had a deal for a while that got rid of the huge overage charges,
called "Fair and Flexible."
It's a double-edged sword for the carriers. If they made the overages
reasonable then subscribers would be less careful about going over, and
use more than their plan minutes without much concern. However that
would cause some subscribers to move to lower tiers, which would cost
the carrier money.
| |
| Ben Skversky 2008-02-21, 3:33 pm |
| Great post. You are 1000% correct. I don't even need the 1000 minutes I get
from T-mobile, but I'm only paying $39.99 & that includes free nights &
weekends.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47bdabbd$0$3638
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> For the cost of one of those $99 unlimited plans (which will be about $115
> after taxes and fees), you could buy about 2150 minutes on a prepaid
> network (at about 5.3¢ per minute). That's about 35 hours a month. Other
> than certain business people, i.e. realtors, field service, etc., how many
> users actually use over 2000 minutes per month?
>
> PagePlus charges as low as 5.3¢/minute for voice, and as low as 3.5¢ per
> text message (when you buy the $80 "1400 minute" card at a discounted
> price of $74). They also offer unlimited voice minutes for $2.49 a day, or
> $75 for a 30 day month.
>
> It seems that too many consumers look at the "unlimited" part, without
> understanding that $99 is a) not really $99, and b) not such a great deal
> compared to non-unlimited plans, and c) a lot more than they have to pay
> for unlimited voice.
| |
|
| Ben Skversky wrote:
> Great post. You are 1000% correct. I don't even need the 1000 minutes I get
> from T-mobile, but I'm only paying $39.99 & that includes free nights &
> weekends.
Yes, T-Mobile is a great deal for a lot of peak minutes. Unfortunately
they have no coverage yet where I live, and poor coverage where I
usually travel to.
I pay $30 for 300 minutes and unlimited N&W on Verizon, and I just don't
get into long gab fests during peak times.
| |
| John Navas 2008-02-21, 3:33 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:17:24 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 47bdbf80$0$36372$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>I suppose, but if I were those people I'd definitely choose the PagePlus
>unlimited at about $75 per month, plus it's not "plus taxes, fees, etc."
Deity help us -- you're morphing into a shill for PagePlus!
>Actually you can get it for about $2.30/day or about $69/month, if you
>buy the refill cards at a discount. I.e. the $80 card can be purchased
>for $73.72, a discount of 7.85%.
>
>The biggest benefit is that it's on Verizon, which has the best coverage
>of any U.S. network.
But still a Verizon shill I see.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
| |
| Ben Skversky 2008-02-21, 3:33 pm |
| In my job, I go as far west on the Pa. turnpike to Harrisburg, Pa., on the
NJ turnpike I go as far north to Fort Lee, NJ. I have no problems with
T-mobile.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47bdafd6$0$3636
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Ben Skversky wrote:
>
> Yes, T-Mobile is a great deal for a lot of peak minutes. Unfortunately
> they have no coverage yet where I live, and poor coverage where I usually
> travel to.
>
> I pay $30 for 300 minutes and unlimited N&W on Verizon, and I just don't
> get into long gab fests during peak times.
| |
|
| Ben Skversky wrote:
> In my job, I go as far west on the Pa. turnpike to Harrisburg, Pa., on the
> NJ turnpike I go as far north to Fort Lee, NJ. I have no problems with
> T-mobile.
Yes, T-Mobile seems to work very well in the eastern U.S.. My mother
switched to T-Mobile prepaid in Florida after AT&T/Cingular converted
her from TDMA/AMPS to GSM and increased the monthly rate by 40%. She
started a movement among her senior friends when they found out how
little she was paying. However now she uses OneSuite for long distance
at 2.5¢/minute, where before she could use free N&W on AT&T.
In the western U.S., T-Mobile took over the horrid Cingular/Pac Bell
1900 MHz GSM network, which has poor coverage. They've been trying to
improve things, but have run into a lot of opposition to suburban cell
sites. Still, it's slowly improving. Sometime in 2008 I should get
coverage at my house, but there are still a lot of areas of the Bay Area
with coverage holes, much more than with Verizon or AT&T.
| |
| John Navas 2008-02-21, 3:33 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:56:57 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 47bde4e5$0$36327$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>In the western U.S., T-Mobile took over the horrid Cingular/Pac Bell
>1900 MHz GSM network, which has poor coverage. They've been trying to
>improve things, but have run into a lot of opposition to suburban cell
>sites. Still, it's slowly improving. Sometime in 2008 I should get
>coverage at my house, but there are still a lot of areas of the Bay Area
>with coverage holes, much more than with Verizon or AT&T.
Nonsense. The old Cingular now T-Mobile actually has good coverage.
Will you stop the trolling when you finally get coverage in your house?
Or must your wife get coverage at work too? ;)
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> I think she's used 10 minutes in the last 12 months. (Thank you,
> T-Mobile, for a $10/year minimum refill policy!) ;-)
Well maybe Richard meant that if those family members had had cell
phones when they were between 20 and 50 years old!
My mother's also on T-Mobile prepaid and probably uses 20 minutes a
month. She went from $50 a month on AT&T to about $2/month on T-Mobile.
First she got conned into switching from AT&T TDMA to AT&T GSM, which
resulted in loss of coverage at the places she travels to the most as
well as higher prices, then Cingular took over and raised the prices
again. She was most concerned about having to learn to use a new handset
and re-enter her contacts, so I walked her through unlocking her Nokia
handset.
The downside is that she has no T-Mobile coverage at my house in
suburban Silicon Valley or at my sister's house in suburban Atlanta.
| |
|
| On Feb 21, 11:53=A0am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> For the cost of one of those $99 unlimited plans (which will be about
> $115 after taxes and fees), you could buy about 2150 minutes on a
> prepaid network (at about 5.3=A2 per minute). That's about 35 hours a
> month. Other than certain business people, i.e. realtors, field service,
> etc., how many users actually use over 2000 minutes per month?
>
> PagePlus charges as low as 5.3=A2/minute for voice, and as low as 3.5=A2 p=
er
> text message (when you buy the $80 "1400 minute" card at a discounted
> price of $74). They also offer unlimited voice minutes for $2.49 a day,
> or $75 for a 30 day month.
>
> It seems that too many consumers look at the "unlimited" part, without
> understanding that $99 is a) not really $99, and b) not such a great
> deal compared to non-unlimited plans, and c) a lot more than they have
> to pay for unlimited voice.
I think that with a low enough price point that unlimited becomes
useful for those who want to drop a landline and go all cellular all
the time.
Unfortuantely I think that getting Magic Jack is a bigger bang for
the buck in dropping a old fashioned landline then trying to cut the
cord using a cell phone plan. You can't beat unlimited calling in the
US and Canada 24 X 7 for only $20 a year. Plus you get all those
advanced phone services thrown in for free also .
Magic Jack is one kick XXX phone company when it comes to net cost!
Now if AT&T could drop the cell bill to only $20 a year that would be
something.
| |
| George 2008-02-21, 3:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>
> 35¢ a minute is actually pretty low for overage charges.
>
> That's actually one of the big advantages of prepaid, you don't pay
> outrageous overages, you just pay the normal per minute rate. Prepaid is
> available on Verizon's network for as little as 5.3¢ per minute.
>
> Sprint had a deal for a while that got rid of the huge overage charges,
> called "Fair and Flexible."
>
> It's a double-edged sword for the carriers. If they made the overages
> reasonable then subscribers would be less careful about going over, and
> use more than their plan minutes without much concern. However that
> would cause some subscribers to move to lower tiers, which would cost
> the carrier money.
But frankly I find the business model of raping customers when they go
over just plain wrong. Just imagine if other services operated in a
similar fashion. Say you needed to cross a bridge every day and you
could buy a monthly pass that cost say $50 that entitled to cross once
each day. You are a loyal customer and have been using the bridge for
years. Some event happens where you need to cross more often and they
charge you $7 for each additional crossing. I doubt anyone would put up
with it.
Cell phones are no longer something magical. The days of having to
accept whatever is offered are winding down..
| |
| George 2008-02-21, 3:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Ben Skversky wrote:
>
> Yes, T-Mobile seems to work very well in the eastern U.S.. My mother
> switched to T-Mobile prepaid in Florida after AT&T/Cingular converted
> her from TDMA/AMPS to GSM and increased the monthly rate by 40%. She
> started a movement among her senior friends when they found out how
> little she was paying. However now she uses OneSuite for long distance
> at 2.5¢/minute, where before she could use free N&W on AT&T.
That would be except in the large region of the eastern US that I am in.
A tmobile phone is a paperweight here if you go a few miles away from
the interstate.
>
> In the western U.S., T-Mobile took over the horrid Cingular/Pac Bell
> 1900 MHz GSM network, which has poor coverage. They've been trying to
> improve things, but have run into a lot of opposition to suburban cell
> sites. Still, it's slowly improving. Sometime in 2008 I should get
> coverage at my house, but there are still a lot of areas of the Bay Area
> with coverage holes, much more than with Verizon or AT&T.
| |
| George 2008-02-21, 3:33 pm |
| Ben Skversky wrote:
> In my job, I go as far west on the Pa. turnpike to Harrisburg, Pa., on the
> NJ turnpike I go as far north to Fort Lee, NJ. I have no problems with
> T-mobile.
>
>
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:47bdafd6$0$3636
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>
Can I suggest that isn't much of a test? I think every carrier has the
PA & Jersey pike lit up.
| |
| George 2008-02-21, 3:33 pm |
| 4phun wrote:
> On Feb 21, 11:53 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that with a low enough price point that unlimited becomes
> useful for those who want to drop a landline and go all cellular all
> the time.
>
> Unfortuantely I think that getting Magic Jack is a bigger bang for
> the buck in dropping a old fashioned landline then trying to cut the
> cord using a cell phone plan. You can't beat unlimited calling in the
> US and Canada 24 X 7 for only $20 a year. Plus you get all those
> advanced phone services thrown in for free also .
>
> Magic Jack is one kick XXX phone company when it comes to net cost!
> Now if AT&T could drop the cell bill to only $20 a year that would be
> something.
>
But magicjack doesn't have a sustainable business plan. Also there is a
huge difference between a wireless carrier who has to have a massive
infrastructure compared to a VoIP provider who needs some equipment in
one location.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-21, 10:33 pm |
| At 21 Feb 2008 13:06:23 -0800 4phun wrote:
>
> I think that with a low enough price point that unlimited becomes
> useful for those who want to drop a landline and go all cellular all
> the time.
>
> Unfortuantely I think that getting Magic Jack is a bigger bang for
> the buck in dropping a old fashioned landline then trying to cut the
> cord using a cell phone plan. You can't beat unlimited calling in the
> US and Canada 24 X 7 for only $20 a year. Plus you get all those
> advanced phone services thrown in for free also .
Magic Jack is an interesting option, but it's probably doomed.
The "$20/year" is a money losing proposition for them- they don't own their
phone numbers, so thy have "rent" them from a provider like Level 3 for
maybe $3 or even more depending on the amount of incoming calls. Then they
have to pay termination fees of $0.01-0.05/minute (depending on where you
call.)
Magic Jack is hoping to make it up on sales of banner advertising you'll
see on the softphone display, which may or may not cover their costs.
> Magic Jack is one kick XXX phone company when it comes to net cost!
Sure. Anytime you give a product away, consumers will be happy! Magic
Jack will be a heck of a bargain...
....until the VC money runs out! ;-)
> Now if AT&T could drop the cell bill to only $20 a year that would be
> something.
Maybe after they start running 30-second commercials on your iPhone display
before and after each call they will!
| |
|
| 4phun wrote:
> I think that with a low enough price point that unlimited becomes
> useful for those who want to drop a landline and go all cellular all
> the time.
Yeah, unless: a) you want to have DSL, in which case you may as well get
a landline anyway since the price difference between naked DSL and DSL
plus a landline is minimal, and b) you have kids or seniors that need
the 911 service of a landline.
Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
or go down, but landlines still work. During the bad hurricane season a
few years ago, we also saw that a lot of wireless sites had no back-up
generator, only batteries, so they went down pretty quickly. Cingular
had 25% of their sites with generators (according to their own press
release), while Verizon had 80% with back up power (Verizon claims to
have a generator at every site where they are allowed to have one).
Cingular's goal is to have enough sites up to provide complete coverage,
but to sacrifice capacity, "We will sacrifice the capacity piece to try
to attain blanket coverage as much as possible."
"http://telephonyonline.com/mag/ telecom_signal_end_s
torm/"
"http://news.vzw.com/news/2006/03/pr2006-04-04a.html"
> Magic Jack is one kick XXX phone company when it comes to net cost!
> Now if AT&T could drop the cell bill to only $20 a year that would be
> something.
How long do you think Magic Jack is going to survive at $20/year? It's
great while it lasts though. They'll probably be going the way of
SunRocket before long.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-21, 10:33 pm |
|
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:m4idnREMiOSZdyD
anZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> Can I suggest that isn't much of a test? I think every carrier has the PA
> & Jersey pike lit up.
True, but in many ways, that's sort of the point. I'll be the first to
admit that my T-Mo phone doesn't work "everywhere." But it works where I am
99% of the time. Since I pay T-Mo $72/month for what would cost me $150 on
Verizon, the real question, for me, is what is that last 1% worth to me in
terms of cost? (And the answer to that, apparently, is "$2.50/month" since
I activated an eBay phone on PagePlus as a glovebox backup just in case! So
far I've used 0 minutes on it since activating it in November.)
| |
|
| George wrote:
> But frankly I find the business model of raping customers when they go
> over just plain wrong. Just imagine if other services operated in a
> similar fashion. Say you needed to cross a bridge every day and you
> could buy a monthly pass that cost say $50 that entitled to cross once
> each day. You are a loyal customer and have been using the bridge for
> years. Some event happens where you need to cross more often and they
> charge you $7 for each additional crossing. I doubt anyone would put up
> with it.
>
> Cell phones are no longer something magical. The days of having to
> accept whatever is offered are winding down..
Well I hope that the winding down doesn't mean moving to an unlimited
model at $99 from a metered use at various tiers. I don't like the model
of high overage charges either, but the alternative may be worse for
relatively low-usage users.
If I were a new low-usage user then I wouldn't be a postpaid customer.
T-Mobile and PagePlus offer reasonable per-minute rates (5.3-8.8¢). The
downside is no free nights and weekends, but in reality the only reason
people talk so much on their cell phones on N&W is because it's free.
They could get a 2¢/minute long distance service and still be better off
in most cases.
| |
|
| George wrote:
> That would be except in the large region of the eastern US that I am in.
> A tmobile phone is a paperweight here if you go a few miles away from
> the interstate.
Yeah, but apparently that model fits quite a few users.
I remember commenting once about how one carrier had coverage throughout
the Sierra Nevada mountains, by virtue of both their native network and
roaming, including coverage on several state roads over mountain passes
with ski resorts. A competing carrier lacked coverage in these areas.
One response was along the lines of planning your routes so you avoid
routes where your carrier has coverage issues! It's true, if you stay on
Interstate 80, you have pretty much uninterrupted coverage on any
carrier, at least with roaming.
It's amazing to me how many people live their lives without ever
venturing more than a few miles from their homes. Unfortunately we're
seeing repercussions of this now in California, where one of the budget
cutting moves is to close down 48 state parks. There's not much of a
constituency to keep them open since they are little used.
| |
|
| 4phun wrote:
> I think that with a low enough price point that unlimited becomes
> useful for those who want to drop a landline and go all cellular all
> the time.
I find it amusing to see all the news reports of how the $99.99
unlimited plan is a "price war." Yeah, it's a price war to get
subscribers to increase their monthly expenditure for wireless.
| |
| Richard B. Gilbert 2008-02-21, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:47BDC0D0.8090000@comcast.net...
>
>
>
>
> Really? My mother, after having a cellphone for several years still
> wonders why there's no dial tone.
>
> I think she's used 10 minutes in the last 12 months. (Thank you,
> T-Mobile, for a $10/year minimum refill policy!) ;-)
>
My father married a couple of motor mouths! They could talk for hours
at a time. Sometimes it seemed as if they only got off the phone to eat
or go to the bathroom!
I see women in the parking lot of the local supermarket with BlueTooth
headsets chattering away. I can't help wondering if they wear them to bed!!
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2008-02-21, 10:33 pm |
| In article <47BE04D8.5020801@comcast.net>,
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> My father married a couple of motor mouths!
At once?
Man, I wouldn't care if they were motor mouths...
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2008-02-21, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 47be02c7$0$36402$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> I find it amusing to see all the news reports of how the $99.99
> unlimited plan is a "price war." Yeah, it's a price war to get
> subscribers to increase their monthly expenditure for wireless.
I work with a guy (salesman) who, last year, had a 2000 minute plan
(don't know with whom)--and every month he was 1000 minutes over.
Let's see, that was probably a $125/month plan, and $0.25 overage, so he
was probably $375/month.
No, I'd say plenty of people will eat this up.
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article < 47be02c7$0$36402$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I work with a guy (salesman) who, last year, had a 2000 minute plan
> (don't know with whom)--and every month he was 1000 minutes over.
>
> Let's see, that was probably a $125/month plan, and $0.25 overage, so he
> was probably $375/month.
>
> No, I'd say plenty of people will eat this up.
Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of sales people that would benefit, but
for the vast majority of subscribers, I don't believe that it's much of
a deal.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-21, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:enjrr3pql8spgqo
6s4gro4oak5s5udohc3@
4ax.com...
>
> Deity help us -- you're morphing into a shill for PagePlus!
Hey, if he has to shill for someone, why not PP? They offer, hands down,
the best prepaid plan in the industry right now, between the low cost, large
native network, and ability to roam. T-Mo's "2Go" prepaid runs a close
second- it has the largest coverage area of any non-MVNO due to it's
inclusion of free roaming.
>
> But still a Verizon shill I see.
Even assuming that AT&T and Verizon postpaid service has comparable
coverage, AT&T's prepaid GoPhone coverage is decidedly lackluster. PagePlus
has better coverage that GoPhone or any AT&T prepaid MVNO (at least now that
Beyond Wireless TDMA is history, since it had the ability to roam off-net
for additional cost.)
| |
| Richard B. Gilbert 2008-02-21, 10:33 pm |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <47BE04D8.5020801@comcast.net>,
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> At once?
>
> Man, I wouldn't care if they were motor mouths...
>
Nope, one at a time!
If he'd married both at once he never would have gotten a word in
edgewise. Or anything else for that matter! ;-)
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> Hey, if he has to shill for someone, why not PP? They offer, hands
> down, the best prepaid plan in the industry right now, between the low
> cost, large native network, and ability to roam. T-Mo's "2Go" prepaid
> runs a close second- it has the largest coverage area of any non-MVNO
> due to it's inclusion of free roaming.
Since when does stating the facts about a carrier, prepaid or otherwise,
constitute shilling? I gain nothing if people sign up for PagePlus, or
Verizon for that matter. I just want to get the facts out there since
there are others that would benefit from them.
> Even assuming that AT&T and Verizon postpaid service has comparable
> coverage,
Don't assume that. The coverage maps may show comparable coverage, but
in reality the Verizon coverage is far superior. Just check all the
independent surveys if you have any doubts.
> AT&T's prepaid GoPhone coverage is decidedly lackluster.
Do they not allow off-AT&T roaming? I would have thought that at least
they were equivalent to AT&T's postpaid coverage.
> PagePlus has better coverage that GoPhone or any AT&T prepaid MVNO (at
> least now that Beyond Wireless TDMA is history, since it had the ability
> to roam off-net for additional cost.)
Yeah, I had Beyond Wireless TDMA for my kids' phones. Too bad they went
over to the dark side, both in terms of coverage and cost.
I wonder about 7-11 SpeakOut GSM coverage. Their literature claims to
allow roaming onto other GSM networks at extra cost, but
"http://www.cellguru.net/prepaid_compare.htm" states "Can't Roam." Some
users claim that there is some roaming in western states. Some claim
that there used to be Dobson roaming in some areas but not any more.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-21, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47be127f$0$3638
3$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Since when does stating the facts about a carrier, prepaid or otherwise,
> constitute shilling? I gain nothing if people sign up for PagePlus, or
> Verizon for that matter. I just want to get the facts out there since
> there are others that would benefit from them.
I apologize- I wasn't agreeing, I was just parrotting Navas' choice of words
back at him. In retrospect I should've encased it in quotes ("shill") to
emphasize I wasn't agreeing.
I appreciate the "shilling"- if not for you, I'd have never heard of them,
and I'm a happy customer.
>
> Don't assume that. The coverage maps may show comparable coverage, but in
> reality the Verizon coverage is far superior. Just check all the
> independent surveys if you have any doubts.
I was speaking to a specific audience. John will never concede Verizon has
wider coverage, so I was making the logical point that even if their
postpaid coverage was comparable, PagePlus is superior product offering
because it's a SUPERset of Verizon coverage (albeit with roaming charges in
some areas) while GoPhone is a SUBset of AT&T coverage.
>
> Do they not allow off-AT&T roaming? I would have thought that at least
> they were equivalent to AT&T's postpaid coverage.
Oh, Lord, no. The monthly GoPhone "hybrid" plans include a small amount of
roaming, but nothing like postpaid, and I don't believe the "pay as you go"
plans offer any. Go look at the online maps. Entire states are blank
except for a metro area or two!
>
> Yeah, I had Beyond Wireless TDMA for my kids' phones. Too bad they went
> over to the dark side, both in terms of coverage and cost.
I assume BW TDMA was operating under a legacy agreement with the old,
pre-merger, AT&T Wireless, who seemed far more agreeable to MVNOs (Beyond,
JusTalk, Locus' varied offerings, etc.) than Cingular was. Post merger, it
seems a middle ground was reached- they still entertain MVNOs but they seem
to offer lousier deals to them!
> I wonder about 7-11 SpeakOut GSM coverage. Their literature claims to
> allow roaming onto other GSM networks at extra cost, but
> "http://www.cellguru.net/prepaid_compare.htm" states "Can't Roam." Some
> users claim that there is some roaming in western states. Some claim that
> there used to be Dobson roaming in some areas but not any more.
I think the "problem" is that most of the roaming available on SpeakOut was
provided by affiliates that AT&T eventually acquired, so essentially the
very few former roam areas are now native, so SO users didn't lose much of
anything. Universal "extra cost" roaming, like BW TDMA offered and PP
currently offers, simply isn't available on any AT&T MVNO that I'm aware of.
| |
| The Bob 2008-02-21, 10:33 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:47be0c0b$0$3637
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of sales people that would benefit,
> but for the vast majority of subscribers, I don't believe that it's
> much of a deal.
>
The answer to this question is amazingly simple- look at ARPU for each
carrier. With voice ARPU generally being in the $55-60 range, $100 users
are going to represent the upper end of the scale. With the influx of
lower creditworthy customers on all networks over the last three years,
there will be more customers on the network below that line than above it.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-22, 4:33 am |
| At 21 Feb 2008 18:27:55 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> I work with a guy (salesman) who, last year, had a 2000 minute plan
> (don't know with whom)--and every month he was 1000 minutes over.
>
> Let's see, that was probably a $125/month plan, and $0.25 overage, so he
> was probably $375/month.
>
> No, I'd say plenty of people will eat this up.
Agreed. My cousin, a consultant back east who uses 3000 or so daytime
minutes a month is still on a grandfathered ATTWS GSM Charter plan (a $99
unlimited plan they originally used to con suckers from switching from
their excellent TDMA/analog network to their, at the time, very crummy GSM
one.)
Since the merger he's been stuck buying unlocked handsets to upgrade since
the "new" AT&T can't sell him a subsidized phone that'll accept his blue
"old" AT&T SIM, and won't switch him to a "new" orange AT&T SIM unless he
takes a new plan.
Ironically, I'll bet he'll probably switch to Ve izon- Verizon has a little
better reception in his neighborhood, and he uses a Verizon EVDO laptop
card for mobile data- it works on his boat, where the AT&T 3G card he tried
first doesn't always reach- (apparently "Extended UMTS" didn't make it to
Rhode Island!) ;-) IIRC, Verizon will knock the PC card rate down from
$79 to $59 if you also have a voice plan. The $20 savings didn't justify
dumping the AT&T Charter plan, but when Verizon offers the $99 unlimited,
he can port over and save the $20/month on the data card.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-22, 4:33 am |
| At 21 Feb 2008 20:41:32 -0600 The Bob wrote:
> The answer to this question is amazingly simple- look at ARPU for each
> carrier. With voice ARPU generally being in the $55-60 range, $100
users
> are going to represent the upper end of the scale. With the influx of
> lower creditworthy customers on all networks over the last three years,
> there will be more customers on the network below that line than above it.
True- the question is what percentage of customers are actually above the
$99 mark now- I suspect it's not too big a percentage, and can you con
enough $60-80 users to jump to $99 to offset that.
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2008-02-22, 4:33 am |
| Maybe he should try extended GSM. :)
"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:aYsvj.37$OB5.33@fe127.usenetserver.com...
> At 21 Feb 2008 18:27:55 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
>
> Agreed. My cousin, a consultant back east who uses 3000 or so daytime
> minutes a month is still on a grandfathered ATTWS GSM Charter plan (a $99
> unlimited plan they originally used to con suckers from switching from
> their excellent TDMA/analog network to their, at the time, very crummy GSM
> one.)
>
> Since the merger he's been stuck buying unlocked handsets to upgrade since
> the "new" AT&T can't sell him a subsidized phone that'll accept his blue
> "old" AT&T SIM, and won't switch him to a "new" orange AT&T SIM unless he
> takes a new plan.
>
> Ironically, I'll bet he'll probably switch to Ve izon- Verizon has a
> little
> better reception in his neighborhood, and he uses a Verizon EVDO laptop
> card for mobile data- it works on his boat, where the AT&T 3G card he
> tried
> first doesn't always reach- (apparently "Extended UMTS" didn't make it to
> Rhode Island!) ;-) IIRC, Verizon will knock the PC card rate down from
> $79 to $59 if you also have a voice plan. The $20 savings didn't justify
> dumping the AT&T Charter plan, but when Verizon offers the $99 unlimited,
> he can port over and save the $20/month on the data card.
>
>
| |
|
| > Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
> or go down, but landlines still work.
Actually, just the opposite is true. Granted, as usual you showed an
exception to the rule in order to pass it along as the rule. However,
during most natural disasters it's the landlines that go down first.
| |
| Janet Wilder 2008-02-22, 10:33 am |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 21 Feb 2008 20:41:32 -0600 The Bob wrote:
>
> users
>
>
> True- the question is what percentage of customers are actually above the
> $99 mark now- I suspect it's not too big a percentage, and can you con
> enough $60-80 users to jump to $99 to offset that.
>
>
>
Since so many of the people we call are also Verizon users, the IN
calling saves gallons of minutes. We hardly eat in to our paid minutes
with nights and weekends and IN. It would make no sense for us to go to
"unlimited"
--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life
| |
|
| Janet Wilder wrote:
> Since so many of the people we call are also Verizon users, the IN
> calling saves gallons of minutes. We hardly eat in to our paid minutes
> with nights and weekends and IN. It would make no sense for us to go to
> "unlimited"
Yes, I have a feeling that between off-peak and MTM, very few
subscribers will benefit from a move up to $100 unlimited, while nearly
_all_ of the heavy users (not using smart phones) will move down to $100
unlimited. I notice the same scenario as your's around here. Most of my
relatives, friends, and co-workers have Verizon so I don't even use up
my measly 300 peak minutes.
The carriers also better hope that the heavy users don't find out about
the ways to get unlimited use at much lower cost. PagePlus offers
unlimited for about $75 per month, and that $75 isn't burdened with
extra fees and taxes like the $100 unlimited plans are. With Sprint and
Voicestick, unlimited is $52 plus taxes and fees paid to Sprint, and
Voicestick offers a lot of other advantages as well.
| |
| George 2008-02-22, 10:33 am |
| SMS wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>
> Well I hope that the winding down doesn't mean moving to an unlimited
> model at $99 from a metered use at various tiers. I don't like the model
> of high overage charges either, but the alternative may be worse for
> relatively low-usage users.
It seems that is the direction it is going.
I am sure that the tiers will be just as disingenuous as the various
current ones are now. I imagine the "cellphone buffet" when I read the
prices. This month's special is one serving on a 3" plate for $9 or
unlimited for $10.50 .
I am a heavy user but unlimited is of no value to me because of free
m2m. All of my family and most of my friends and associates are on VZW.
So an unlimited package would cost me even more.
>
> If I were a new low-usage user then I wouldn't be a postpaid customer.
> T-Mobile and PagePlus offer reasonable per-minute rates (5.3-8.8¢). The
> downside is no free nights and weekends, but in reality the only reason
> people talk so much on their cell phones on N&W is because it's free.
> They could get a 2¢/minute long distance service and still be better off
> in most cases.
| |
| George 2008-02-22, 10:33 am |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:m4idnREMiOSZdyD
anZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
>
> True, but in many ways, that's sort of the point. I'll be the first to
> admit that my T-Mo phone doesn't work "everywhere." But it works where
> I am 99% of the time. Since I pay T-Mo $72/month for what would cost me
> $150 on Verizon, the real question, for me, is what is that last 1%
> worth to me in terms of cost? (And the answer to that, apparently, is
> "$2.50/month" since I activated an eBay phone on PagePlus as a glovebox
> backup just in case! So far I've used 0 minutes on it since activating
> it in November.)
>
>
>
I need my phone to work when I am out so it isn't worth it to me. There
are just too many places where tmobile lacks coverage as soon as you
leave the core city area or go away from the highway.
| |
| George 2008-02-22, 10:33 am |
| SMS wrote:
> 4phun wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, unless: a) you want to have DSL, in which case you may as well get
> a landline anyway since the price difference between naked DSL and DSL
> plus a landline is minimal, and b) you have kids or seniors that need
> the 911 service of a landline.
>
> Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
> or go down, but landlines still work. During the bad hurricane season a
> few years ago, we also saw that a lot of wireless sites had no back-up
> generator, only batteries, so they went down pretty quickly. Cingular
> had 25% of their sites with generators (according to their own press
> release), while Verizon had 80% with back up power (Verizon claims to
> have a generator at every site where they are allowed to have one).
> Cingular's goal is to have enough sites up to provide complete coverage,
> but to sacrifice capacity, "We will sacrifice the capacity piece to try
> to attain blanket coverage as much as possible."
>
> "http://telephonyonline.com/mag/ telecom_signal_end_s
torm/"
> "http://news.vzw.com/news/2006/03/pr2006-04-04a.html"
>
I bet many people don't realize how Mickey Mouse some carriers are.
Tmobile doesn't believe in generators and at least in my area the old
AT&T TDMA/analog sites had generators but now the GSM stuff just has
battery.
| |
| George 2008-02-22, 10:33 am |
| Janet Wilder wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> Since so many of the people we call are also Verizon users, the IN
> calling saves gallons of minutes. We hardly eat in to our paid minutes
> with nights and weekends and IN. It would make no sense for us to go to
> "unlimited"
>
Same here, "unlimited" would just cost us more per month because of free
IN calling. I hope they don't try to push people into unlimited by
massively jacking up the tier rates (eg 350 minutes for $89 and
unlimited for $99).
| |
|
| George wrote:
> I am a heavy user but unlimited is of no value to me because of free
> m2m. All of my family and most of my friends and associates are on VZW.
> So an unlimited package would cost me even more.
Maybe part of the carrier's plan is to eliminate M2M and off-peak.
They've reduced off-peak times in the past, eliminating holidays.
| |
| CellGuy 2008-02-22, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:46:21 -0800, SMS wrote:
> The
> downside is no free nights and weekends, but in reality the only reason
> people talk so much on their cell phones on N&W is because it's free.
> They could get a 2¢/minute long distance service and still be better off
> in most cases.
Or go with VoiP and pay no long distance charges (assuming you have
broadband).
| |
|
| George wrote:
> I bet many people don't realize how Mickey Mouse some carriers are.
> Tmobile doesn't believe in generators and at least in my area the old
> AT&T TDMA/analog sites had generators but now the GSM stuff just has
> battery.
Verizon claims to have generators at every site where generators are
permitted (80%). AT&T claims to have generators at enough sites to
provide complete geographic coverage, but at reduced capacity. This may
be why Verizon tends to do better in blackouts and other disasters where
power is interrupted.
I couldn't find any information on Sprint and T-Mobile's back-up power
infrastructure, other than Sprint's press release of installing
generators at some sites in Florida and Texas. Just looking at some of
the strange places that Sprint and T-Mobile have had to install sites in
order to get complete coverage, where generators aren't allowed, there
is just no way they could equal the AT&T and Verizon coverage in a
prolonged blackout.
| |
|
| CellGuy wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:46:21 -0800, SMS wrote:
>
>
> Or go with VoiP and pay no long distance charges (assuming you have
> broadband).
VOIP isn't free either. You can purchase a yearly plan or get MagicJack
and hope they stay in business, and hope they keep the price at $19.95
for subsequent years. SunRocket tried $200, then $100, and couldn't make
a go of it.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2008-02-22, 10:33 am |
| In article < 47bedd2a$0$36348$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I have a feeling that between off-peak and MTM, very few
> subscribers will benefit from a move up to $100 unlimited, while nearly
> _all_ of the heavy users (not using smart phones) will move down to $100
> unlimited.
I can see the carriers dramatically changing the non-unlimited plans,
making them very expensive relative to the unlimited plans. They could
also reduce/eliminate off-peak and MTM. The idea would be to move
people off their $70/mo plans and up to the $100/mo plan (plus
"regulatory fee recovery" charges, natch).
On the flip side, it moves many over to the prepaid side of the house in
one way or another--which is no doubt what the big carriers want.
It'll just turn into an even clearer definition between prepaid and
contract, that's all.
| |
|
| George wrote:
> Same here, "unlimited" would just cost us more per month because of free
> IN calling. I hope they don't try to push people into unlimited by
> massively jacking up the tier rates (eg 350 minutes for $89 and
> unlimited for $99).
So far the carriers seem to have been willing to continue the contract
terms of the original contract on a continuing basis, even though they
really aren't required to do so. I'm keeping my grandfathered plan
simply because if I drop it I can never get by 8:01 p.m. off-peak back,
nor can I get back off-network roaming, nor can I get my sub-$30 monthly
cost back.
At some point the carriers may tire of continuing to provide service to
those of us with those $30 ARPUs. They can also decide to cut off the
low-priced MVNOs to eliminate that escape route.
| |
|
| Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article < 47bedd2a$0$36348$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I can see the carriers dramatically changing the non-unlimited plans,
> making them very expensive relative to the unlimited plans. They could
> also reduce/eliminate off-peak and MTM. The idea would be to move
> people off their $70/mo plans and up to the $100/mo plan (plus
> "regulatory fee recovery" charges, natch).
>
> On the flip side, it moves many over to the prepaid side of the house in
> one way or another--which is no doubt what the big carriers want.
>
> It'll just turn into an even clearer definition between prepaid and
> contract, that's all.
Yeah, so far the carriers seem to have been willing to continue the
contract terms of the original contract on a continuing basis, even
though they really aren't required to do so. I'm keeping my
grandfathered plan simply because if I drop it I can never get by 8:01
p.m. off-peak back, nor can I get back off-network roaming, nor can I
get my sub-$30 monthly cost back.
At some point the carriers may tire of continuing to provide service to
those of us with those $30 ARPUs. They can also decide to cut off the
low-priced MVNOs to eliminate that escape route for those that don't
want to spend a lot.
| |
| Richard B. Gilbert 2008-02-22, 12:34 pm |
| M.L. wrote:
>
>
> Actually, just the opposite is true. Granted, as usual you showed an
> exception to the rule in order to pass it along as the rule. However,
> during most natural disasters it's the landlines that go down first.
Don't cell phones eventually connect via landlines? It seems to me that
it's cell phone to tower by air, tower to central office by wire,
Central office to central office by wire, central office to tower by
wire and tower to cell by air. For wire, you may substitute fiber
optics, if the local phone company is REALLY up-to-date.
| |
|
| Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> M.L. wrote:
>
> Don't cell phones eventually connect via landlines? It seems to me that
> it's cell phone to tower by air, tower to central office by wire,
> Central office to central office by wire, central office to tower by
> wire and tower to cell by air. For wire, you may substitute fiber
> optics, if the local phone company is REALLY up-to-date.
Yes, this is why landlines are usually more reliable in the event of a
natural disaster (unless of course the wire to your house is knocked down).
| |
| George 2008-02-22, 12:34 pm |
| In-Reply-To: < 47bef500$0$36332$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: < tNudnffV_44omyLanZ2d
nUVZ_uednZ2d@comcast
.com>
Lines: 30
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.75.166.100
X-Trace: sv3-PImLuZ+8pmzAmb6p/ f2H5BS5+OfezXkP3tSUo
ISsg2itgF6/djKxYA/ ARV8cQ+5BamdRZFpQOqv
iypR!oU7plZEYDFoxyPF
cjETqju8bpTWWMpN9tbT
wFMzCzkFQnbJxR1xqPfa
trEhmphKkR9zBrhsKdXR
Y!VLT4kXE/WXyLR0mDzRlI1N/fMF544Q==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.37
Bytes: 3093
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.attws:62763 alt.cellular.verizon:233700 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:287822 alt.cellular.t-mobile:5795
SMS wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>
> Verizon claims to have generators at every site where generators are
> permitted (80%). AT&T claims to have generators at enough sites to
> provide complete geographic coverage, but at reduced capacity. This may
> be why Verizon tends to do better in blackouts and other disasters where
> power is interrupted.
>
> I couldn't find any information on Sprint and T-Mobile's back-up power
> infrastructure, other than Sprint's press release of installing
> generators at some sites in Florida and Texas. Just looking at some of
> the strange places that Sprint and T-Mobile have had to install sites in
> order to get complete coverage, where generators aren't allowed, there
> is just no way they could equal the AT&T and Verizon coverage in a
> prolonged blackout.
Sprint and tmobile have connectors on their equipment so a portable
generator can be connected. They do this even when generators are
allowed. There is a colo site behind a place that I frequently visit.
VZW, Sprint, AT&T, Nextel and tmobile are on it. The only generator
there is for the VZW equipment. According to the Sprint guy I bumped
into one time they have 4 trailer mounted generators to cover their
local 30,000 square mile market and they are located over an hour's
drive from here.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-22, 12:34 pm |
| At 22 Feb 2008 10:07:32 -0500 George wrote:
> I need my phone to work when I am out so it isn't worth it to me. There
> are just too many places where tmobile lacks coverage as soon as
> you leave the core city area or go away from the highway.
That certainly may be true in your area, but it also could be that you just
may not be aware of the improvements made in their coverage over the last
two years or so (mostly through roaming agreements.) Rural coverage in
particular has been greatly improved. Some carriers, even small CDMA
carriers (like Alltel in some areas) actually operate small GSM system
overlays just to skim roaming revenues from AT&T and T-Mobile.
While I'd never suggest T-Mo's Coverage is anywhere near as extensive as
Verizon's, they've come a Very long way since I first used them in 2001.
(Back then I used them for their 3000 minutes/$49 regional plan as a
business phone, and kept a seperate Cingular TDMA/AMPS phone as my personal
phone, which doubled as a much-needed backup for T-Mo's piss-poor coverage
at that time.)
I still keep a backup phone (prepaid, these days) for T-Mo to this day,
mostly out of habit, but rarely need it. In fact I went without a backup
for most of 2007, since Beyond Wireless TDMA shut down last March, and I
didn't activate a phone on PagePlus until Thanksgiving (still unused
despite a lot of travel to various Colorado ski areas this winter.)
You might be surprised at how much they've improved. Don't let
preconcieved (but correct!) notions of how crummy their coverage was
several years ago cloud your opinions.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-22, 12:34 pm |
| At 22 Feb 2008 06:36:09 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Yes, I have a feeling that between off-peak and MTM, very few
> subscribers will benefit from a move up to $100 unlimited, while nearly
> _all_ of the heavy users (not using smart phones) will move down to
> $100 unlimited.
But, to be fair, Mrs. Verizon didn't raise any stupid children. While we
all probably know a guy who knows a guy who uses a jillion minutes and
spends $654/month, the reality is those customers are very rare, and
lowering their rate to $99 won't noticably affect ARPU, even if they don't
con folks like you or I into upgraging to the unlimited plan.
I agree with George, however, that the bigger fear will be further plan
consolidation. In the last couple of years w 've seen the virtual
elimination of the $30 and $35 price point, so $40 is now "entry level" for
wireless. How soon before they have only have 2 plans? Say, $50 for 1000
minutes, and $100 for unlimited. It's a slow but standard pattern in
wireless- make a mid-tier plan a "good value," then use it's heavy adoption
as the excuse to drop the low end plan because "no one was taking it
anyway."
> The carriers also better hope that the heavy users don't find out
> about the ways to get unlimited use at much lower cost.
They won't care- they'll just find ways to plug the holes if they become a
problem.
> PagePlus offers unlimited for about $75 per month, and that $75 isn't
> burdened with extra fees and taxes like the $100 unlimited plans are.
It's also not burdened with being easy to find, buy or refill! ;-)
I can see the Fortune 500 company meeting right now... "Johnson, be sure
to hand out the PagePlus refill cards to the Senior VPs- we don't want
their service suspended during the annual meeting in Houston next week!!!
And check eBay again- that 'new' RAZR you obtained for the CFO was pink and
covered with 'Hello Kitty' stickers and he's feeling a little silly having
to talk on it in front of the board!"
> With Sprint and Voicestick, unlimited is $52 plus taxes and fees paid
> to Sprint, and Voicestick offers a lot of other advantages as well.
Too much hassle for most people, and doubles the chance of a service
problem whenever two companies are involved. Voicestick is a fine outfit
for a two-bit VoIP, but when's the last time your cellphone company e-
mailed you to warn you of a five-hour complete system outage so they can
install a new server? I got one from Voicestick in December, with the
outage scheduled in the early morning one week before Christmas!
I don't mind messing with VoIP to avoid a real screwing, like international
roaming or LD, but it's too flakey or too much work, IMO, to mess around
with to save a few bucks on my cellular bill.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> I can see the Fortune 500 company meeting right now... "Johnson, be sure
> to hand out the PagePlus refill cards to the Senior VPs- we don't want
> their service suspended during the annual meeting in Houston next week!!!
> And check eBay again- that 'new' RAZR you obtained for the CFO was pink and
> covered with 'Hello Kitty' stickers and he's feeling a little silly having
> to talk on it in front of the board!"
LOL, well in a large corporation they have a telecommunications
department that would handle billing and equpment issues, and presumably
they'd be able to ensure that all the phones were operational. There are
no physical refill cards to hand out, and when on the unlimited plan
there is no worry about someone running out of minutes.
One thing that was interesting that I saw on UglyEric.com was "WARNING:
Verizon Inpulse Motorola W385 usually will not work. All other Inpulse
phones work fine."
If this is true, then all those phones sold at Walgreen's, Wal-Mart,
etc., will work fine.
> Too much hassle for most people, and doubles the chance of a service
> problem whenever two companies are involved. Voicestick is a fine outfit
> for a two-bit VoIP, but when's the last time your cellphone company e-
> mailed you to warn you of a five-hour complete system outage so they can
> install a new server? I got one from Voicestick in December, with the
> outage scheduled in the early morning one week before Christmas!
> I don't mind messing with VoIP to avoid a real screwing, like international
> roaming or LD, but it's too flakey or too much work, IMO, to mess around
> with to save a few bucks on my cellular bill.
Perhaps, though I've experienced AT&T outages as well, especially with
their conference call services.
These new unlimited plans seem to be targeted at casual users, not
corporate users, because they exclude smartphones, iPhones,
Blackberry's, etc.
| |
| CellGuy 2008-02-22, 12:34 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:27:01 -0800, SMS wrote:
> CellGuy wrote:
>
> VOIP isn't free either. You can purchase a yearly plan or get MagicJack
> and hope they stay in business, and hope they keep the price at $19.95
> for subsequent years. SunRocket tried $200, then $100, and couldn't make
> a go of it.
I've been with Vonage for almost as year and it works great.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-22, 12:34 pm |
| At 22 Feb 2008 15:55:05 +0000 CellGuy wrote:
tter
off=20[color=darkred
]
>=20
> Or go with VoiP and pay no long distance charges (assuming you have
> broadband).
How do you get "no long distance charges" with VoIP unless you're only=
calling other VoIP users? (Unless you are ignoring the monthly or ann=
ual
fees and really mean "no EXTRA charges.")
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-22, 12:34 pm |
| At 22 Feb 2008 11:24:41 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> I can see the carriers dramatically changing the non-unlimited plans,
> making them very expensive relative to the unlimited plans. They could
> also reduce/eliminate off-peak and MTM. The idea would be to move
> people off their $70/mo plans and up to the $100/mo plan (plus
> "regulatory fee recovery" charges, natch).
>
> On the flip side, it moves many over to the prepaid side of the house in
> one way or another--which is no doubt what the big carriers want.
I don't think carriers "want" to move people to prepaid- just the opposite
in fact. Prepaid users tend to have lower ARPU and higher churn. Of the
big 4, only T-Mo seems to actively court prepaid users, as opposed to
tolerate them with punitive rates and restricted coverage (AT&T and Verizon)
or even disallow them (Sprint has no prepaid plan at all- they only do
prepaid through MVNOs like Virgin and Boost.)
> It'll just turn into an even clearer definition between prepaid and
> contract, that's all.
I doubt it- it'll just be a forced price increase disguised as "greater
value." The $19.99 monthly plans disappeared years ago, most carriers
dropped their $29.99 plans in the last year or two, and I expect the $39.99
plans are next to go. Entry level for cellular will quietly become $49.99,
with lots of extra minutes so it'll seem more palatable.
Like I said in a prior post, don't be surprised if some carrier will launch
a new "simplified pricing" model soon (6 months to a year) with only two
base plans- a fairly large minute bucket for $50 (like 1000 plus M2M and
N&W) and "unlimited" for $100. Then there will be bundled plans like $80
for the $50 plan with x# thousand texts/MMS x# MB of mobile web/TV/virtual
kitchen sink, etc. and $150 for unlimited minutes/messaging/video/web etc.
At least the brochures will be easier to read! ;-)
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2008-02-22, 12:34 pm |
| In article <NtEvj.1061$%93.500@fe115.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> I doubt it- it'll just be a forced price increase disguised as "greater
> value." The $19.99 monthly plans disappeared years ago, most carriers
> dropped their $29.99 plans in the last year or two, and I expect the $39.99
> plans are next to go. Entry level for cellular will quietly become $49.99,
> with lots of extra minutes so it'll seem more palatable.
Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price increase--beyond even
what they've done over the past two years, which is large.
But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month, and
will instead move to prepaid.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2008-02-22, 3:33 pm |
| In article < 47bf10a9$0$36356$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> One thing that was interesting that I saw on UglyEric.com was "WARNING:
> Verizon Inpulse Motorola W385 usually will not work. All other Inpulse
> phones work fine."
>
> If this is true, then all those phones sold at Walgreen's, Wal-Mart,
> etc., will work fine.
Yup.
| |
|
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> At some point the carriers may tire of continuing to provide
> service to those of us with those $30 ARPUs. They can also decide
> to cut off the low-priced MVNOs to eliminate that escape route.
I worry about that also. They've already raised my price a little by
changing the "New Every Two" terms so I get $50 credit toward a new
phone rather than the previous $100 credit.
That effectively increases my monthly cost by $2+ which isn't much but
it is an increase, I wonder what's next?
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org
| |
|
| CellGuy wrote:
> I've been with Vonage for almost as year and it works great.
It works okay, but it's very expensive, and feature limited compared to
other VOIP options.
| |
|
| SMS wrote:
> Ben Skversky wrote:
>
> Yes, T-Mobile is a great deal for a lot of peak minutes. Unfortunately
> they have no coverage yet where I live, and poor coverage where I
> usually travel to.
>
If they had better coverage, they wouldn't be only $40! There's a point
there somewhere that some seem to miss. Maybe it's me. Sorry.
| |
| Paul Miner 2008-02-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:44:09 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>CellGuy wrote:
>
>
>It works okay, but it's very expensive, and feature limited compared to
>other VOIP options.
"Very expensive" is relative. It's much cheaper than some options and
more expensive than others. I'm well into my 3rd year with the $15/mo
plan and have no complaints.
--
Paul Miner
| |
|
| Paul Miner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:44:09 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> "Very expensive" is relative. It's much cheaper than some options and
> more expensive than others. I'm well into my 3rd year with the $15/mo
> plan and have no complaints.
Sorry, when I said "very expensive" I was comparing it to other VOIP
plans, not to other unlimited long distance plans offered by companies
like AT&T, or to carrier VOIP plans such as offered by Comcast.
| |
| The Bob 2008-02-22, 10:33 pm |
| Janet Wilder <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:47bed35a$0$1537
$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> Since so many of the people we call are also Verizon users, the IN
> calling saves gallons of minutes. We hardly eat in to our paid minutes
> with nights and weekends and IN. It would make no sense for us to go
> to "unlimited"
>
That is actually a great point. By having buckets of free minutes (like IN
Network and N/W), the only managin gof minutes really needs to occur during
the business day, when many people are not using their phones as much, and
when they are, could very easily be getting the calls for free with
InNetwrok.
| |
| The Bob 2008-02-22, 10:33 pm |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:47bef8fa$0$3637
6$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> George wrote:
>
>
> So far the carriers seem to have been willing to continue the contract
> terms of the original contract on a continuing basis, even though they
> really aren't required to do so. I'm keeping my grandfathered plan
> simply because if I drop it I can never get by 8:01 p.m. off-peak
> back, nor can I get back off-network roaming, nor can I get my sub-$30
> monthly cost back.
>
> At some point the carriers may tire of continuing to provide service
> to those of us with those $30 ARPUs. They can also decide to cut off
> the low-priced MVNOs to eliminate that escape route.
>
There is no evidence to support that.
| |
| XS11E 2008-02-22, 10:33 pm |
| Janet Wilder <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> the IN calling saves gallons of minutes.
How many minutes are in a gallon? ;-)
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-22, 10:33 pm |
| At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price increase--beyond even
> what they've done over the past two years, which is large.
Agreed.
> But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month, and
> will instead move to prepaid.
You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago that
"basic cable" would start at $50/month?
I never thought people would tolerate $40/month as entry-level cellular and
it hasn't stopped them! (My first cellular plan was $14.99/month for TEN
minutes a month back in 1990 or so!) If $40 wasn't a problem, $50 won't be
either, unfortunately.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-22, 10:33 pm |
| At 22 Feb 2008 15:16:12 -0500 Carl wrote:
> If they had better coverage, they wouldn't be only $40! There's a point
> there somewhere that some seem to miss. Maybe it's me. Sorry.
Or maybe believing that is how Verizon's and AT&T's customers get to sleep
at night! ;-)
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-22, 10:33 pm |
| At 22 Feb 2008 10:15:55 -0800 SMS wrote:
> LOL, well in a large corporation they have a telecommunications
> department that would handle billing and equpment issues, and
> presumably they'd be able to ensure that all the phones were operational.
I know, I was just Being facetious.
> There are no physical refill cards to hand out, and when on the unlimited
> plan there is no worry about someone running out of minutes.
Actually there is- the unlimited plan isn't billed monthly, but daily. The
daily $2-2.50 is taken from the balance as is texting and roaming charges.
Five minutes of roaming (or a few dozen texts!) will eat a day of unlimited
use, so you need to stay on top of your balance (and with PP's lack of any
online account maintenance, that's relatively difficult.)
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2008-02-23, 7:33 am |
| On 2008-02-22, Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 22 Feb 2008 15:55:05 +0000 CellGuy wrote:
>
> off
>
> How do you get "no long distance charges" with VoIP unless you're only
> calling other VoIP users? (Unless you are ignoring the monthly or annual
> fees and really mean "no EXTRA charges.")
You can get "no long distance charges" with Rebtel (no monthly fees either),
though this depends on the called party hanging up and calling back to
reconnect.
This is a very good way to turn unlimited local calling plans in two
different countries into unlimited overseas long distance.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Janet Wilder 2008-02-23, 10:33 am |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> I never thought people would tolerate $40/month as entry-level cellular and
> it hasn't stopped them! (My first cellular plan was $14.99/month for TEN
> minutes a month back in 1990 or so!) If $40 wasn't a problem, $50 won't be
> either, unfortunately.
Ours was $9.99/month with a free bag phone included. air time was
$.99/minute plus long distance charges if out of a small geographic
area. Pure Analog.
--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago that
> "basic cable" would start at $50/month?
I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Feb 2008 15:16:12 -0500 Carl wrote:
>
>
>
> Or maybe believing that is how Verizon's and AT&T's customers get to sleep
> at night! ;-)
Yes, that's how I am able to sleep.
Seriously though, I have two GSM phones without 800 MHz, my original
Cingular GSM phone from when Cingular out west was only 1900 MHz, and my
tri-mode "traveling phone" which is 900/1800/1900. If I put my SIM card
into one of those phones, which limits me to roaming on the T-Mobile
network with SpeakOut (an AT&T MVNO), the loss of coverage is very
noticeable (starting with no coverage where I live, unless I go outside
and down the street a bit).
The big problem with T-Mo, is that they won't let you roam onto AT&T in
areas where they have a network. According to some Sprint users, if you
set your handset to roaming only then Sprint does allow roaming onto
Verizon even in areas where Sprint has a network.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-23, 12:33 pm |
| At 23 Feb 2008 08:10:08 -0800 SMS wrote:
sleep[color=darkred]
>
> Yes, that's how I am able to sleep.
>
> Seriously though, I have two GSM phones without 800 MHz, my original
> Cingular GSM phone from when Cingular out west was only 1900 MHz,
> and my tri-mode "traveling phone" which is 900/1800/1900.
In this day and age, however, not using a GSM cellphone with 850 doesn't
really give you the right to complain about crummy GSM service that you
claim to "test" on a regular basis. Particularly in light of your
statements about places you've been with "only analog or CDMA and no GSM
coverage..." Without GSM 850, (which is what AT&T's analog footprint has
converted to) those statements are VERY suspect.
> If I put my SIM card into one of those phones, which limits me to
> roaming on the T-Mobile network with SpeakOut (an AT&T MVNO), the
> loss of coverage is very noticeable (starting with no coverage where
> I live, unless I go outside and down the street a bit).
Fair enough. I've already acknowledged T-Mo doesn't have as extensive a
network as Verizon, and if it didn't work where I lived I wouldn't use them
either.
However, as I've pointed out before, when I moved to my current house, I
was in the opposite, and admittedly _very_ rare situation- neither
Verizon nor AT&T had no coverage here yet Sprint and T-Mo did! (Four years
later, they all have coverage now.)
> The big problem with T-Mo, is that they won't let you roam onto AT&T
> in areas where they have a network.
That's a problem with most carriers- Verizon doesn't let you roam if they
have coverage in the area either, though admittedly that "problem" will
happen less often than with T-Mo! ;-)
> According to some Sprint users, if you set your handset to roaming
> only then Sprint does allow roaming onto Verizon even in areas where
> Sprint has a network.
Neat feature, but I've never tried Sprint so I can't confirm or deny.
| |
|
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> In this day and age, however, not using a GSM cellphone with 850 doesn't
> really give you the right to complain about crummy GSM service that you
> claim to "test" on a regular basis. Particularly in light of your
> statements about places you've been with "only analog or CDMA and no GSM
> coverage..." Without GSM 850, (which is what AT&T's analog footprint has
> converted to) those statements are VERY suspect.
Yes, I use a very good 850/1900 Motorola model handset for GSM testing
on AT&T Wireless, I just tried the SIM in the 1900 MHz models because I
wanted to see if T-Mobile had added coverage to my area.
> That's a problem with most carriers- Verizon doesn't let you roam if they
> have coverage in the area either, though admittedly that "problem" will
> happen less often than with T-Mo! ;-)
There was one building at a company I worked at where I was constantly
roaming onto Sprint in one specific conference room. This was several
years ago, but apparently there are or were PRLs where Sprint roaming
was permitted even in Verizon markets.
> Neat feature, but I've never tried Sprint so I can't confirm or deny.
Someday I'll find a Sprint subscriber in my area and be able to confirm
or deny this, but I've not yet met one. Everyone I know uses either AT&T
or Verizon (or T-Mobile prepaid). I do know one Sprint subscriber in
Florida and one in L.A., so maybe the next time I see them I'll try it.
The Sprint coverage in most of California is nearly as bad as T-Mobile's
coverage.
| |
| bruceR 2008-02-23, 3:33 pm |
|
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
> but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
> how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
> expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.
Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
$99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
package of services including HBO and others.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2008-02-23, 3:33 pm |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-02-23, bruceR <no.one@home.com> wrote:
> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.
Plus, satellite requires line-of-sight to the "bird"... and many people
don't have that. For example, satellite would never have worked at the
last place I lived in Ohio... trees to the southwest pretty much guaranteed
that...
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-23, 3:33 pm |
| At 23 Feb 2008 10:42:44 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> Yes, I use a very good 850/1900 Motorola model handset for GSM
> testing on AT&T Wireless, I just tried the SIM in the 1900 MHz models
> because I wanted to see if T-Mobile had added coverage to my area.
Are you sure SpeakOut still roams on T-Mo in your area? I think the
network transition is over (or darn near.) The network IDs were recently
changed, IIRC.
Can't you just do a network search and see who comes up? Or does Cingular
lock that menu out?
(Although last year when I was in the Bay Area a network search on my T-Mo
phone and SIM showed "Cingular" and "Cingular") ;-)
| |
| Jar-Jar Binks 2008-02-23, 10:33 pm |
| >> According to some Sprint users, if you set your handset to roaming
>
> Neat feature, but I've never tried Sprint so I can't confirm or deny.
>
>
This feature is included on all Sprint "digital only" phones that have been
released in the past several years.
>
| |
| Jar-Jar Binks 2008-02-23, 10:33 pm |
| > Someday I'll find a Sprint subscriber in my area and be able to confirm or
> deny this, but I've not yet met one. Everyone I know uses either AT&T or
> Verizon (or T-Mobile prepaid). I do know one Sprint subscriber in Florida
> and one in L.A., so maybe the next time I see them I'll try it. The Sprint
> coverage in most of California is nearly as bad as T-Mobile's coverage.
You are very uninformed and are probably operating from out-of-date facts or
are simply repeating something that you read or something that one of your
buddies said while in a bar. Sprint coverage in Southern California is as
good or better than Verizon. Sprint will also allow you to force your
digital Sprint Phone to Roaming Only mode anytime that you desire. This
gives you the best of Verizon and Sprint together anytime that you want to
use this capability. Therefore, Sprint is better than Verizon because it is
the only cell phone service that offers this option. I have the best of
Verizon and Sprint in one phone on a low cost plan.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2008-02-23, 10:33 pm |
|
"bruceR" <no.one@home.com> wrote in message
news:Q8udnVzWlfR77l3
anZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.
Wow. I've seen the $99 package on 6- and 12-month deals, but never for two
years. Quite a coup.
| |
| George 2008-02-23, 10:33 pm |
| bruceR wrote:
>
> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.
>
>
They do it because they know it is an excellent strategy. They know most
people (no comment about you implied) don't care for change. So when the
rate goes way up after the promo period few will call for disconnection.
| |
| George 2008-02-23, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> "bruceR" <no.one@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Q8udnVzWlfR77l3
anZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
>
> Wow. I've seen the $99 package on 6- and 12-month deals, but never for
> two years. Quite a coup.
>
At least in my market they are offering a year as evidenced by the
glossy flyer that shows up in the mailbox every week.
| |
| bruceR 2008-02-23, 10:33 pm |
|
> bruceR wrote:
> They do it because they know it is an excellent strategy. They know
> most people (no comment about you implied) don't care for change. So
> when the rate goes way up after the promo period few will call for
> disconnection.
True. I responded to the one year offer but the CS person offered me two
years so I grabbed it. When the two years is up, I will likely call and read
them ATT's latest offer and get them to match it. They'll usually do it for
6 months at a time.
| |
| Curtis R Anderson 2008-02-23, 10:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
> Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
> or go down, but landlines still work. During the bad hurricane season a
> few years ago, we also saw that a lot of wireless sites had no back-up
> generator, only batteries, so they went down pretty quickly. Cingular
> had 25% of their sites with generators (according to their own press
> release), while Verizon had 80% with back up power (Verizon claims to
> have a generator at every site where they are allowed to have one).
> Cingular's goal is to have enough sites up to provide complete coverage,
> but to sacrifice capacity, "We will sacrifice the capacity piece to try
> to attain blanket coverage as much as possible."
Thinking of this old AUTOVON relay site very near where I lived when I
went to high school:
http://www.gleepy.net/gallery/images/napoli1.jpg
http://www.gleepy.net/gallery/images/napoli2.jpg
http://www.gleepy.net/gallery/images/napoli3.jpg
I had found documentation on one web site showing that a Solar[tm]
backup generator made by International Harvester was ready to kick in at
that site any time power went down. Given that it was a deep rural area,
wind could easily take down a power line and knock power out.
These days VZW maintains a cell site there and has done so since 1999. I
wonder if that Solar generator is still there.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
Email not munged, SpamAssassin [tm] in effect.
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gleepy@intell
igencia.com
mailto:gleepy@gleepy
.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen
| |
| Curtis R Anderson 2008-02-23, 10:33 pm |
| Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> M.L. wrote:
>
>
>
> Don't cell phones eventually connect via landlines? It seems to me that
> it's cell phone to tower by air, tower to central office by wire,
> Central office to central office by wire, central office to tower by
> wire and tower to cell by air. For wire, you may substitute fiber
> optics, if the local phone company is REALLY up-to-date.
Rural sites (like the one I just posted links to pictures of) used
microwave to connect to another cell site or to the main switch's tower
with all kinds of microwave dishes on it.
Think of the days of AT&T running Radio Relay, from the mid-'50s to the
mid-'90s. with all those feed horns and L-2 and L-3 circuits passing
phone calls and televison network feeds.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
Email not munged, SpamAssassin [tm] in effect.
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gleepy@intell
igencia.com
mailto:gleepy@gleepy
.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen
| |
|
| |