  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | This may actually make Uverse a deal for me Since AT&T has been too lazy to deploy Uverse VoIP in Los Angeles, and attempting to milk POTS (filled with FEES/UNFEES and TAXES!), I had been hoping that Uverse could bundle with femtocell service.
This would make my POTS or standard VoIP obsolete for me.
Current:
$90 (+10 in fees/taxes) for TWC all the best:
TV/Phone/Internet
$60 (after taxes) for 2 Wireless AT&T lines (550 + rollover, no data)
Future?
Uverse Bundle (femtocell, TV, Internet) ($100?)
$60 (after taxes) for 2 Wireless AT&T lines (550 + rollover, no data)
Benefit ? I would have 2 unlimited lines at home vs. 1
Data on the phone should be included off the femtocell... I would expect AT&T to force a data plan though.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 | |
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: This may actually make Uverse a deal for me I wonder what the hold up has been ?
Uverse was available here since April/May 2007.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| |  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | It's about f***ing time! | |
|
| | | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: This may actually make Uverse a deal for meYup.. pricing is still a bit on the high side... but inline with the 'standard' TWC rates for all the best
Monthly Charges
AT&T U-verse TV U100: $49.00
Receiver Fee: $0.00
TV Sub-total: $49.00
High Speed Internet Option 4 - 3.0 Mbps Pro: $30.00
Internet Sub-total: $30.00
AT&T U-verse Voice Unlimited Primary Phone Line: $30.00
Voice Sub-total: $30.00
One Time Charges
High Speed Internet Option 4 - 3.0 Mbps Pro: $95.00
AT&T U-verse Voice Unlimited Primary Phone Line: $95.00
Installation: -$190.00
Monthly Total: 109.00 (a)
One Time Total: 0.00 (a)
I currently have TWC 'All the best' package for $89/month (10/1, VoIP unlimited, Digital TV + broadcast on 2 other sets).
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Not A Bad Idea Provided there is a service credit for allowing AT&T to use your residence as a small cell tower of course.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | | Re: Not A Bad Idea never. you pay ATT to use the service via a monthly fee. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Not A Bad Idea said by hottboiinnc:never. you pay ATT to use the service via a monthly fee. Lucky for me, AT&T has great coverage where I live and use my phones the most. If they didn't, and they were not willing to pay me for letting them use my home as a small cell tower, then I would have to switch to a carrier that either would do this, or has actually put up towers and provides me with the coverage that I need.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
SpookyET
join:2001-04-30
Lawrenceville, GA | T-Mobile Will this work with T-Mobile?
/sarcasm | |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
| Very Significant This article wont have a ton of comments about it, since its not about Broadband Caps or Network Neutrality...But this article, to me, is very important. Its the first step of a streamlined video/internet/wireless, which, we all know eventually will be just one entity... | |
|
| | Watching Will be keeping any eye on this. Sounds cool to me. | |
|
| | bull Union won't let it work, prem tech's already doing 1,000% more than getting paid for. | |
|
| | | Re: bull said by StarFish267:Union won't let it work, prem tech's already doing 1,000% more than getting paid for. don't worry, the union will be getting paid even less when they are out on strike.... | |
|
 otty
join:2008-10-24
Revelstoke, BC | why not UMA? Why not just introduce UMA service like Tmobile and Rogers in Canada?
No need for expensive femtocell equipment and none of the problems with opening up your broadband connection to the public.
--
Sasktel HighSpeed Extreme , Vista, AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60 Dual-Core @ 2.0GHz; 2GB RAM | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: why not UMA? More revenue possibilities and control.
Personally... I'd prefer UMA.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by otty:Why not just introduce UMA service like Tmobile and Rogers in Canada? No need for expensive femtocell equipment and none of the problems with opening up your broadband connection to the public. Because UMA requires a phone with WiFi. Any UMTS phone can make use of the femtocell. (and it uses less juice than WiFi)
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
| | hwobu
join:2009-02-08
Fairfax, VA | Re: why not UMA? Because UMA requires a phone with WiFi. Any UMTS phone can make use of the femtocell.
I'd say that this is the point, since it is WiFi it can be locked down to only be accessible to those you want to permit, as opposed to the UMTS femtocell approach which will allow every one in range to use the connection, including when these other user(s) use the femtocell's full capacity (meaning there's no capacity left for the person paying the bill). | |
|
| | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| Re: why not UMA? said by hwobu:I'd say that this is the point, since it is WiFi it can be locked down to only be accessible to those you want to permit, as opposed to the UMTS femtocell approach which will allow every one in range to use the connection, including when these other user(s) use the femtocell's full capacity (meaning there's no capacity left for the person paying the bill). Except that it's completely possible to allow only certain mobiles use of the femtocell, presuming at&t desires that it work that way.
They could even force a handover of other users from the femtocell to a macrocell if the femtocell was at capacity and the owner attempted to make a call.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| How does this affect their coming usage caps? And will this phone traffic be exempt from AT&T's new usage caps (which they will eventually impose nation-wide)? If not, they can take their femtocells and shove them. There's no way in hell I'd ever waste some of my monthly usage cap on providing cell phone bandwidth. | |
|
|
|
