<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Great idea if cost is competitive/low...otherwise this sucks in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19167235</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:39:03 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:39:03 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Great idea if cost is competitive/low...otherwise this sucks</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19167235</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1376775"><b>Fox McCloud</b></A> : If they <i>could</i> make future phones (or already released ones) support satellite calls, with little to no extra charge, and <i>if</i> they operated on the standard "XXX minutes per month" model, and the price was the same (or close) to terrestrial cellphone service prices, I'd say it could work....big problem; that's a lot of "if"'s.<br><br>I can't see this working, as service will be far to expensive, even for most of those who live in urban areas.<br><br>Otherwise, if a nationwide satellite phone service could be established that used the satellite network and the terrestrial network for 99% coverage (and the price was about the same same, or only $10-$20 more, per month), it could work....but,like I said, that's not going to happen.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19167235</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:37:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
