morph3ous
Premium
join:2002-05-16
Miami, FL
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Mr Matt
Re: Charging a fee for what should be free.
I was just thinking the same thing. Customers should definitely not have to pay more per month for the 'privilege' of using their internet connection to route their cell phone calls.
The equipment does cost money, but there are other ways to finance that.
My fear is that cell phone service as a whole is going to degrade at a faster pace as femtocells become more widespread and the providers pay less attention to their cell tower networks in primarily residential areas.
--
My Blog |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs: | Yeah, and just wait til the net hits 'by-the-byte' pricing. So we'll pay for wireless service by-the-minute and by-the-byte for our internet. Sweet.
KM |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Not only that... but
a) CAPS on service (through broaband ISP) would be an issue
b) Wireless carriers would have to wave the CAP on the current wireless data consumption as well as lower fees.
Why should I have to pay twice? I pay for my broadband ISP, then I pay for my wireless data which uses my broadband ISP  and has caps/restrictions, etc.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe  :Yeah, and just wait til the net hits 'by-the-byte' pricing. So we'll pay for wireless service by-the-minute and by-the-byte for our internet. Sweet. KM wear tin foil hat much? There will NEVER be pure 'by-the-byte' billing by ISPs. There might be caps then you pay so much for going over, but never cost per byte starting from the first byte. Secondly talking on a cell wouldn't use up more than a GB perhaps 2 GB a month. And you'd have to talk a lot to do that. |
|
