I understand the definition of fair and see your point of view but I think that in the past 20 years fair has taken on the meaning of what someone thinks is "ok." I was making an observation on the word and it's evolution to many people and not meaning for that to sound so stand off-ish.
It didn't sound stand-offish, and I don't think my reply did either.
As someone who had two companies over the years, I'm aware of what people think is fair, and my ability to meet that expectation. If we build products that are priced fairly, and people still think the price is too high, then we're stuck. We're not going to lose money with it. We would discontinue it first.
One reason why Apple is so successful is because they stick to the sound business principle that EVERY product must make a profit.
I assume AT&T, and the other carriers think that way as well. We can get into what we think of them later.
I'm prepared to believe that the device costs AT&T about $100. How would they sell it for $50?
Now, if you think that anything more than $50 isn't worth it to you then I would agree that it's a proper number for you.
I checked the availability checker for San Diego a few weeks ago and it said I was eligible and gave a list of only a handful of AT&T stores to go to to get one. Then I checked again a few days ago (I was going to find the nearest place and go buy one), and it gave the Unfortunately it's not available in your area message. I still get the message now even though they seem to have announced availability in San Diego. I'll keep checking......
If AT&T pays more than $50 for the box then it's a small price to retain a customer that otherwise would likely leave. That's fair where I come from.
Not if it will cost them more to do it than they would lose otherwise. Are you saying that you WILL leave otherwise, or is this just an internet thing?
Not if it will cost them more to do it than they would lose otherwise. Are you saying that you WILL leave otherwise, or is this just an internet thing?
This is not a new model. It's no different than a subsidy for a handset - it's a supplemental subsidy (assuming you're right about the $100) for people who don't have a signal where they need it.
As a bonus AT&T has the possibility of collecting monthly Microcell charges that are extremely profitable.
a lot of homes are built in a way that blocks cell phone signals so it doesn't mean it's always AT&T. and it costs a lot of money to build a cell site as well as maintain it. in the boonies it doesn't make sense to spend $500,000 on a site plus say $100,000 a year in maintenance costs for only a few people
As noted here, a lot of homes in SF, for example, (as well as other older houses) are built in such a way that even wi-fi won't work.
All I know is I'm currently paying ninety dollars a month for a phone that simply doesn't work. Why should I have to pay ninety dollars a month to have every single one of my calls either dropped, or interrupted by whoever I'm talking to saying, "sorry, you keep cutting out!"
When I was on Verizon this crap didn't happen. Why should I have to pay an extra 150 bucks, even if it's only once? This seems kind of simple to me. I pay AT&T ninety dollars a month for phone service, which I receive only a fraction of, so they need to give me the goddamn service I paid for. End of story.
Damn my slavish devotion to Apple. It's a shame, because I truly love my iPhone. But AT&T has made this a truly rotten experience.
AT&T shouldn't have even let this product come to market. They should have instead, just improved their network a lot more. I understand that some areas don't want a cell tower, but at this point in time, it's become "tough shit! You want cell service, then you NEED a tower". i see this move as AT&T just trying to create an expensive product that allows them to deny that there is an issue at all, and then not do anything about it. Hell, I could spend LESS on a landline, which SUPRISE, allows me to make phone calls insde my home and unlike AT&Ts divice, i am not limited to a "range" Sigh..... AT&T just needs to SOLVE the issue and get good coverag, instead of this crap!
Shit I need a new house cause I got five bars in mine.... I'm in the burbs so our cell tower is the water tower, which is the highest structure around. I think this will work nicely in the city though, cause I get crappy reception when I'm in school down town.
Anything over $20 for a device that lets you essentially do your provider's job for them is a joke. Either build a tower or pay me (discount my bill) to install one of these in my house.
I am thinking that cell phones were not really designed for home use at the beginning. We used to only have them in our cars and used land lines. Now, we have changed our preferences and want to use the cell phone everywhere. It just seems a bit unreasonable to expect the carriers to respond quickly when the technology was not designed for what we want.
Rather than building towers with its profits - AT&T will dump the Microcell coverage onto my ISP and my ethernet line. And - charge me for the opportunity to use it - for a few feet in each direction.
What a joke.
Wrong, more like providing a good solution to the never ending issue of building obstruction. Concrete & Steel reek havoc on cell signals. These micro cells would both improve performance in those circumstances where it's hard to penetrate the concrete & steal and they would help take some cell load off the towers, which would improve tower performance overall.
They are not intended to solve the problem, they are intended to simply help improve the situation. To me that isn't really a bad thing & I can't understand why anyone would complain about it since it's totally optional. No one is making you get one of these things.
I am thinking that cell phones were not really designed for home use at the beginning. We used to only have them in our cars and used land lines. Now, we have changed our preferences and want to use the cell phone everywhere. It just seems a bit unreasonable to expect the carriers to respond quickly when the technology was not designed for what we want.
Agreed, a lot of people like to spew misinformation all over the web. Bottom line, if you don't understand the technology then don't be so arrogant as to try & describe the problem. The improvements made to the network over the last year are proof they are doing much more than deploying micro cells. People who whine needlessly contribute to the problem rather than helping it.
User should go to the highest part of their house and see if you get good cell phone coverage there. If you do get good cell coverage (in your attic) and get a cell phone extender like the YX-510 zBoost Dual-Band Cell Phone Signal Booster. The key is you have to be able to get the cell coverage around or on top of your house for an extender to work.
User should go to the highest part of their house and see if you get good cell phone coverage there. If you do get good cell coverage (in your attic) and get a cell phone extender like the YX-510 zBoost Dual-Band Cell Phone Signal Booster. The key is you have to be able to get the cell coverage around or on top of your house for an extender to work.
My 510ZBoost works great. Receiver in attic, coax to broadcaster on landing between first and second floors. Brought me from no service inside to 3-4 bars and no problems.
This is not a new model. It's no different than a subsidy for a handset - it's a supplemental subsidy (assuming you're right about the $100) for people who don't have a signal where they need it.
As a bonus AT&T has the possibility of collecting monthly Microcell charges that are extremely profitable.
I don't know what your last sentence means.
Firstly, AT&T doesn't seem to be collecting any charges for this other than the upfront price.
The last sentence asked if you really mean what you say, or is it to just make a point here. Many people say things here for effect, but don't really mean it.
I got the femtocell/microcell whatever from Sprint ( my neighborhood is a Sprint deadspot and it's a work phone )
Anyway.... Sprint got the price model pretty much right....
$5/month
Unit was free.
Unlimited minutes when on the microcell
full 3G ( no artificially crippling over your own ISP! )
up to 4 other users allowed simultaneously ( I think this was configurable IIRC )
I would definitely do that for AT&T.
Any other models is just ridiculous. ( unless it truly is unlimited use no monthly fee that would be very nice) They are using YOUR internet for free. It's helping your satisfaction of their service.
I got the femtocell/microcell whatever from Sprint ( my neighborhood is a Sprint deadspot and it's a work phone )
Anyway.... Sprint got the price model pretty much right....
$5/month
Unit was free.
Unlimited minutes when on the microcell
full 3G ( no artificially crippling over your own ISP! )
up to 4 other users allowed simultaneously ( I think this was configurable IIRC )
I would definitely do that for AT&T.
Any other models is just ridiculous. ( unless it truly is unlimited use no monthly fee that would be very nice) They are using YOUR internet for free. It's helping your satisfaction of their service.
We will find out if Sprint has in fact done the right thing.
So far, they look like a company going under and scrambling to try to save themselves, which is not a pricing model Verizon or AT&T should follow.
I'm amused at the blame game of AT&T when similar problems occur for other carriers.
But then, I'm a data hound not a voice nut.
If I sound better on Verizon but the surfing speed is crap, I'll take a tin voice with fast web access at AT&T anytime not to mention the surfing I do while listening to long conference calls which I enjoy on AT&T and wouldn't on......
...AT&T doesn't seem to be collecting any charges for this other than the upfront price.
Yes, they are. They're charging for a voice plan and depending on the person, perhaps a data plan or more. In a situation where you have reliable Verizon coverage and spotty AT&T coverage, and if keeping the customer still results in significantly more profit than without, isn't it just good sense for AT&T to swallow a little extra cost to keep the customer?
This isn't a random hypothetical for points on the internet, these situations exist, they're everywhere and AT&T would be wise to be a little easier on the pricing where this is true; maybe a little harsher where it isn't. I for one find $150 to be fairly reasonable, mind you it is a hassle for the customer to switch. On the other hand, if the customer will only pay $50, what does AT&T gain by refusing to sell?
That said, I hope this testing finishes soon. I am anxious to give my folks one of these darn things so I'm not lost in the cellular netherworld whenever I dare to visit. Oh yes, my seemingly altruistic gift will have a rather selfish purpose.
Yes, they are. They're charging for a voice plan and depending on the person, perhaps a data plan or more. In a situation where you have reliable Verizon coverage and spotty AT&T coverage, and if keeping the customer still results in significantly more profit than without, isn't it just good sense for AT&T to swallow a little extra cost to keep the customer?
This isn't a random hypothetical for points on the internet, these situations exist, they're everywhere and AT&T would be wise to be a little easier on the pricing where this is true; maybe a little harsher where it isn't. I for one find $150 to be fairly reasonable, mind you it is a hassle for the customer to switch. On the other hand, if the customer will only pay $50, what does AT&T gain by refusing to sell?
That said, I hope this testing finishes soon. I am anxious to give my folks one of these darn things so I'm not lost in the cellular netherworld whenever I dare to visit. Oh yes, my seemingly altruistic gift will have a rather selfish purpose.
That's a bit of semantics. It isn't relevant. All cell companies have this problem, and all charge for their micro transmitters.
Comments
I understand the definition of fair and see your point of view but I think that in the past 20 years fair has taken on the meaning of what someone thinks is "ok." I was making an observation on the word and it's evolution to many people and not meaning for that to sound so stand off-ish.
It didn't sound stand-offish, and I don't think my reply did either.
As someone who had two companies over the years, I'm aware of what people think is fair, and my ability to meet that expectation. If we build products that are priced fairly, and people still think the price is too high, then we're stuck. We're not going to lose money with it. We would discontinue it first.
One reason why Apple is so successful is because they stick to the sound business principle that EVERY product must make a profit.
I assume AT&T, and the other carriers think that way as well. We can get into what we think of them later.
I'm prepared to believe that the device costs AT&T about $100. How would they sell it for $50?
Now, if you think that anything more than $50 isn't worth it to you then I would agree that it's a proper number for you.
I live in a fringe area, and we're tired of having to hang out of the 2nd story window to make a simple call.
Sell me the box already.
Before someone states what they think is fair, they have to know what the device costs the carrier. It's likely to be more than $50.
If AT&T pays more than $50 for the box then it's a small price to retain a customer that otherwise would likely leave. That's fair where I come from.
If AT&T pays more than $50 for the box then it's a small price to retain a customer that otherwise would likely leave. That's fair where I come from.
Not if it will cost them more to do it than they would lose otherwise. Are you saying that you WILL leave otherwise, or is this just an internet thing?
Not if it will cost them more to do it than they would lose otherwise. Are you saying that you WILL leave otherwise, or is this just an internet thing?
This is not a new model. It's no different than a subsidy for a handset - it's a supplemental subsidy (assuming you're right about the $100) for people who don't have a signal where they need it.
As a bonus AT&T has the possibility of collecting monthly Microcell charges that are extremely profitable.
I don't know what your last sentence means.
a lot of homes are built in a way that blocks cell phone signals so it doesn't mean it's always AT&T. and it costs a lot of money to build a cell site as well as maintain it. in the boonies it doesn't make sense to spend $500,000 on a site plus say $100,000 a year in maintenance costs for only a few people
As noted here, a lot of homes in SF, for example, (as well as other older houses) are built in such a way that even wi-fi won't work.
When I was on Verizon this crap didn't happen. Why should I have to pay an extra 150 bucks, even if it's only once? This seems kind of simple to me. I pay AT&T ninety dollars a month for phone service, which I receive only a fraction of, so they need to give me the goddamn service I paid for. End of story.
Damn my slavish devotion to Apple. It's a shame, because I truly love my iPhone. But AT&T has made this a truly rotten experience.
Shit I need a new house cause I got five bars in mine.... I'm in the burbs so our cell tower is the water tower, which is the highest structure around. I think this will work nicely in the city though, cause I get crappy reception when I'm in school down town.
Anything over $20 for a device that lets you essentially do your provider's job for them is a joke. Either build a tower or pay me (discount my bill) to install one of these in my house.
I am thinking that cell phones were not really designed for home use at the beginning. We used to only have them in our cars and used land lines. Now, we have changed our preferences and want to use the cell phone everywhere. It just seems a bit unreasonable to expect the carriers to respond quickly when the technology was not designed for what we want.
Rather than building towers with its profits - AT&T will dump the Microcell coverage onto my ISP and my ethernet line. And - charge me for the opportunity to use it - for a few feet in each direction.
What a joke.
Wrong, more like providing a good solution to the never ending issue of building obstruction. Concrete & Steel reek havoc on cell signals. These micro cells would both improve performance in those circumstances where it's hard to penetrate the concrete & steal and they would help take some cell load off the towers, which would improve tower performance overall.
They are not intended to solve the problem, they are intended to simply help improve the situation. To me that isn't really a bad thing & I can't understand why anyone would complain about it since it's totally optional. No one is making you get one of these things.
I am thinking that cell phones were not really designed for home use at the beginning. We used to only have them in our cars and used land lines. Now, we have changed our preferences and want to use the cell phone everywhere. It just seems a bit unreasonable to expect the carriers to respond quickly when the technology was not designed for what we want.
Agreed, a lot of people like to spew misinformation all over the web. Bottom line, if you don't understand the technology then don't be so arrogant as to try & describe the problem. The improvements made to the network over the last year are proof they are doing much more than deploying micro cells. People who whine needlessly contribute to the problem rather than helping it.
User should go to the highest part of their house and see if you get good cell phone coverage there. If you do get good cell coverage (in your attic) and get a cell phone extender like the YX-510 zBoost Dual-Band Cell Phone Signal Booster. The key is you have to be able to get the cell coverage around or on top of your house for an extender to work.
My 510ZBoost works great. Receiver in attic, coax to broadcaster on landing between first and second floors. Brought me from no service inside to 3-4 bars and no problems.
This is not a new model. It's no different than a subsidy for a handset - it's a supplemental subsidy (assuming you're right about the $100) for people who don't have a signal where they need it.
As a bonus AT&T has the possibility of collecting monthly Microcell charges that are extremely profitable.
I don't know what your last sentence means.
Firstly, AT&T doesn't seem to be collecting any charges for this other than the upfront price.
The last sentence asked if you really mean what you say, or is it to just make a point here. Many people say things here for effect, but don't really mean it.
Anyway.... Sprint got the price model pretty much right....
$5/month
Unit was free.
Unlimited minutes when on the microcell
full 3G ( no artificially crippling over your own ISP! )
up to 4 other users allowed simultaneously ( I think this was configurable IIRC )
I would definitely do that for AT&T.
Any other models is just ridiculous. ( unless it truly is unlimited use no monthly fee that would be very nice) They are using YOUR internet for free. It's helping your satisfaction of their service.
I got the femtocell/microcell whatever from Sprint ( my neighborhood is a Sprint deadspot and it's a work phone )
Anyway.... Sprint got the price model pretty much right....
$5/month
Unit was free.
Unlimited minutes when on the microcell
full 3G ( no artificially crippling over your own ISP! )
up to 4 other users allowed simultaneously ( I think this was configurable IIRC )
I would definitely do that for AT&T.
Any other models is just ridiculous. ( unless it truly is unlimited use no monthly fee that would be very nice) They are using YOUR internet for free. It's helping your satisfaction of their service.
We will find out if Sprint has in fact done the right thing.
So far, they look like a company going under and scrambling to try to save themselves, which is not a pricing model Verizon or AT&T should follow.
I'm amused at the blame game of AT&T when similar problems occur for other carriers.
But then, I'm a data hound not a voice nut.
If I sound better on Verizon but the surfing speed is crap, I'll take a tin voice with fast web access at AT&T anytime not to mention the surfing I do while listening to long conference calls which I enjoy on AT&T and wouldn't on......
...AT&T doesn't seem to be collecting any charges for this other than the upfront price.
Yes, they are. They're charging for a voice plan and depending on the person, perhaps a data plan or more. In a situation where you have reliable Verizon coverage and spotty AT&T coverage, and if keeping the customer still results in significantly more profit than without, isn't it just good sense for AT&T to swallow a little extra cost to keep the customer?
This isn't a random hypothetical for points on the internet, these situations exist, they're everywhere and AT&T would be wise to be a little easier on the pricing where this is true; maybe a little harsher where it isn't. I for one find $150 to be fairly reasonable, mind you it is a hassle for the customer to switch. On the other hand, if the customer will only pay $50, what does AT&T gain by refusing to sell?
That said, I hope this testing finishes soon. I am anxious to give my folks one of these darn things so I'm not lost in the cellular netherworld whenever I dare to visit. Oh yes, my seemingly altruistic gift will have a rather selfish purpose.
Yes, they are. They're charging for a voice plan and depending on the person, perhaps a data plan or more. In a situation where you have reliable Verizon coverage and spotty AT&T coverage, and if keeping the customer still results in significantly more profit than without, isn't it just good sense for AT&T to swallow a little extra cost to keep the customer?
This isn't a random hypothetical for points on the internet, these situations exist, they're everywhere and AT&T would be wise to be a little easier on the pricing where this is true; maybe a little harsher where it isn't. I for one find $150 to be fairly reasonable, mind you it is a hassle for the customer to switch. On the other hand, if the customer will only pay $50, what does AT&T gain by refusing to sell?
That said, I hope this testing finishes soon. I am anxious to give my folks one of these darn things so I'm not lost in the cellular netherworld whenever I dare to visit. Oh yes, my seemingly altruistic gift will have a rather selfish purpose.
That's a bit of semantics. It isn't relevant. All cell companies have this problem, and all charge for their micro transmitters.