how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to karlmarx
Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue No TK is right, whether you want to believe it or not, there is more than just AT&T that hosts all of the Internet sites. I am sure that AT&T has no problem giving you unlimited access to devices connected to their network. As because in this case you are marginally right, however more than electricity is required to increase capacity to the levels required to passify ton's of bonehead iPhone users. You need more pipe between towers which means either... plow more copper, lease more copper, install more wireless gear and pay for frequency licensing. And then once you do reach AT&T's core, you need to increase capacity to the other Tier 1 provider's facilities. In this capitalist corparatist economy, nothing is free and everything costs. The more gear you install, the more failures you have, the more technicians you have to hire to be able to keep the network running, the more gear you need to buy to replace the failing gear. As I have thought this out, even increasing capacity to just AT&T's core would cost way more than electricity.
The most technologically illiterate people I know are accountants, so this title means nothing towards credibility in this thread.
While I do not favor paying usage myself, I think usage rates would vastly improve the experience overall...... A music thief isn't going to connect his phone to his computer if it would be cheaper to buy the damn CD.
I am currently an Alltel user in the territories about to be taken over by AT&T, and I fear the bigger issue of no 3G available period because we don't have enough population to "Pay" for it. I may just drop my phone service all together because I hate Verizon, Sprint's coverage is worthless, and AT&T's coverage is worthless (at this time they have didly squat in rural areas) I'll go back to a CB if I have to  | |
| Hmm.. CB, I guess that means you must be a redneck. I am an accountant by education, but I've been a network engineer/manager/director for the last 20 years, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. Hell, I worked for a company that MADE phone switches, so I know about those too. You are correct though, the cost for the evil empire to provide DATA services is FAR HIGHER than the cost to provide voice services. A single 'data' user can suck up more bandwidth than 100 voice users. Lets see, we can charge $50.00 for 100 people to use it, or we can charge $60.00 for 1 user to use it. Do the math, it's not the CUSTOMER RAPE of pricing it used to be.
Of note though. A music thief is someone who shoplifts. A music infringer is someone who downloads. Big difference, as one denies the owner the ability to sell something, while the other is just copying bits, without ever affecting the original.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to jazzy1124
Making cars illegal will also eliminate traffic jams, but that doesn't mean it accomplishes the goal in the best way possible.
What would really "improve the experience overall" is not caps but proper network investment. AT&T half-assing it is a terrible business plan, but unfortunately, it seems to be an integral part of their corporate culture. | |
|
