·Future Nine Corp..
Human race is getting dumber
... or cannot yet correlate reality with technology in terms of a byte.
How exactly is it cheaper to have a set monthly data allotment and pay a steep overage for additional data buckets?
That's like forced food rationing and feeling happy about it!
It's basic math. Having three smartphones with 2GB allotments would cost $90/mo under the old pricing scheme. Most of the phones will use less data than that, so the extra data is wasted, while if the third phone goes over it has to purchase a more expensive plan.
Under the new system, 6GB of shared data is $80, so it's already $10 cheaper. Now account for the fact that most (if not all) of the lines will not use 2GB/mo, and you can select a cheaper plan, saving more money. Alternatively, one power user and two normal users will probably fit into 6GB, whereas previously you'd have wasted data on two lines and overages (or higher plan cost) on the third.
It doesn't work for everybody but these plans do save a good number of people a few bucks a month. They aren't aimed at DSL-R power users, they are aimed at John Q. Public, who usually uses less than 1GB/mo of data.
I realize people may pick the more expensive alternatives based on coverage, but beyond that I can't see why.
|reply to Crookshanks |
I don't het it if people use near zero data why have a smartphone on a contract ? whats the point ?
Just go with pre paid.
|reply to Network Guy |
If you already had Verizon, and the new plan meets your needs and saves you money, why wouldn't you switch to it?
Coverage is a driving factor for a lot of people, and something that many would argue is worth paying more money for. I'm now living in a med-sized city, so could presumably switch to T-Mobile, but it would leave me without good coverage for trips outside of my hometown, plus T-Mobile's 1900mhz licenses mean their signal dies indoors a lot faster than Verizon's 850mhz signal. It sucks, but that's the reality of RF.
·Future Nine Corp..
I have good indoor reception with T-Mobile as well as with Sprint when I had them. Both carriers use 1900 MHz in my area, though granted different modulation.
If the frequency determined effective coverage, that wouldn't explain why I hardly ever lost reception during a storm with DirecTV.
What determines effective coverage is well.... coverage. How many cell sites, repeaters, etc a carrier deploys in any given area.
I used to use T-Mobile in the Binghamton market, and there were a bunch of buildings (Wal-Mart, Target, bars downtown that were in basements, Old Navy, the Oakdale Mall, Wegmans, want me to keep going?) where my T-Mobile phone had weak or no signal, but my buddy with Verizon had full bars.
Yes, you can build out a network in the PCS bands with the same coverage footprint of a cellular network, but it requires many more cell sites and a corresponding greater capital expense. T-Mobile never made the effort in Binghamton, and from what I've seen has not made the effort in Scranton/Wilkes Barre either. These markets just aren't big enough for them to justify the expense, so I'll stick with Verizon for the foreseeable future.
Don't get me wrong, I loved T-Mobile, their CSRs were genuinely pleasant to talk to, and I had 1,000 minutes/unlimited texting for less than Verizon was then charging for 450 minutes/500 texts. I'm just at a point in my life, personally (married, kids on the way) and professionally (consulting, which means working on the road) where dead zones are much more than a simple annoyance. Between T-Mobile and Verizon in terms of coverage it isn't even a contest. Hell, Verizon blows even AT&T out of the water in the Northeast, so that as they say is that.
|reply to Network Guy |
Frequency determines how well a signal penetrates obstructions. If two carriers use the same cell sites but one is on 1.7Ghz and one is using 2.1Ghz, the 1.7Ghz signal will penetrate obstructions better than the 2.1Ghz signal. If that means you can make a call inside an office building on the 1.7Ghz signal and you cannot make a call inside an office building on the 2.1Ghz signal, I call that a difference in coverage.
Regarding DBS (which uses down link frequencies north of 10Ghz) it depends on where the storm is and whether or not it has hail. In higher latitudes, storms directly overhead do not affect satellite transmissions as storms further to the south. The reasoning is similar to why the sun's intensity is greatest as noon -- it passes through the least amount of atmosphere.