Are there still extra charges for long distance calls?
I'd think there shouldn't be since all of the traffic is being routed over your internet connection (like VoIP), but I didn't see a definite answer on this anywhere (and it wouldn't surprise me if they still gouged you). If not, then I'd definitely go for this over a VoIP phone.
I have been using my Airave device for a while now, since it came out. My house is in a dead zone for all networks, AT&T and Verizon included. I am lucky to get 1 bar of service so I had a lot of dropped calls. I called up Sprint to complain and they not only offered me a completely free Airave device, but they also waived the monthly $5 fee for better reception.
I was so impressed that I decided to add on the unlimited calls option for an extra $10 a month. The Airave does what it is supposed to do, it gives me all 5 bars and now I have unlimited phone calls from home with crystal clear reception. I have a SERO plan which cost $30 a month for unlimited data/text and 500 anytime minutes starting at 7PM. Now with the AIrave I also have unlimited voice calls and my TOTAL monthly bill is only $40 plus tax.
AT&T's new device seems pretty expensive by comparison. I know for a fact that if you call Sprint and complain about poor reception, they will give you a free AIrave and waive your monthly fees. Try that on AT&T.
Please name a few, since I had a mobile phone in Australia, Thailand, Philippines, India, Singapore, China, UK, Jamaica to name a few and it is not heavily subsidized by tax payers.
As I stated, "Keep in mind that most countries outside of the US and Canada are or were heavily subsidized by tax payers.
In many countries, the national governments not only helped subsidize development of cell phone services but owned them outright. The Nordic countries, like Finland, home of Nokia is a good example were the cell phone industry was built on taxpayers dollars before they were deregulated and sold off the private enterprise.
Incidentally, many countries still subsidize cell phone coverage, particularly in rural areas. For example, in the US, the Universal Service Fund USF was created to help subsidize the cost of providing cell phone service in rural areas. And is still being done: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9934564-7.html
Most countries communication services until a few years ago were government owned, controlled and run.
Most countries communication services until a few years ago were government owned, controlled and run.
I'm missing the point as to why this is a negative?
Considering that the cellular service industry is highly profitable in densely populated areas, that would likely more than cover the expense incurred by rural areas (and the profits could even reduce taxes once the initial setup cost is covered).
Now the impact to potential investors, that's another debate...
I'm missing the point as to why this is a negative?
Considering that the cellular service industry is highly profitable in densely populated areas, that would likely more than cover the expense incurred by rural areas (and the profits could even reduce taxes once the initial setup cost is covered).
Now the impact to potential investors, that's another debate...
Who said it was negative?
This was in response to a comment that boasted that their cell phone service was cheaper. Considering that the country in mind was about twice the size of Wyoming and that the development of wireless in most countries outside of the US and Canada for example were either supported or in fact built entirely by taxpayer dollars is not a fair comparison.
Building the infrastructure is one thing. Maintaining and upgrading the system is another. A lot of private enterprises has delved in the business. A lot have gone under as well.
I have been using my Airave device for a while now, since it came out. My house is in a dead zone for all networks, AT&T and Verizon included. I am lucky to get 1 bar of service so I had a lot of dropped calls. I called up Sprint to complain and they not only offered me a completely free Airave device, but they also waived the monthly $5 fee for better reception.
I was so impressed that I decided to add on the unlimited calls option for an extra $10 a month. The Airave does what it is supposed to do, it gives me all 5 bars and now I have unlimited phone calls from home with crystal clear reception. I have a SERO plan which cost $30 a month for unlimited data/text and 500 anytime minutes starting at 7PM. Now with the AIrave I also have unlimited voice calls and my TOTAL monthly bill is only $40 plus tax.
AT&T's new device seems pretty expensive by comparison. I know for a fact that if you call Sprint and complain about poor reception, they will give you a free AIrave and waive your monthly fees. Try that on AT&T.
I can't see where this is an apples to apples comparison, however.
Sprint is highly motivated to staunch the bleeding of losing customers by offering deals to sweeten the pot if someone is disgruntled. It's too bad that the big carriers don't have this incentive, but you have to ask yourself why Sprint finds itself in that position to begin with.
It's nice they offered you a deal, but for comparison purposes we have to compare published rates. By that metric, Sprint has a mandatory $5/month fee for a slower connection. They have a cheaper unlimited rate, still with a slower connection, and depending on what other AT&T services you have you may be able to meet or beat that rate anyway.
You know for a fact that when you called they offered you a deal, you have no idea if the next guy will be so lucky, or if Sprint's policy on this will change without warning.
And the SERO plan is no longer available to new subscribers, and not available at all on their most desirable phone (the Pre) so making that part of your math when you calculate total cost for comparison purposes really doesn't fly.
I'm not really defending AT&T here, I'm just saying that saying that whenever AT&T's pricing schemes are discussed, Sprint users start talking about this deal they got in 1998 that they still have and use that as reason why AT&T are criminal extortionists, and that doesn't make much sense.
The fact is Sprint offers deals because they have to, they have to because they're losing customers, they're losing customers because those customers aren't satisfied, for whatever reasons. If deals were the whole thing, they'd be on top, I guess.
I was asking a legit question. I just said I was out of the loop. But thanks for being a tool, vinea.
I figured troll was better than other things to describe someone that already has Skype, doesn't know it's on the iPhone but whines for the FCC to put the hammer down on Apple.
Your comment was sarcastic and trollish. There was hardly a question there. Deal.
Quote:
I already have Skype on my computer, but I can't really carry that around with me while I'm moving around the house, now can I? Thus, because I've got a wireless network set up at my home, VOIP on my iPhone is something I'm considering due to AT&T's fairly restrictive phone plan.
Yah, so frigging restrictive that you can already do what you wanted.
If you're honestly clueless there's something called "google". You can ask it things like "skype on iPhone".
aren't there other manufacturers that have a box that connects to your router to do the same signal boost that this thing does??? i thought i read about that, when i find it i will post
It looks like vinea started it calling Garmin a troll. Unless I missed something, Garmin's question seems perfectly reasonable.
No, a reasonable question would have been: "What does the microcell do for me that skype doesn't?" or "what do I get for $20 a month?". His "question" was phrased in the same way your commentary is: that AT&T is trying to rip you off for offering a way to improve your signal for less money than other companies charge.
The only thing that AT&T really restricts is VOIP on it's cell network. There are reasons for that: one they charge for voice minutes and second (the technical one) is that voice over GSM is typically 28Kbps for full rate (12Kbps data, the rest error detection/correction bits) and they can go half rate to squeeze more voice channels in.
VOIP is typically anywhere from 32Kbps to 80Kbps depending on codec. Even with the same AMR full rate codec (12 kbps data) you end up higher than the 28Kbps because the overhead is higher due to the IP overhead. You can go half rate as well (assuming both ends handles the half rate AMR codec) but you're still screwed on the IP overhead and SIP signalling. % wise, it's even worse. (Yes, you can do RoHC (Robust Header Compression) as an operator).
End result of VOIP over AT&T's cell network is more traffic to carry the same voice traffic that they can't charge for. Plus, without the QoS support, VoIP over AT&T's overburdened data slots is going to be spotty in the same places that normal AT&T GSM voice is spotty.
This is why they care a little less with VoIP on the iPhone for wireless use. Sure, you're not burning minutes but at least you aren't also hammering their network in the process.
Range covers my small front yard. Added info on it to the review. Basically once I got outside and there were 3 drywall walls and brick between us I'd drop a bar about every 20 feet. Enough to cover a deck/patio..maybe not a backyard/pool.
Nice. Coupled with an XLink and a ooma you can eliminate your land line fairly safely.
The ooma does the same sort of multiring that GV does and it has pretty nice GV integration as well. But it's pretty optional with the microcell and xlink providing you with fairly reliable service...both your ISP and your local cell tower have to fail to completely lose telephony.
I'll do ooma just because my iPhone isn't always in BT range of the xlink...
I can't see where this is an apples to apples comparison, however.
Sprint is highly motivated to staunch the bleeding of losing customers by offering deals to sweeten the pot if someone is disgruntled. It's too bad that the big carriers don't have this incentive, but you have to ask yourself why Sprint finds itself in that position to begin with.
It's nice they offered you a deal, but for comparison purposes we have to compare published rates. By that metric, Sprint has a mandatory $5/month fee for a slower connection. They have a cheaper unlimited rate, still with a slower connection, and depending on what other AT&T services you have you may be able to meet or beat that rate anyway.
You know for a fact that when you called they offered you a deal, you have no idea if the next guy will be so lucky, or if Sprint's policy on this will change without warning.
And the SERO plan is no longer available to new subscribers, and not available at all on their most desirable phone (the Pre) so making that part of your math when you calculate total cost for comparison purposes really doesn't fly.
I'm not really defending AT&T here, I'm just saying that saying that whenever AT&T's pricing schemes are discussed, Sprint users start talking about this deal they got in 1998 that they still have and use that as reason why AT&T are criminal extortionists, and that doesn't make much sense.
The fact is Sprint offers deals because they have to, they have to because they're losing customers, they're losing customers because those customers aren't satisfied, for whatever reasons. If deals were the whole thing, they'd be on top, I guess.
I have not had SERO since 1998, I got it only two years ago. But you are correct that it is no longer offered, but the new SERO plan is called Everything Plus where the Pre is available along with the new HTC Hero runnning Android. That plan is currently available and open to everyone. Take a look at the first post for details. http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/846333/
Basically, for $60 a month you get an all you can eat buffet of data, text, unlimited calling to any mobile phone on any network, and 500 anytime minutes from 7PM if calling landlines. Since my SERO plan does not include unlimited calling, I pay the $10 fee for that privilege which still works out to be $20 cheaper than the new plan. Why Sprint is losing customers is a mystery. I am extremely happy with Sprint and most of all love saving about $780 a year vs. the AT&T iPhone plan which offers even less features than my plan.
As far as your point about a slower connection, that is moot. The connection you are talking about is only for data. Inside my home I would tend to use wifi which is far faster than any 3G service as would most people with an iPhone. As far as voice, it is the same. You might have to pay $5 a month extra if you have poor indoor coverage, but since Sprint's plan includes unlimited calling to ANY mobile network that would still be a far better deal than having to pay an additional $20 on AT&T. By my Math Sprint would cost you $65 and AT&T iphone w/ 450 minutes, 1500 messaging, data is $85 plus an additional $20 for the femtocell brings it to $105.
Mind you as an avid Apple user, I want an iPhone. But not so much that I am willing to shell out an additional $780 for one. Maybe Apple will loosen up and bring it to a network that could actually handle the data. Until then my HTC Touch Pro 2 will have to do.
I have not had SERO since 1998, I got it only two years ago. But you are correct that it is no longer offered, but the new SERO plan is called Everything Plus where the Pre is available along with the new HTC Hero runnning Android. That plan is currently available and open to everyone. Take a look at the first post for details. http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/846333/
WTF? You've linked to a year old post that claims some kind of back door code to get a deal, with subsequent posters saying it no longer works.
Quote:
Basically, for $60 a month you get an all you can eat buffet of data, text, unlimited calling to any mobile phone on any network, and 500 anytime minutes from 7PM if calling landlines. Since my SERO plan does not include unlimited calling, I pay the $10 fee for that privilege which still works out to be $20 cheaper than the new plan. Why Sprint is losing customers is a mystery. I am extremely happy with Sprint and most of all love saving about $780 a year vs. the AT&T iPhone plan which offers even less features than my plan.
Look, I have no idea what existing Spring customers have managed to finagle. It doesn't seem terribly unreasonable, if we're going to compare pricing, to forswear "pssst, buddy, I've got a deal for you" internet discussion board posts and go with published rates.
At Sprint's website, they offer unlimited data and 900 minutes for $89.99. That includes unlimited messaging. At AT&T, they offer unlimited data and 900 minutes for..... 89.99.
That doesn't include unlimited messaging, which is another $20, so, yes, Sprint is cheaper if you want unlimited messaging. If you want unlimited voice and data, Sprint is $20 less plus the $20 bucks for messaging, so the best case scenario for Sprint is if you want unlimited everything, in which case you can get that for $40 less than AT&T.
But for the average user it's probably going to be $20 cheaper to go with Sprint, which is cheaper but it's not amazingly cheaper, and certainly not as amazingly cheaper as these convoluted tales of "I had this but added this for that and kept this and upgraded this" make out. At least not by Sprint's published rates. If they have better rates, I would think they would want to advertise them?
And while you may not have any idea why customers are abandoning Sprint, there must be a reason, don't you think? I mean, people aren't going through hassle of changing their carrier just on a whim, presumably, so there has to be a down side, and I contend that that down side is why Sprint is any cheaper at all in the first place-- they have to be.
Verizon isn't losing customers, and their rates are right in line with AT&T. Funny how that works.
Quote:
As far as your point about a slower connection, that is moot. The connection you are talking about is only for data. Inside my home I would tend to use wifi which is far faster than any 3G service as would most people with an iPhone. As far as voice, it is the same. You might have to pay $5 a month extra if you have poor indoor coverage, but since Sprint's plan includes unlimited calling to ANY mobile network that would still be a far better deal than having to pay an additional $20 on AT&T. By my Math Sprint would cost you $65 and AT&T iphone w/ 450 minutes, 1500 messaging, data is $85 plus an additional $20 for the femtocell brings it to $105.
Mind you as an avid Apple user, I want an iPhone. But not so much that I am willing to shell out an additional $780 for one. Maybe Apple will loosen up and bring it to a network that could actually handle the data. Until then my HTC Touch Pro 2 will have to do.
My math works like this: if I have poor service in my home, with AT&T I purchase a Microcell for $150. I continue to pay $89 a month for unlimited data and 900 talk minutes. I can use the higher speed data services and talk at the same time, which you cannot do on Sprint, so I can see why the data speeds don't mean anything to you.
Or, if I have Sprint and want better in-house coverage, I can get a $99 microcell, pay $89.99 for unlimited data and 900 talk minutes plus $5 monthly service fee for the microcell. If I want unlimited texting on both services, I'll come out $15 a month ahead on Sprint. For the slower, no voice and data at the same time service.
So, yes, cheaper. But not crazy cheaper, unless you work out some elaborate scenario designed to make it that way, but that's not what the average customer comparing services is going to do.
The 3G Microcell will do seamless handoff to the cell network when you take a call away from it; however, you can't transfer a call from the network to the Microcell.
Yes, the device requires registration. You can register up to 10 phone numbers that will be able to be able to use the Microcell, restricting access to only those 10 numbers. The Microcell also has GPS verification, so you can only use the Microcell to enhance service in areas already served by AT&T -- basically, you can't take the Microcell and use it in Guam if Guam doesn't already have AT&T coverage.
AWWWWW.....that sucks about #2! I wanted to buy one for the bar down my street where the reception is TERRIBLE. I wanted it to essentially "extend" the coverage and be accessible by anyone with AT&T....much like an open WIFI router. I was even going to put a collection jar to help pay the $150, for anyone who wanted to be able to use their phone there. Too bad. It seems so stupid they wouldn't have a "public" mode which could further reduce strain on their cell network data throughput.
Oh and I can't wait for the GPS hacks that will inevitably come, which will send a false GPS location and do to cell phones what VOIP did to landlines and international calling!
You are not expanding their network for other people... Only phones you specifically authorize can function on the microcell. Nobody else can use your bandwidth, so there will be no compensation.
Frankly, $150 to have perfect coverage with no monthly cost really isn't that much to ask. I will definitely be picking one of these up for my apartment in Chicago (when its available)
The micro cell is not new
mi fi does the same thing
anyone in side the 40 sq feet gets better signal coverage
anyone in side the 40 sq feet gets better signal coverage
it is impossible to do so other wise
The mifi provides access to a cellular data network which it shares via wifi for Internet access.
The MicroCell is wired to your broadband network so you can make voice calls and get your SMS messages - through your broadband connection. You connect to the MicroCell from your phone using the same 3G radio you connect to towers with.
WTF? You've linked to a year old post that claims some kind of back door code to get a deal, with subsequent posters saying it no longer works.
That post might be a year old but is still valid. It is not some big secret, but well known and permitted by Sprint. You make it sound like a password to enter a skull and bones meeting. Don't believe me, call Sprint and ask. I just got a friend signed up that switched from Verizon on this program last week so I know for a fact that it still works. If you choose not to take advantage of discounts available that is your choice, I like to save money where I can. That email address is a Sprint vice president that purposefully released and authorized it so the public can take advantage of this offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
At Sprint's website, they offer unlimited data and 900 minutes for $89.99. That includes unlimited messaging. At AT&T, they offer unlimited data and 900 minutes for..... 89.99.
That doesn't include unlimited messaging, which is another $20, so, yes, Sprint is cheaper if you want unlimited messaging. If you want unlimited voice and data, Sprint is $20 less plus the $20 bucks for messaging, so the best case scenario for Sprint is if you want unlimited everything, in which case you can get that for $40 less than AT&T.
But for the average user it's probably going to be $20 cheaper to go with Sprint, which is cheaper but it's not amazingly cheaper, and certainly not as amazingly cheaper as these convoluted tales of "I had this but added this for that and kept this and upgraded this" make out. At least not by Sprint's published rates. If they have better rates, I would think they would want to advertise them?
My math works like this: if I have poor service in my home, with AT&T I purchase a Microcell for $150. I continue to pay $89 a month for unlimited data and 900 talk minutes. I can use the higher speed data services and talk at the same time, which you cannot do on Sprint, so I can see why the data speeds don't mean anything to you.
Or, if I have Sprint and want better in-house coverage, I can get a $99 microcell, pay $89.99 for unlimited data and 900 talk minutes plus $5 monthly service fee for the microcell. If I want unlimited texting on both services, I'll come out $15 a month ahead on Sprint. For the slower, no voice and data at the same time service.
So, yes, cheaper. But not crazy cheaper, unless you work out some elaborate scenario designed to make it that way, but that's not what the average customer comparing services is going to do.
Your math is way off. First of all, if you choose to only use the published rates on Sprint.com, fine. But why did you choose the 900 minute plan for $89? Apparently you are not aware that SPrint now allows unlimited calling to ANY mobile network now even for the 450 minute plan. With unlimited calling to any network, you would have to be a fool to buy the 900 minute plan. Unlike AT&T, Sprint's anytime starts at 7PM not 9PM. And you would only use the 450 minutes when calling a landline anyway. If you are close to your 450 minute limit, all you need do is call or email Sprint and you can buy blocks of additional 100 bonus minutes for $5 each if you make a lot of landline calls. Or you could also add pick 5 for $10 allowing unlimited calls to 5 landline numbers for example.
The closest iPhone plan I could build that I thought was a fair comparison was the nation unlimited, plus data and 1500 messaging. That comes out to $145 a month. Yes, this plan offers unlimited calling to even landlines unlike Sprint, but since Sprint allows unlimited texting and much earlier anytime at 7PM I thought this was the closest plan to compare. Even the cheapest iphone plan with only 450 voice and 200 text comes out to $75 which is more expensive and far less value. Sprint also offers a complete unlimited package for voice text, and data for $99 if you need that. That would save you $540 a year which is not chump change.
I actually switched from AT&T to Sprint and I can tell you that at least where I live Sprint certainly has far better 3G speeds and much, much better voice coverage. I realize that varies by location though. Since we also get free roaming on Verizon's towers that means we also get the best of both worlds, access to Sprint and Verizon's network at half the price. If you are happy paying twice for less, have at it. I prefer to keep that $700 in my bank account every year.
That post might be a year old but is still valid. It is not some big secret, but well known and permitted by Sprint. You make it sound like a password to enter a skull and bones meeting. Don't believe me, call Sprint and ask. I just got a friend signed up that switched from Verizon on this program last week so I know for a fact that it still works. If you choose not to take advantage of discounts available that is your choice, I like to save money where I can. That email address is a Sprint vice president that purposefully released and authorized it so the public can take advantage of this offer.
Your math is way off. First of all, if you choose to only use the published rates on Sprint.com, fine. But why did you choose the 900 minute plan for $89? Apparently you are not aware that SPrint now allows unlimited calling to ANY mobile network now even for the 450 minute plan. With unlimited calling to any network, you would have to be a fool to buy the 900 minute plan. Unlike AT&T, Sprint's anytime starts at 7PM not 9PM. And you would only use the 450 minutes when calling a landline anyway. If you are close to your 450 minute limit, all you need do is call or email Sprint and you can buy blocks of additional 100 bonus minutes for $5 each if you make a lot of landline calls. Or you could also add pick 5 for $10 allowing unlimited calls to 5 landline numbers for example.
The closest iPhone plan I could build that I thought was a fair comparison was the nation unlimited, plus data and 1500 messaging. That comes out to $145 a month. Yes, this plan offers unlimited calling to even landlines unlike Sprint, but since Sprint allows unlimited texting and much earlier anytime at 7PM I thought this was the closest plan to compare. Even the cheapest iphone plan with only 450 voice and 200 text comes out to $75 which is more expensive and far less value. Sprint also offers a complete unlimited package for voice text, and data for $99 if you need that. That would save you $540 a year which is not chump change.
I actually switched from AT&T to Sprint and I can tell you that at least where I live Sprint certainly has far better 3G speeds and much, much better voice coverage. I realize that varies by location though. Since we also get free roaming on Verizon's towers that means we also get the best of both worlds, access to Sprint and Verizon's network at half the price. If you are happy paying twice for less, have at it. I prefer to keep that $700 in my bank account every year.
I don't see how steering us back into the thicket of elaborate use scenarios makes my math "way off." And you might want to look at the fine print of Sprint's mobile network plan, there are plenty of "gotchas" that have been widely noted, once the initial excitement died down.
I picked the 900 minutes thing because it seems like a popular and broadly used plan, and the Sprint and AT&T web sites make it easy to compare rates.
This reminds me of the Apple vs. Dell cost analysis, that always seem to hinge on some kind of Dell-fu wherein you get super special deals if you just know where to look and when.
I maintain that the average cell phone user is not going to be poring over the internet to figure out a special deal that takes into account whether you'll be calling people at home or on their cells, or indeed that most people would be comfortable being more or less locked in to one or the other at the time they select their plan.
For the motivated or savvy, I'm sure it's possible to engineer a scheme that puts Sprint in the best possible light, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Elaborate scenarios? Are you kidding me? No need to be motivated or savvy, all that is required is common sense. There is no reason to choose the 900 minute plan since Sprint introduced the anytime, anymobile option last week for the 450 minute plan. This requires no jumping through hoops. I have no idea what "gotchas" you are referring to since the only limits to calling are 1) landline numbers not included 2) you must be on a Sprint tower. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Sprint has even began advising customers on the 900 minute plan to switch to the 450 minute plan with their website plan optimizer feature for people who tend to make few landline based calls.
Another reason no one would choose the 900 minute plan for $89 is due to the fact that for $10 more you could have unlimited everything with absolutely no limitations whatsoever. You chose that plan for one reason, it compares most favorably to the iPhone plan in price.
If anything, AT&T is far more similar to Dell. They are the ones that fail to include unlimited texting and other add-ons that Sprint include for free. They force you to build a package. Funny how a $39 AT&T plan can quickly turn into $145 a month once you match the unlimited options that Sprint includes for $99.
More than anything you seem to be an apologist trying to justify paying far more for your cell phone service. As a Mac Pro owner, I have done that myself with a friend that built a Core i7 and paid a third as much for comparable speed. I justified my purchase because I hate Windows and want to use OS X. Perhaps you pay more to use an iPhone which I can understand.
If on the other hand you are just using a flip phone, blackberry, etc. you are probably paying anywhere from $200 to $780 more per year and that is a fact. I thought it was probably a mistake to reply to a person with over 8,000 forum posts. You obviously have far more time on your hands (and expendable money) than I do, so this be my last post. Have fun living in denial, I will be sure to think of you on my next vacation that I take with my $780 in savings.
Mind you as an avid Apple user, I want an iPhone. But not so much that I am willing to shell out an additional $780 for one. Maybe Apple will loosen up and bring it to a network that could actually handle the data.
Well that sure as heck wouldn't be Sprint. And it isn't $780 anyway. My iPhone cost me an extra $30 a month on top of my old AT&T family plan. It's well worth the $360 over my old non-smart phone a year.
Comments
I'd think there shouldn't be since all of the traffic is being routed over your internet connection (like VoIP), but I didn't see a definite answer on this anywhere (and it wouldn't surprise me if they still gouged you). If not, then I'd definitely go for this over a VoIP phone.
I was so impressed that I decided to add on the unlimited calls option for an extra $10 a month. The Airave does what it is supposed to do, it gives me all 5 bars and now I have unlimited phone calls from home with crystal clear reception. I have a SERO plan which cost $30 a month for unlimited data/text and 500 anytime minutes starting at 7PM. Now with the AIrave I also have unlimited voice calls and my TOTAL monthly bill is only $40 plus tax.
AT&T's new device seems pretty expensive by comparison. I know for a fact that if you call Sprint and complain about poor reception, they will give you a free AIrave and waive your monthly fees. Try that on AT&T.
Please name a few, since I had a mobile phone in Australia, Thailand, Philippines, India, Singapore, China, UK, Jamaica to name a few and it is not heavily subsidized by tax payers.
As I stated, "Keep in mind that most countries outside of the US and Canada are or were heavily subsidized by tax payers.
In many countries, the national governments not only helped subsidize development of cell phone services but owned them outright. The Nordic countries, like Finland, home of Nokia is a good example were the cell phone industry was built on taxpayers dollars before they were deregulated and sold off the private enterprise.
Incidentally, many countries still subsidize cell phone coverage, particularly in rural areas. For example, in the US, the Universal Service Fund USF was created to help subsidize the cost of providing cell phone service in rural areas. And is still being done: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9934564-7.html
Most countries communication services until a few years ago were government owned, controlled and run.
Most countries communication services until a few years ago were government owned, controlled and run.
I'm missing the point as to why this is a negative?
Considering that the cellular service industry is highly profitable in densely populated areas, that would likely more than cover the expense incurred by rural areas (and the profits could even reduce taxes once the initial setup cost is covered).
Now the impact to potential investors, that's another debate...
I'm missing the point as to why this is a negative?
Considering that the cellular service industry is highly profitable in densely populated areas, that would likely more than cover the expense incurred by rural areas (and the profits could even reduce taxes once the initial setup cost is covered).
Now the impact to potential investors, that's another debate...
Who said it was negative?
This was in response to a comment that boasted that their cell phone service was cheaper. Considering that the country in mind was about twice the size of Wyoming and that the development of wireless in most countries outside of the US and Canada for example were either supported or in fact built entirely by taxpayer dollars is not a fair comparison.
Building the infrastructure is one thing. Maintaining and upgrading the system is another. A lot of private enterprises has delved in the business. A lot have gone under as well.
I have been using my Airave device for a while now, since it came out. My house is in a dead zone for all networks, AT&T and Verizon included. I am lucky to get 1 bar of service so I had a lot of dropped calls. I called up Sprint to complain and they not only offered me a completely free Airave device, but they also waived the monthly $5 fee for better reception.
I was so impressed that I decided to add on the unlimited calls option for an extra $10 a month. The Airave does what it is supposed to do, it gives me all 5 bars and now I have unlimited phone calls from home with crystal clear reception. I have a SERO plan which cost $30 a month for unlimited data/text and 500 anytime minutes starting at 7PM. Now with the AIrave I also have unlimited voice calls and my TOTAL monthly bill is only $40 plus tax.
AT&T's new device seems pretty expensive by comparison. I know for a fact that if you call Sprint and complain about poor reception, they will give you a free AIrave and waive your monthly fees. Try that on AT&T.
I can't see where this is an apples to apples comparison, however.
Sprint is highly motivated to staunch the bleeding of losing customers by offering deals to sweeten the pot if someone is disgruntled. It's too bad that the big carriers don't have this incentive, but you have to ask yourself why Sprint finds itself in that position to begin with.
It's nice they offered you a deal, but for comparison purposes we have to compare published rates. By that metric, Sprint has a mandatory $5/month fee for a slower connection. They have a cheaper unlimited rate, still with a slower connection, and depending on what other AT&T services you have you may be able to meet or beat that rate anyway.
You know for a fact that when you called they offered you a deal, you have no idea if the next guy will be so lucky, or if Sprint's policy on this will change without warning.
And the SERO plan is no longer available to new subscribers, and not available at all on their most desirable phone (the Pre) so making that part of your math when you calculate total cost for comparison purposes really doesn't fly.
I'm not really defending AT&T here, I'm just saying that saying that whenever AT&T's pricing schemes are discussed, Sprint users start talking about this deal they got in 1998 that they still have and use that as reason why AT&T are criminal extortionists, and that doesn't make much sense.
The fact is Sprint offers deals because they have to, they have to because they're losing customers, they're losing customers because those customers aren't satisfied, for whatever reasons. If deals were the whole thing, they'd be on top, I guess.
Or you're a dick.
I was asking a legit question. I just said I was out of the loop. But thanks for being a tool, vinea.
I figured troll was better than other things to describe someone that already has Skype, doesn't know it's on the iPhone but whines for the FCC to put the hammer down on Apple.
Your comment was sarcastic and trollish. There was hardly a question there. Deal.
I already have Skype on my computer, but I can't really carry that around with me while I'm moving around the house, now can I? Thus, because I've got a wireless network set up at my home, VOIP on my iPhone is something I'm considering due to AT&T's fairly restrictive phone plan.
Yah, so frigging restrictive that you can already do what you wanted.
If you're honestly clueless there's something called "google". You can ask it things like "skype on iPhone".
http://www.ipaccess.com/femtocells/oyster3G.php
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3830491
http://www.femtohub.com/
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3830491
and if this magicjack becomes a femtocell, it will explode
Please try to keep things civil. For those that haven't read them, the posting guidelines are here. Note numbers 4 and 12.
Such intelligent conversation.
It looks like vinea started it calling Garmin a troll. Unless I missed something, Garmin's question seems perfectly reasonable.
No, a reasonable question would have been: "What does the microcell do for me that skype doesn't?" or "what do I get for $20 a month?". His "question" was phrased in the same way your commentary is: that AT&T is trying to rip you off for offering a way to improve your signal for less money than other companies charge.
The only thing that AT&T really restricts is VOIP on it's cell network. There are reasons for that: one they charge for voice minutes and second (the technical one) is that voice over GSM is typically 28Kbps for full rate (12Kbps data, the rest error detection/correction bits) and they can go half rate to squeeze more voice channels in.
VOIP is typically anywhere from 32Kbps to 80Kbps depending on codec. Even with the same AMR full rate codec (12 kbps data) you end up higher than the 28Kbps because the overhead is higher due to the IP overhead. You can go half rate as well (assuming both ends handles the half rate AMR codec) but you're still screwed on the IP overhead and SIP signalling. % wise, it's even worse. (Yes, you can do RoHC (Robust Header Compression) as an operator).
End result of VOIP over AT&T's cell network is more traffic to carry the same voice traffic that they can't charge for. Plus, without the QoS support, VoIP over AT&T's overburdened data slots is going to be spotty in the same places that normal AT&T GSM voice is spotty.
This is why they care a little less with VoIP on the iPhone for wireless use. Sure, you're not burning minutes but at least you aren't also hammering their network in the process.
Speedtest app screenshot:
...
Range covers my small front yard. Added info on it to the review. Basically once I got outside and there were 3 drywall walls and brick between us I'd drop a bar about every 20 feet. Enough to cover a deck/patio..maybe not a backyard/pool.
Nice. Coupled with an XLink and a ooma you can eliminate your land line fairly safely.
The ooma does the same sort of multiring that GV does and it has pretty nice GV integration as well. But it's pretty optional with the microcell and xlink providing you with fairly reliable service...both your ISP and your local cell tower have to fail to completely lose telephony.
I'll do ooma just because my iPhone isn't always in BT range of the xlink...
I can't see where this is an apples to apples comparison, however.
Sprint is highly motivated to staunch the bleeding of losing customers by offering deals to sweeten the pot if someone is disgruntled. It's too bad that the big carriers don't have this incentive, but you have to ask yourself why Sprint finds itself in that position to begin with.
It's nice they offered you a deal, but for comparison purposes we have to compare published rates. By that metric, Sprint has a mandatory $5/month fee for a slower connection. They have a cheaper unlimited rate, still with a slower connection, and depending on what other AT&T services you have you may be able to meet or beat that rate anyway.
You know for a fact that when you called they offered you a deal, you have no idea if the next guy will be so lucky, or if Sprint's policy on this will change without warning.
And the SERO plan is no longer available to new subscribers, and not available at all on their most desirable phone (the Pre) so making that part of your math when you calculate total cost for comparison purposes really doesn't fly.
I'm not really defending AT&T here, I'm just saying that saying that whenever AT&T's pricing schemes are discussed, Sprint users start talking about this deal they got in 1998 that they still have and use that as reason why AT&T are criminal extortionists, and that doesn't make much sense.
The fact is Sprint offers deals because they have to, they have to because they're losing customers, they're losing customers because those customers aren't satisfied, for whatever reasons. If deals were the whole thing, they'd be on top, I guess.
I have not had SERO since 1998, I got it only two years ago. But you are correct that it is no longer offered, but the new SERO plan is called Everything Plus where the Pre is available along with the new HTC Hero runnning Android. That plan is currently available and open to everyone. Take a look at the first post for details. http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/846333/
Basically, for $60 a month you get an all you can eat buffet of data, text, unlimited calling to any mobile phone on any network, and 500 anytime minutes from 7PM if calling landlines. Since my SERO plan does not include unlimited calling, I pay the $10 fee for that privilege which still works out to be $20 cheaper than the new plan. Why Sprint is losing customers is a mystery. I am extremely happy with Sprint and most of all love saving about $780 a year vs. the AT&T iPhone plan which offers even less features than my plan.
As far as your point about a slower connection, that is moot. The connection you are talking about is only for data. Inside my home I would tend to use wifi which is far faster than any 3G service as would most people with an iPhone. As far as voice, it is the same. You might have to pay $5 a month extra if you have poor indoor coverage, but since Sprint's plan includes unlimited calling to ANY mobile network that would still be a far better deal than having to pay an additional $20 on AT&T. By my Math Sprint would cost you $65 and AT&T iphone w/ 450 minutes, 1500 messaging, data is $85 plus an additional $20 for the femtocell brings it to $105.
Mind you as an avid Apple user, I want an iPhone. But not so much that I am willing to shell out an additional $780 for one. Maybe Apple will loosen up and bring it to a network that could actually handle the data. Until then my HTC Touch Pro 2 will have to do.
I have not had SERO since 1998, I got it only two years ago. But you are correct that it is no longer offered, but the new SERO plan is called Everything Plus where the Pre is available along with the new HTC Hero runnning Android. That plan is currently available and open to everyone. Take a look at the first post for details. http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/846333/
WTF? You've linked to a year old post that claims some kind of back door code to get a deal, with subsequent posters saying it no longer works.
Basically, for $60 a month you get an all you can eat buffet of data, text, unlimited calling to any mobile phone on any network, and 500 anytime minutes from 7PM if calling landlines. Since my SERO plan does not include unlimited calling, I pay the $10 fee for that privilege which still works out to be $20 cheaper than the new plan. Why Sprint is losing customers is a mystery. I am extremely happy with Sprint and most of all love saving about $780 a year vs. the AT&T iPhone plan which offers even less features than my plan.
Look, I have no idea what existing Spring customers have managed to finagle. It doesn't seem terribly unreasonable, if we're going to compare pricing, to forswear "pssst, buddy, I've got a deal for you" internet discussion board posts and go with published rates.
At Sprint's website, they offer unlimited data and 900 minutes for $89.99. That includes unlimited messaging. At AT&T, they offer unlimited data and 900 minutes for..... 89.99.
That doesn't include unlimited messaging, which is another $20, so, yes, Sprint is cheaper if you want unlimited messaging. If you want unlimited voice and data, Sprint is $20 less plus the $20 bucks for messaging, so the best case scenario for Sprint is if you want unlimited everything, in which case you can get that for $40 less than AT&T.
But for the average user it's probably going to be $20 cheaper to go with Sprint, which is cheaper but it's not amazingly cheaper, and certainly not as amazingly cheaper as these convoluted tales of "I had this but added this for that and kept this and upgraded this" make out. At least not by Sprint's published rates. If they have better rates, I would think they would want to advertise them?
And while you may not have any idea why customers are abandoning Sprint, there must be a reason, don't you think? I mean, people aren't going through hassle of changing their carrier just on a whim, presumably, so there has to be a down side, and I contend that that down side is why Sprint is any cheaper at all in the first place-- they have to be.
Verizon isn't losing customers, and their rates are right in line with AT&T. Funny how that works.
As far as your point about a slower connection, that is moot. The connection you are talking about is only for data. Inside my home I would tend to use wifi which is far faster than any 3G service as would most people with an iPhone. As far as voice, it is the same. You might have to pay $5 a month extra if you have poor indoor coverage, but since Sprint's plan includes unlimited calling to ANY mobile network that would still be a far better deal than having to pay an additional $20 on AT&T. By my Math Sprint would cost you $65 and AT&T iphone w/ 450 minutes, 1500 messaging, data is $85 plus an additional $20 for the femtocell brings it to $105.
Mind you as an avid Apple user, I want an iPhone. But not so much that I am willing to shell out an additional $780 for one. Maybe Apple will loosen up and bring it to a network that could actually handle the data. Until then my HTC Touch Pro 2 will have to do.
My math works like this: if I have poor service in my home, with AT&T I purchase a Microcell for $150. I continue to pay $89 a month for unlimited data and 900 talk minutes. I can use the higher speed data services and talk at the same time, which you cannot do on Sprint, so I can see why the data speeds don't mean anything to you.
Or, if I have Sprint and want better in-house coverage, I can get a $99 microcell, pay $89.99 for unlimited data and 900 talk minutes plus $5 monthly service fee for the microcell. If I want unlimited texting on both services, I'll come out $15 a month ahead on Sprint. For the slower, no voice and data at the same time service.
So, yes, cheaper. But not crazy cheaper, unless you work out some elaborate scenario designed to make it that way, but that's not what the average customer comparing services is going to do.
The 3G Microcell will do seamless handoff to the cell network when you take a call away from it; however, you can't transfer a call from the network to the Microcell.
Yes, the device requires registration. You can register up to 10 phone numbers that will be able to be able to use the Microcell, restricting access to only those 10 numbers. The Microcell also has GPS verification, so you can only use the Microcell to enhance service in areas already served by AT&T -- basically, you can't take the Microcell and use it in Guam if Guam doesn't already have AT&T coverage.
AWWWWW.....that sucks about #2! I wanted to buy one for the bar down my street where the reception is TERRIBLE. I wanted it to essentially "extend" the coverage and be accessible by anyone with AT&T....much like an open WIFI router. I was even going to put a collection jar to help pay the $150, for anyone who wanted to be able to use their phone there. Too bad. It seems so stupid they wouldn't have a "public" mode which could further reduce strain on their cell network data throughput.
Oh and I can't wait for the GPS hacks that will inevitably come, which will send a false GPS location and do to cell phones what VOIP did to landlines and international calling!
Guys... Do you not READ?
You are not expanding their network for other people... Only phones you specifically authorize can function on the microcell. Nobody else can use your bandwidth, so there will be no compensation.
Frankly, $150 to have perfect coverage with no monthly cost really isn't that much to ask. I will definitely be picking one of these up for my apartment in Chicago (when its available)
The micro cell is not new
mi fi does the same thing
anyone in side the 40 sq feet gets better signal coverage
it is impossible to do so other wise
The micro cell is not new
mi fi does the same thing
anyone in side the 40 sq feet gets better signal coverage
it is impossible to do so other wise
The mifi provides access to a cellular data network which it shares via wifi for Internet access.
The MicroCell is wired to your broadband network so you can make voice calls and get your SMS messages - through your broadband connection. You connect to the MicroCell from your phone using the same 3G radio you connect to towers with.
Those are not the same things.
WTF? You've linked to a year old post that claims some kind of back door code to get a deal, with subsequent posters saying it no longer works.
That post might be a year old but is still valid. It is not some big secret, but well known and permitted by Sprint. You make it sound like a password to enter a skull and bones meeting. Don't believe me, call Sprint and ask. I just got a friend signed up that switched from Verizon on this program last week so I know for a fact that it still works. If you choose not to take advantage of discounts available that is your choice, I like to save money where I can. That email address is a Sprint vice president that purposefully released and authorized it so the public can take advantage of this offer.
At Sprint's website, they offer unlimited data and 900 minutes for $89.99. That includes unlimited messaging. At AT&T, they offer unlimited data and 900 minutes for..... 89.99.
That doesn't include unlimited messaging, which is another $20, so, yes, Sprint is cheaper if you want unlimited messaging. If you want unlimited voice and data, Sprint is $20 less plus the $20 bucks for messaging, so the best case scenario for Sprint is if you want unlimited everything, in which case you can get that for $40 less than AT&T.
But for the average user it's probably going to be $20 cheaper to go with Sprint, which is cheaper but it's not amazingly cheaper, and certainly not as amazingly cheaper as these convoluted tales of "I had this but added this for that and kept this and upgraded this" make out. At least not by Sprint's published rates. If they have better rates, I would think they would want to advertise them?
My math works like this: if I have poor service in my home, with AT&T I purchase a Microcell for $150. I continue to pay $89 a month for unlimited data and 900 talk minutes. I can use the higher speed data services and talk at the same time, which you cannot do on Sprint, so I can see why the data speeds don't mean anything to you.
Or, if I have Sprint and want better in-house coverage, I can get a $99 microcell, pay $89.99 for unlimited data and 900 talk minutes plus $5 monthly service fee for the microcell. If I want unlimited texting on both services, I'll come out $15 a month ahead on Sprint. For the slower, no voice and data at the same time service.
So, yes, cheaper. But not crazy cheaper, unless you work out some elaborate scenario designed to make it that way, but that's not what the average customer comparing services is going to do.
Your math is way off. First of all, if you choose to only use the published rates on Sprint.com, fine. But why did you choose the 900 minute plan for $89? Apparently you are not aware that SPrint now allows unlimited calling to ANY mobile network now even for the 450 minute plan. With unlimited calling to any network, you would have to be a fool to buy the 900 minute plan. Unlike AT&T, Sprint's anytime starts at 7PM not 9PM. And you would only use the 450 minutes when calling a landline anyway. If you are close to your 450 minute limit, all you need do is call or email Sprint and you can buy blocks of additional 100 bonus minutes for $5 each if you make a lot of landline calls. Or you could also add pick 5 for $10 allowing unlimited calls to 5 landline numbers for example.
The closest iPhone plan I could build that I thought was a fair comparison was the nation unlimited, plus data and 1500 messaging. That comes out to $145 a month. Yes, this plan offers unlimited calling to even landlines unlike Sprint, but since Sprint allows unlimited texting and much earlier anytime at 7PM I thought this was the closest plan to compare. Even the cheapest iphone plan with only 450 voice and 200 text comes out to $75 which is more expensive and far less value. Sprint also offers a complete unlimited package for voice text, and data for $99 if you need that. That would save you $540 a year which is not chump change.
I actually switched from AT&T to Sprint and I can tell you that at least where I live Sprint certainly has far better 3G speeds and much, much better voice coverage. I realize that varies by location though. Since we also get free roaming on Verizon's towers that means we also get the best of both worlds, access to Sprint and Verizon's network at half the price. If you are happy paying twice for less, have at it. I prefer to keep that $700 in my bank account every year.
That post might be a year old but is still valid. It is not some big secret, but well known and permitted by Sprint. You make it sound like a password to enter a skull and bones meeting. Don't believe me, call Sprint and ask. I just got a friend signed up that switched from Verizon on this program last week so I know for a fact that it still works. If you choose not to take advantage of discounts available that is your choice, I like to save money where I can. That email address is a Sprint vice president that purposefully released and authorized it so the public can take advantage of this offer.
Your math is way off. First of all, if you choose to only use the published rates on Sprint.com, fine. But why did you choose the 900 minute plan for $89? Apparently you are not aware that SPrint now allows unlimited calling to ANY mobile network now even for the 450 minute plan. With unlimited calling to any network, you would have to be a fool to buy the 900 minute plan. Unlike AT&T, Sprint's anytime starts at 7PM not 9PM. And you would only use the 450 minutes when calling a landline anyway. If you are close to your 450 minute limit, all you need do is call or email Sprint and you can buy blocks of additional 100 bonus minutes for $5 each if you make a lot of landline calls. Or you could also add pick 5 for $10 allowing unlimited calls to 5 landline numbers for example.
The closest iPhone plan I could build that I thought was a fair comparison was the nation unlimited, plus data and 1500 messaging. That comes out to $145 a month. Yes, this plan offers unlimited calling to even landlines unlike Sprint, but since Sprint allows unlimited texting and much earlier anytime at 7PM I thought this was the closest plan to compare. Even the cheapest iphone plan with only 450 voice and 200 text comes out to $75 which is more expensive and far less value. Sprint also offers a complete unlimited package for voice text, and data for $99 if you need that. That would save you $540 a year which is not chump change.
I actually switched from AT&T to Sprint and I can tell you that at least where I live Sprint certainly has far better 3G speeds and much, much better voice coverage. I realize that varies by location though. Since we also get free roaming on Verizon's towers that means we also get the best of both worlds, access to Sprint and Verizon's network at half the price. If you are happy paying twice for less, have at it. I prefer to keep that $700 in my bank account every year.
I don't see how steering us back into the thicket of elaborate use scenarios makes my math "way off." And you might want to look at the fine print of Sprint's mobile network plan, there are plenty of "gotchas" that have been widely noted, once the initial excitement died down.
I picked the 900 minutes thing because it seems like a popular and broadly used plan, and the Sprint and AT&T web sites make it easy to compare rates.
This reminds me of the Apple vs. Dell cost analysis, that always seem to hinge on some kind of Dell-fu wherein you get super special deals if you just know where to look and when.
I maintain that the average cell phone user is not going to be poring over the internet to figure out a special deal that takes into account whether you'll be calling people at home or on their cells, or indeed that most people would be comfortable being more or less locked in to one or the other at the time they select their plan.
For the motivated or savvy, I'm sure it's possible to engineer a scheme that puts Sprint in the best possible light, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Another reason no one would choose the 900 minute plan for $89 is due to the fact that for $10 more you could have unlimited everything with absolutely no limitations whatsoever. You chose that plan for one reason, it compares most favorably to the iPhone plan in price.
If anything, AT&T is far more similar to Dell. They are the ones that fail to include unlimited texting and other add-ons that Sprint include for free. They force you to build a package. Funny how a $39 AT&T plan can quickly turn into $145 a month once you match the unlimited options that Sprint includes for $99.
More than anything you seem to be an apologist trying to justify paying far more for your cell phone service. As a Mac Pro owner, I have done that myself with a friend that built a Core i7 and paid a third as much for comparable speed. I justified my purchase because I hate Windows and want to use OS X. Perhaps you pay more to use an iPhone which I can understand.
If on the other hand you are just using a flip phone, blackberry, etc. you are probably paying anywhere from $200 to $780 more per year and that is a fact. I thought it was probably a mistake to reply to a person with over 8,000 forum posts. You obviously have far more time on your hands (and expendable money) than I do, so this be my last post. Have fun living in denial, I will be sure to think of you on my next vacation that I take with my $780 in savings.
Mind you as an avid Apple user, I want an iPhone. But not so much that I am willing to shell out an additional $780 for one. Maybe Apple will loosen up and bring it to a network that could actually handle the data.
Well that sure as heck wouldn't be Sprint. And it isn't $780 anyway. My iPhone cost me an extra $30 a month on top of my old AT&T family plan. It's well worth the $360 over my old non-smart phone a year.