| Free It should be $50 - $100 for the hardware and FREE unlimited calling. The only two reasons to provide this are for customers with signal issues and removing load from the towers. Both provide a big benefit to the carrier, so they shouldn't be charging for it. |
|
|
|
| said by digitalfreak:It should be $50 - $100 for the hardware and FREE unlimited calling. The only two reasons to provide this are for customers with signal issues and removing load from the towers. Both provide a big benefit to the carrier, so they shouldn't be charging for it. I agree with you in principle. But here's a question.
If they just sold the device with no plan and no monthly fee, why would you need the device in the first place?
In other words, the device is using your internet to provide a telephone connection. Couldn't you just do that with Skype instead of wasting time and money with this? Can someone help me understand the benefit of such devices when there are and have been significantly cheaper alternatives? |
|
brownk
join:2000-06-08
Katonah, NY
3 edits | quote:
I agree with you in principle. But here's a question.
If they just sold the device with no plan and no monthly fee, why would you need the device in the first place?
In other words, the device is using your internet to provide a telephone connection. Couldn't you just do that with Skype instead of wasting time and money with this? Can someone help me understand the benefit of such devices when there are and have been significantly cheaper alternatives?
How's this? - Because when I'm home (where the signal is marginal) and someone calls my cell phone I'd like it to ring. Period. Skype or other alternatives don't address that issue. It's not about being able to make a call from home (I already have a landline anyway), it's about knowing that if someone chooses to dial my cell phone and I happen to be at home that it will ring. I don't care about extra minutes or that the microcell is using a small portion of the bandwidth I'm already paying someone else for, I just want the cell phone to work in my house. |
|
| said by brownk: quote:
I agree with you in principle. But here's a question.
If they just sold the device with no plan and no monthly fee, why would you need the device in the first place?
In other words, the device is using your internet to provide a telephone connection. Couldn't you just do that with Skype instead of wasting time and money with this? Can someone help me understand the benefit of such devices when there are and have been significantly cheaper alternatives?
How's this? - Because when I'm home (where the signal is marginal) and someone calls my cell phone I'd like it to ring. Period. Skype or other alternatives don't address that issue. It's not about being able to make a call from home (I already have a landline anyway), it's about knowing that if someone chooses to dial my cell phone and I happen to be at home that it will ring. I don't care about extra minutes or that the microcell is using a small portion of the bandwidth I'm already paying someone else for, I just want the cell phone to work in my house. Granted. But couldn't you feasibly just use a combination of Skype + Google Voice to accomplish that? So that you could be reached no matter where you are? |
|
brownk
join:2000-06-08
Katonah, NY | said by ReVeLaTeD:said by brownk: quote:
I agree with you in principle. But here's a question.
If they just sold the device with no plan and no monthly fee, why would you need the device in the first place?
In other words, the device is using your internet to provide a telephone connection. Couldn't you just do that with Skype instead of wasting time and money with this? Can someone help me understand the benefit of such devices when there are and have been significantly cheaper alternatives?
How's this? - Because when I'm home (where the signal is marginal) and someone calls my cell phone I'd like it to ring. Period. Skype or other alternatives don't address that issue. It's not about being able to make a call from home (I already have a landline anyway), it's about knowing that if someone chooses to dial my cell phone and I happen to be at home that it will ring. I don't care about extra minutes or that the microcell is using a small portion of the bandwidth I'm already paying someone else for, I just want the cell phone to work in my house. Granted. But couldn't you feasibly just use a combination of Skype + Google Voice to accomplish that? So that you could be reached no matter where you are? Nope. I want the CELL PHONE to work in my house. |
|
| reply to digitalfreak
I think you missed what I was saying.
Your real intent is that you can receive calls made to your cell phone number, even in your home where you don't receive signal. But the bottom line is the idea that you receive the call despite the lack of signal.
Thus, why could you not just transfer your cell # to Google Voice, change it with your cell provider and point it to your Google Voice #, and have GV forward your calls both to your home and cell? That way, you still get the call on the home number and people who call what was your cell phone number still reach you, despite not having signal?
It seems like a pain, but that also gives you the flexibility of not having to necessarily depend on your cell phone to receive your calls even though your cell phone number that everyone knows, is still good. Just a thought; I'm not arguing with you. |
|
