 JeffreyWilpon please sell the MetsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
 ·Vonage
 ·Optimum Online
| Defies all logic Imagine the executives in the board room discussing the price plan for this device. The utmost contempt for the consumer. I'm going to do the best to go out of my way and explain to family and friends to never, ever, to get this device.
An appropriate price point would be a one-time fee of $99. No monthly fees and does not count against your caps. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Jeffrey:An appropriate price point would be a one-time fee of $99. No monthly fees and does not count against your caps. No.
You are already paying AT&T for cell phone service. How many times should one have to keep paying and paying for the same cell phone service?
AT&T should offer this device for $0 to any paying customer who is having reception issues, as it is that customer who is doing AT&T's job.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
JeffreyWilpon please sell the MetsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Vonage
·Optimum Online
| said by pnh102:said by Jeffrey:An appropriate price point would be a one-time fee of $99. No monthly fees and does not count against your caps. No. You are already paying AT&T for cell phone service. How many times should one have to keep paying and paying for the same cell phone service? I wouldn't go as a far as calling it $0. That's a bit, well, enthusiastic. You have to pay for the cost of the device, and I'd consider paying $99 for the device, one time, if it made a difference and if it didn't go toward any caps.
With that said, if my coverage was that poor in my home, I'd be more likely to switch companies, as I'm not a phone-guy, and while stuff like the Incredible, the iPhone, etc. are all nice pieces of technology, I don't get that crazy over it.
$0 would be nice, but that would never happen, so I can't take that suggestion seriously.
--
"Soulshine. Better than sunshine. Better than moonshine. Damn sure better than rain."
Debunking the 2012 hysteria. | Let's Go Mets!! | Will work for coffee or beer. |
|
|
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Jeffrey:I wouldn't go as a far as calling it $0. That's a bit, well, enthusiastic. You have to pay for the cost of the device, and I'd consider paying $99 for the device, one time, if it made a difference and if it didn't go toward any caps. If I was in need of one of these devices, it is because AT&T is not doing its job to provide coverage for me. I don't think most people would be enthusiastic to have to pay twice for something. If AT&T were to offer the device for free, then it also gives AT&T a way to keep cellular users locked into contracts should they move out of an AT&T service area. 
said by Jeffrey:With that said, if my coverage was that poor in my home, I'd be more likely to switch companies ... Agreed.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
I agree. I have been a Sprint customer for 5+ years. Back when I got them, I couldn't get a signal in my house, but neither could t-mobile, verizon, or ATT (I live in a valley). After excepting that I was just in a wireless black-hole, I had expensive cell repeating equipment that was flaky at best. Then Sprint released the Airave femtocell. I was first in line for one of these and now I can make a crystal clear call anywhere in my house. The turn off? I have to pay to use it. WTF?! A device that kept me from canceling my Sprint service and I'm paying extra for it... At leased they have an unlimited option so the kiddies can talk all day when they are at home. Verizon charges a one time fee of $250 and no monthly. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| reply to Jeffrey
said by Jeffrey:Imagine the executives in the board room discussing the price plan for this device. The utmost contempt for the consumer. I'm going to do the best to go out of my way and explain to family and friends to never, ever, to get this device. Just tell them that the DirecTV commericals that show the CableCo board room really was shot at AT&T. |
|
JeffreyWilpon please sell the MetsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Vonage
·Optimum Online
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by Jeffrey:I wouldn't go as a far as calling it $0. That's a bit, well, enthusiastic. You have to pay for the cost of the device, and I'd consider paying $99 for the device, one time, if it made a difference and if it didn't go toward any caps. If AT&T were to offer the device for free, then it also gives AT&T a way to keep cellular users locked into contracts should they move out of an AT&T service area. Well, well. You said the magic word - contract. Then, you can give the device for free if the user stays on a year or two. At that point, the user owns the device so should they leave AT&T and come back, they could still use it without the need for an additional contract for the device itself.
My wife has AT&T. I have Verizon. At our home, she has poor (zero to one bar) coverage. I guess we're a candidate for one of these Fembots [sic]. She refuses to switch to Verizon (until she saw my HTC Incredible), and I refuse to switch to AT&T. We're in a heated deadlock, generally resolved over a best-of-7 in Wii bowling.
With that said, there are 3 other phone lines in the house (VoIP), so the ability that exists to make or receive virtually unlimited calls on those systems vastly outweighs the need for this AT&T device at virtually any price point.
--
"Soulshine. Better than sunshine. Better than moonshine. Damn sure better than rain."
Debunking the 2012 hysteria. | Let's Go Mets!! | Will work for coffee or beer. |
|
JeffreyWilpon please sell the MetsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Vonage
·Optimum Online
| reply to cdru
said by cdru:said by Jeffrey:Imagine the executives in the board room discussing the price plan for this device. The utmost contempt for the consumer. I'm going to do the best to go out of my way and explain to family and friends to never, ever, to get this device. Just tell them that the DirecTV commericals that show the CableCo board room really was shot at AT&T. Not a bad idea. Those commercials are great.
--
"Soulshine. Better than sunshine. Better than moonshine. Damn sure better than rain."
Debunking the 2012 hysteria. | Let's Go Mets!! | Will work for coffee or beer. |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:If I was in need of one of these devices, it is because AT&T is not doing its job to provide coverage for me. aren't you part of the crowd that says that rural broadband isn't a "right" and if people want high speed, that they should move?
att provides coverage. if you don't get coverage, you are more than welcome to move where there *is* coverage. they are a private company, they do as they please. cell phone coverage is not a right.
(now i hope that you all see how *absolutely stupid* that argument point is).
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by tubbynet:aren't you part of the crowd that says that rural broadband isn't a "right" and if people want high speed, that they should move? Yes.
said by tubbynet:att provides coverage. if you don't get coverage, you are more than welcome to move where there *is* coverage. they are a private company, they do as they please. cell phone coverage is not a right. Exactly. I am glad you were able to demonstrate your grasp of reading comprehension skills. I am proud of you.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
| said by pnh102:said by tubbynet:aren't you part of the crowd that says that rural broadband isn't a "right" and if people want high speed, that they should move? Yes. said by tubbynet:att provides coverage. if you don't get coverage, you are more than welcome to move where there *is* coverage. they are a private company, they do as they please. cell phone coverage is not a right. Exactly. I am glad you were able to demonstrate your grasp of reading comprehension skills. I am proud of you. And how does that equate to AT&T giving you a free femtocell? |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to tubbynet
Dont you all be giving them ideas... Having to move is ridiculous, like it or not serve me and serve me well if you want my business, is basic business strategy (unfortunately ATT does Not follow that approach). You say move, keep talking, ATT will one up you and in major populated city areas where I figure you live ( or outside suburbs), down grade there networks and lower signal strength, just to get the masses to buy into there femtocell. Weather you are a Voice and/or Data user now your once 3-4 bar indoor reception goes to 1-2 bars, and what will ATT claim when you call them and complain...." Ohh its constraints on our network why your signal has dropped but if you purchase a femtocell from us...." you get the point. Lets not say it wouldn't be so as we already know ATT's devious ways.
1)Cant or don't want to leave because...your under contract
2) upgrade plan means... more cash you didnt plan on spending out of your pocket
3) curse out ATT till your Blue in the face.. there finance office laughing all the way to the bank because there a "private Company". |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Jeffrey
Re: Defies all logic Contract or not, if the cellular service in an area rated for good service isn't there, then they should be more than happy to provide the microcell - at no charge. Deploying microcells would be MUCH cheaper in the long run, I'd think, that deploying more towers.
Simply put.. when the service ends, the device has to be returned or the customer pays retail for the unit based on the date it was delivered to the customer. So yea, even if it's 2 years old and way out dated, the customer still pays the retail price of what AT&T publishes at the time of receipt of the unit.
But, they, or any cell phone provider, isn't that smart.. well, Sprint perhaps.. they sent me one, no charge, no monthly fee either. That was a smart move to keep me from ditching a $350 month bill. |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by Jeffrey:I wouldn't go as a far as calling it $0. That's a bit, well, enthusiastic. You have to pay for the cost of the device, and I'd consider paying $99 for the device, one time, if it made a difference and if it didn't go toward any caps. If I was in need of one of these devices, it is because AT&T is not doing its job to provide coverage for me. I don't think most people would be enthusiastic to have to pay twice for something. If AT&T were to offer the device for free, then it also gives AT&T a way to keep cellular users locked into contracts should they move out of an AT&T service area. said by Jeffrey:With that said, if my coverage was that poor in my home, I'd be more likely to switch companies ... Agreed. I'm having trouble seeing how someone like you can be against AT&T here. Based on your own arguments, what right do you have to a femtocell? Since when is it AT&T's job to make sure *you* have good coverage? Here's hoping you can find a way to avoid looking like a total hypocrite. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by sonicmerlin:I'm having trouble seeing how someone like you can be against AT&T here. Based on your own arguments, what right do you have to a femtocell? Since when is it AT&T's job to make sure *you* have good coverage? Here's hoping you can find a way to avoid looking like a total hypocrite. You people clearly have no concept of value for money.
If I am an AT&T wireless subscriber, I am paying them $X a month in exchange for cell phone service. If I am paying them $X a month, and they are not providing me with the service for which I paid, then they are not doing their job for which I am paying them. It is like if you are at work, being paid, and sitting around browsing the web or looking at porn. You are not doing your job.
As your boss isn't going to come up to you and pay you more money than he already is to stop looking at porn at work, I see no reason for me to pay more money to AT&T for them to do their job, that is, to provide me with service. Either they provide me with the coverage for which I pay, or I fire them and get a new carrier that will.
How is this so hard to comprehend? It almost sounds as if you want to pay more and more and more for the same level of service.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
