What's next: [/B] If I didn't have a direct shot at the Direct TV satellites I could hook up my DTV receiver to my cable service and watch TV through Time Warner. For a small fee to DTV.
You jest! My parents's cable company switched content a few months back and they are now providing Dish or DirecTV (I can't remember) content. Satellite over cable. Oh the irony! When it storms, their signal goes out, just like it does for everyone else with satellite TV.
Holy shit - telephony is getting VERY complicated. Progress? or not? This is why Apple's insistence on simplicity is a good thing. You gotta be pretty tech savvy to even make a phone call these days. Ah, the good old days... or maybe not.... A friend and his 10 year old daughter were in an old fashioned elevator where there was an emergency phone of some sort - with a circular dialer. Remember those? My friend's daughter studied it for a while and then asked what it was. When she was told it was a phone her face scrunched up in a "HUH?" expression. "How do you use THAT?" she asked. Try explaining a dial phone to a kid who's never seen one.
So they make you pay to rent a device that shifts the load of your calls onto a broadband connection you pay for.... and then still count the minutes you use out of your voice plan?
Wow, if this idea/thing takes off, whoever came up with it is getting a fat bonus.
My thoughts exactly
I would think about spending $100-200 bucks on this device if it switched off their network and I had unlimited minutes using my on broadband. But if they expect the consumer to pay (in my case att 2x) for broadband and cell phone they are out of their mind. I would rather use wifi on my phone and just make EDGE calls and use their network.
When AT&T (back before it became Cingular, and then AT&T again) first rolled out GSM service, I got an offer for a $99/month all-you-can-eat mobile plan. Unlimited call time, no roaming (back when that was an issue), unlimited long distance. It was pricey, but not so much in retrospect. Pay the fee and never worry about any extra charges.
(I didn't go for it, because I don't use the phone much, but it was available to early GSM adopters.)
These days we're getting nickeled, dimed, and silver-dollared to death with endless charges and billing surprises. Well, I have an idea for any carrier who wants to win customers back once and for all:
A $149/mo* No-Bullshit Plan
- unlimited minutes, long distance, roaming
- unlimited wireless data (including tethering)
- unlimited text messages
- nationwide WiFi access, wherever available
- nationwide dialup, wherever available
- 3 Mbps home broadband
- unlimited VoIP home phone service, including in-house mobile phone connections
- free home microcell service (customer buys hardware, which also includes 802.11n WiFi, 4-port GigE Ethernet switch, and built-in DSL or cable modem)
This is not a stretch. Most people would use some of these features to their fullest extent, while leaving other parts unused. It would satisfy many people's desires to simply be able to use their service without worrying about billing surprises. For the carrier it would simplify everything to a single login/authentication account and leverage their existing infrastructure. The monthly price (* above) might need to be tweaked to guarantee profitability, but then it would give them the piece of mind of steady revenue. Such a service would market itself.
If you travel to Asia, say Hong Kong, Japan, or Taiwan, you'll get 3G, or HSDPA even on the subway, and that's like several stories underneath the streets.
Besides, there are tons of skyscrapers around the cities, and you'll never be in a dead zone.
How come mighty AT&T cannot fix such a simple problem?
If the reception is bad, or if there's a dead zone, BANG! Put another Cell tower.
DARN! GREEDY AT&T, just want to minimize their expenditures on expanding hardware infrastructure while jacking, and ripping off customers.
I'm so sick and tired of this and that from AT&T or any other wireless provider.
BTW, did you guys know that if you put your SIM Card into a Nokia phone with Bluetooth, you'll be able to use it as a wireless modem with your Macbook/Macbook Pro?
Yeah, right, that's what I've been using, I bought the iPhone plan, and now, wherever I go, if I can't find a hotspot, then I'll just use my Nokia with iPhone plan.
Unlimited Internet.
Greedy AT&T. Trying to CHARGE people for tethering.
People in Europe has been doing that for a long time, that's why most phone has that capability.
Hate AT&T
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux
When AT&T (back before it became Cingular, and then AT&T again) first rolled out GSM service, I got an offer for a $99/month all-you-can-eat mobile plan. Unlimited call time, no roaming (back when that was an issue), unlimited long distance. It was pricey, but not so much in retrospect. Pay the fee and never worry about any extra charges.
(I didn't go for it, because I don't use the phone much, but it was available to early GSM adopters.)
These days we're getting nickeled, dimed, and silver-dollared to death with endless charges and billing surprises. Well, I have an idea for any carrier who wants to win customers back once and for all:
A $149/mo* No-Bullshit Plan
- unlimited minutes, long distance, roaming
- unlimited wireless data (including tethering)
- unlimited text messages
- nationwide WiFi access, wherever available
- nationwide dialup, wherever available
- 3 Mbps home broadband
- unlimited VoIP home phone service, including in-house mobile phone connections
- free home microcell service (customer buys hardware, which also includes 802.11n WiFi, 4-port GigE Ethernet switch, and built-in DSL or cable modem)
This is not a stretch. Most people would use some of these features to their fullest extent, while leaving other parts unused. It would satisfy many people's desires to simply be able to use their service without worrying about billing surprises. For the carrier it would simplify everything to a single login/authentication account and leverage their existing infrastructure. The monthly price (* above) might need to be tweaked to guarantee profitability, but then it would give them the piece of mind of steady revenue. Such a service would market itself.
I like the concept, but would be a bit surprised if the masses pay to extend a network that we are already paying for. When did it become common place for me not to be able to use my cell phone at home?
If I had walked in to get my phone, and told that I had to pony up a few extra hundred bucks to use my new expensive phone and service at home, my purchase decision would have been different.
Why not provide a box that has a bit more range and sprinkle them around the city to cover holes, asking users to share their internet connection. Also, allow anyone in range to connect.
The registering the device stuff seems like they just want to sell one of these to me, and to my neighbor.
You'd be surprised how popular these things are in areas with network problems.
A few months ago, if available, I would have gotten one for my home because we had poor 3G reception there.
Once AT&T cleared that up with their moving 3G from 1900 MHz to 850 MHz, it was no longer needed.
OK, maybe it's been too many years since I've done my junior high math -
But isn't a 5,000 sq ft hot spot a circle with a radius of just 40 ft? (Smaller than even a 802.11g Wi-Fi hotspot) Please correct me if I'm wrong...
I guess it's worth it if you just want to bring reception to your apartment or small business, and can position the cell in a central location...Hopefully there is no monthly charge
This doesn't ring true to me. Even with UMA, the WiFi calls have to be carried by SOMEONE... that would still be AT&T (even if several options were available, it could be programmed to only use AT&T as the carrier).
VOIP calls (which would be going over WiFi), as you can tell by the name, go over the internet, not the carriers phone network. They are two distinct networks. The carrier can't tell what is going over WiFi therefor, because data is data.
tell us what other options are available, in this case, the T-Mobile@home hotspot service, and then spend half the article talking about all it's negative points so that people don't think they are getting the shaft from AT&T.
The T-Mobile solution is OBVIOUSLY the better solution, to say that the technology isn't quite there is misleading. This service was launched 18 months ago, not last week... same time as the iPhone. It allows for customers to use their wi-fi connection at home to get FREE calls. No Long Distance, just free calls. And if you are out and about and come home, the phone automatically switches you to the wi-fi network so the remainder of your call is free. Now that is a box and a monthly fee worth paying for. While I'm sure the first few devices had their shard of dropped calls and mistakes, I've heard nothing but good things about the device. It could potentially allow you to drop your land line considering you are only paying 10 bucks a month... even if you don't have t-mobile service at your house, this still works.
AT&T charges you for a box to fix their shoddy network, and that's deemed more acceptable in this article. Let's take the apple blinders off for a second, and look at this rationally.
The T-Mobile solution sucks. It has a lot of problems. I know a couple of people in areas where their network is minimal, and so they use the UMA "solution". It's unreliable, and they have about two hours of talktime on their phones.
tell us what other options are available, in this case, the T-Mobile@home hotspot service, and then spend half the article talking about all it's negative points so that people don't think they are getting the shaft from AT&T.
The T-Mobile solution is OBVIOUSLY the better solution, to say that the technology isn't quite there is misleading. This service was launched 18 months ago, not last week... same time as the iPhone. It allows for customers to use their wi-fi connection at home to get FREE calls. No Long Distance, just free calls. And if you are out and about and come home, the phone automatically switches you to the wi-fi network so the remainder of your call is free. Now that is a box and a monthly fee worth paying for. While I'm sure the first few devices had their shard of dropped calls and mistakes, I've heard nothing but good things about the device. It could potentially allow you to drop your land line considering you are only paying 10 bucks a month... even if you don't have t-mobile service at your house, this still works.
AT&T charges you for a box to fix their shoddy network, and that's deemed more acceptable in this article. Let's take the apple blinders off for a second, and look at this rationally.
Lets not be blind to the fact though that T-Mobile does not have their network in anywhere near as many places as AT&T. Where I live is a perfect example. At work I could use T-Mobile if I'm on the right floor in the right part of the building. When I get 1/3 of the way home, no more T-Mobile and I live about 20 miles from their tower.
With AT&T it's rock solid at work no matter the floor except if I go to the basement which is under alot of metal and concrete. Some of the basement still works but most it doesn't. Going home and AT&T is still solid. Sure there are days they seem to have an issue but it's like 3 days out of the year.
As for this device I admit it sounds a bit like a bad joke but there are probably businesses that would do it. I don't see this as a home consumer solution for anything.
You don't get to go down the street, unless your neighbor has registered you on their device (from the screen capture in the article). It does improve your coverage at home if it was marginal. Also, you will be much less likely to be blocked from calling if their is heavy volume on the cell tower that services your home.
That said, I think they should make the calling from the cell free since you would be freeing them from the expense of back hauling your call and building new towers to increase capacity.
You miss the point of my rant...
If my house was just down the street, I wouldn't need the aid of a 3G MicroCell from AT&T. I would have a signal both while out in the yard or inside the structure!
But being on the wrong side of the tracks so to speak, I don't. At least not in the house and I have to find a good spot out in the yard.
More bars in more places, sure. Just not at my place.
VOIP calls (which would be going over WiFi), as you can tell by the name, go over the internet, not the carriers phone network. They are two distinct networks. The carrier can't tell what is going over WiFi therefor, because data is data.
Ah, no. If the phone is placing a call over the internet it has to be connecting to something, and people's normal phones do not have IP addresses. So the call must connect to a server which connects to the phone system and to the phone being called.
Using something like Sykpe to call another Skype user is a different matter, but what we are talking about here is making normal phone calls.
tell us what other options are available, in this case, the T-Mobile@home hotspot service, and then spend half the article talking about all it's negative points so that people don't think they are getting the shaft from AT&T.
The T-Mobile solution is OBVIOUSLY the better solution, to say that the technology isn't quite there is misleading. This service was launched 18 months ago, not last week... same time as the iPhone. It allows for customers to use their wi-fi connection at home to get FREE calls. No Long Distance, just free calls. And if you are out and about and come home, the phone automatically switches you to the wi-fi network so the remainder of your call is free. Now that is a box and a monthly fee worth paying for. While I'm sure the first few devices had their shard of dropped calls and mistakes, I've heard nothing but good things about the device. It could potentially allow you to drop your land line considering you are only paying 10 bucks a month... even if you don't have t-mobile service at your house, this still works.
AT&T charges you for a box to fix their shoddy network, and that's deemed more acceptable in this article. Let's take the apple blinders off for a second, and look at this rationally.
Yeah this site is a bit of a joke, they don't even pretend to try to be objective, they're just cheer leaders for Apple and any product they push out the door and now, AT&T. Fanboys (or maybe just shills) like melgross just add to the mix. Criticism of their beloved products or companies does not go down well.
Ah, no. If the phone is placing a call over the internet it has to be connecting to something, and people's normal phones do not have IP addresses. So the call must connect to a server which connects to the phone system and to the phone being called.
Using something like Sykpe to call another Skype user is a different matter, but what we are talking about here is making normal phone calls.
Apparently not, as they can't monitor them from what's being said. If they could, it would be different.
What's you missed in the original post, and my reply, is that we were talking about WiFi. WiFi calls are VOIP.
UMA is different as well. Normally, the phone company can't track those calls either, which is why they need that battery gulping software on the phone, so that they can monitor the call from the PHONE, as it can't be monitored from the network.
These devices from Sprint, Verizon, and possibly AT&T, are using 3G, not WiFi. They act just like a regular 3G service. I'm not referring to that.
Yeah this site is a bit of a joke, they don't even pretend to try to be objective, they're just cheer leaders for Apple and any product they push out the door and now, AT&T. Fanboys (or maybe just shills) like melgross just add to the mix. Criticism of their beloved products or companies does not go down well.
Please, don't act any jerkier than you normally do. You aren't all that knowledgeable so that you can afford to make statements like that.
Please, don't act any jerkier than you normally do. You aren't all that knowledgeable so that you can afford to make statements like that.
Not knowledgeable? You're the guy who thinks VOIP calls go "into the cloud" and just get connected. You don't have a clue, instead you just attack me.
Go on, argue your point. Any point. Well you can't because you just don't have the understanding or the skill, all you can do is hang around this forum, where most people don't have a clue and make all sorts of statements knowing that no-one will call you on it, and when someone does you use ad-hominem attacks. Pitiful.
Comments
What's next: [/B] If I didn't have a direct shot at the Direct TV satellites I could hook up my DTV receiver to my cable service and watch TV through Time Warner. For a small fee to DTV.
You jest! My parents's cable company switched content a few months back and they are now providing Dish or DirecTV (I can't remember) content. Satellite over cable. Oh the irony! When it storms, their signal goes out, just like it does for everyone else with satellite TV.
So they make you pay to rent a device that shifts the load of your calls onto a broadband connection you pay for.... and then still count the minutes you use out of your voice plan?
Wow, if this idea/thing takes off, whoever came up with it is getting a fat bonus.
My thoughts exactly
I would think about spending $100-200 bucks on this device if it switched off their network and I had unlimited minutes using my on broadband. But if they expect the consumer to pay (in my case att 2x) for broadband and cell phone they are out of their mind. I would rather use wifi on my phone and just make EDGE calls and use their network.
(I didn't go for it, because I don't use the phone much, but it was available to early GSM adopters.)
These days we're getting nickeled, dimed, and silver-dollared to death with endless charges and billing surprises. Well, I have an idea for any carrier who wants to win customers back once and for all:
A $149/mo* No-Bullshit Plan
- unlimited minutes, long distance, roaming
- unlimited wireless data (including tethering)
- unlimited text messages
- nationwide WiFi access, wherever available
- nationwide dialup, wherever available
- 3 Mbps home broadband
- unlimited VoIP home phone service, including in-house mobile phone connections
- free home microcell service (customer buys hardware, which also includes 802.11n WiFi, 4-port GigE Ethernet switch, and built-in DSL or cable modem)
This is not a stretch. Most people would use some of these features to their fullest extent, while leaving other parts unused. It would satisfy many people's desires to simply be able to use their service without worrying about billing surprises. For the carrier it would simplify everything to a single login/authentication account and leverage their existing infrastructure. The monthly price (* above) might need to be tweaked to guarantee profitability, but then it would give them the piece of mind of steady revenue. Such a service would market itself.
But it would never happen...
If you travel to Asia, say Hong Kong, Japan, or Taiwan, you'll get 3G, or HSDPA even on the subway, and that's like several stories underneath the streets.
Besides, there are tons of skyscrapers around the cities, and you'll never be in a dead zone.
How come mighty AT&T cannot fix such a simple problem?
If the reception is bad, or if there's a dead zone, BANG! Put another Cell tower.
DARN! GREEDY AT&T, just want to minimize their expenditures on expanding hardware infrastructure while jacking, and ripping off customers.
I'm so sick and tired of this and that from AT&T or any other wireless provider.
BTW, did you guys know that if you put your SIM Card into a Nokia phone with Bluetooth, you'll be able to use it as a wireless modem with your Macbook/Macbook Pro?
Yeah, right, that's what I've been using, I bought the iPhone plan, and now, wherever I go, if I can't find a hotspot, then I'll just use my Nokia with iPhone plan.
Unlimited Internet.
Greedy AT&T. Trying to CHARGE people for tethering.
People in Europe has been doing that for a long time, that's why most phone has that capability.
Hate AT&T
When AT&T (back before it became Cingular, and then AT&T again) first rolled out GSM service, I got an offer for a $99/month all-you-can-eat mobile plan. Unlimited call time, no roaming (back when that was an issue), unlimited long distance. It was pricey, but not so much in retrospect. Pay the fee and never worry about any extra charges.
(I didn't go for it, because I don't use the phone much, but it was available to early GSM adopters.)
These days we're getting nickeled, dimed, and silver-dollared to death with endless charges and billing surprises. Well, I have an idea for any carrier who wants to win customers back once and for all:
A $149/mo* No-Bullshit Plan
- unlimited minutes, long distance, roaming
- unlimited wireless data (including tethering)
- unlimited text messages
- nationwide WiFi access, wherever available
- nationwide dialup, wherever available
- 3 Mbps home broadband
- unlimited VoIP home phone service, including in-house mobile phone connections
- free home microcell service (customer buys hardware, which also includes 802.11n WiFi, 4-port GigE Ethernet switch, and built-in DSL or cable modem)
This is not a stretch. Most people would use some of these features to their fullest extent, while leaving other parts unused. It would satisfy many people's desires to simply be able to use their service without worrying about billing surprises. For the carrier it would simplify everything to a single login/authentication account and leverage their existing infrastructure. The monthly price (* above) might need to be tweaked to guarantee profitability, but then it would give them the piece of mind of steady revenue. Such a service would market itself.
But it would never happen...
I like the concept, but would be a bit surprised if the masses pay to extend a network that we are already paying for. When did it become common place for me not to be able to use my cell phone at home?
If I had walked in to get my phone, and told that I had to pony up a few extra hundred bucks to use my new expensive phone and service at home, my purchase decision would have been different.
Why not provide a box that has a bit more range and sprinkle them around the city to cover holes, asking users to share their internet connection. Also, allow anyone in range to connect.
The registering the device stuff seems like they just want to sell one of these to me, and to my neighbor.
You'd be surprised how popular these things are in areas with network problems.
A few months ago, if available, I would have gotten one for my home because we had poor 3G reception there.
Once AT&T cleared that up with their moving 3G from 1900 MHz to 850 MHz, it was no longer needed.
But isn't a 5,000 sq ft hot spot a circle with a radius of just 40 ft? (Smaller than even a 802.11g Wi-Fi hotspot) Please correct me if I'm wrong...
I guess it's worth it if you just want to bring reception to your apartment or small business, and can position the cell in a central location...Hopefully there is no monthly charge
This doesn't ring true to me. Even with UMA, the WiFi calls have to be carried by SOMEONE... that would still be AT&T (even if several options were available, it could be programmed to only use AT&T as the carrier).
VOIP calls (which would be going over WiFi), as you can tell by the name, go over the internet, not the carriers phone network. They are two distinct networks. The carrier can't tell what is going over WiFi therefor, because data is data.
these articles always make me laugh on this site.
tell us what other options are available, in this case, the T-Mobile@home hotspot service, and then spend half the article talking about all it's negative points so that people don't think they are getting the shaft from AT&T.
The T-Mobile solution is OBVIOUSLY the better solution, to say that the technology isn't quite there is misleading. This service was launched 18 months ago, not last week... same time as the iPhone. It allows for customers to use their wi-fi connection at home to get FREE calls. No Long Distance, just free calls. And if you are out and about and come home, the phone automatically switches you to the wi-fi network so the remainder of your call is free. Now that is a box and a monthly fee worth paying for. While I'm sure the first few devices had their shard of dropped calls and mistakes, I've heard nothing but good things about the device. It could potentially allow you to drop your land line considering you are only paying 10 bucks a month... even if you don't have t-mobile service at your house, this still works.
AT&T charges you for a box to fix their shoddy network, and that's deemed more acceptable in this article. Let's take the apple blinders off for a second, and look at this rationally.
The T-Mobile solution sucks. It has a lot of problems. I know a couple of people in areas where their network is minimal, and so they use the UMA "solution". It's unreliable, and they have about two hours of talktime on their phones.
Great solution!
If we had that, we'd be screaming!
these articles always make me laugh on this site.
tell us what other options are available, in this case, the T-Mobile@home hotspot service, and then spend half the article talking about all it's negative points so that people don't think they are getting the shaft from AT&T.
The T-Mobile solution is OBVIOUSLY the better solution, to say that the technology isn't quite there is misleading. This service was launched 18 months ago, not last week... same time as the iPhone. It allows for customers to use their wi-fi connection at home to get FREE calls. No Long Distance, just free calls. And if you are out and about and come home, the phone automatically switches you to the wi-fi network so the remainder of your call is free. Now that is a box and a monthly fee worth paying for. While I'm sure the first few devices had their shard of dropped calls and mistakes, I've heard nothing but good things about the device. It could potentially allow you to drop your land line considering you are only paying 10 bucks a month... even if you don't have t-mobile service at your house, this still works.
AT&T charges you for a box to fix their shoddy network, and that's deemed more acceptable in this article. Let's take the apple blinders off for a second, and look at this rationally.
Lets not be blind to the fact though that T-Mobile does not have their network in anywhere near as many places as AT&T. Where I live is a perfect example. At work I could use T-Mobile if I'm on the right floor in the right part of the building. When I get 1/3 of the way home, no more T-Mobile and I live about 20 miles from their tower.
With AT&T it's rock solid at work no matter the floor except if I go to the basement which is under alot of metal and concrete. Some of the basement still works but most it doesn't. Going home and AT&T is still solid. Sure there are days they seem to have an issue but it's like 3 days out of the year.
As for this device I admit it sounds a bit like a bad joke but there are probably businesses that would do it. I don't see this as a home consumer solution for anything.
You don't get to go down the street, unless your neighbor has registered you on their device (from the screen capture in the article). It does improve your coverage at home if it was marginal. Also, you will be much less likely to be blocked from calling if their is heavy volume on the cell tower that services your home.
That said, I think they should make the calling from the cell free since you would be freeing them from the expense of back hauling your call and building new towers to increase capacity.
You miss the point of my rant...
If my house was just down the street, I wouldn't need the aid of a 3G MicroCell from AT&T. I would have a signal both while out in the yard or inside the structure!
But being on the wrong side of the tracks so to speak, I don't. At least not in the house and I have to find a good spot out in the yard.
More bars in more places, sure. Just not at my place.
VOIP calls (which would be going over WiFi), as you can tell by the name, go over the internet, not the carriers phone network. They are two distinct networks. The carrier can't tell what is going over WiFi therefor, because data is data.
Ah, no. If the phone is placing a call over the internet it has to be connecting to something, and people's normal phones do not have IP addresses. So the call must connect to a server which connects to the phone system and to the phone being called.
Using something like Sykpe to call another Skype user is a different matter, but what we are talking about here is making normal phone calls.
these articles always make me laugh on this site.
tell us what other options are available, in this case, the T-Mobile@home hotspot service, and then spend half the article talking about all it's negative points so that people don't think they are getting the shaft from AT&T.
The T-Mobile solution is OBVIOUSLY the better solution, to say that the technology isn't quite there is misleading. This service was launched 18 months ago, not last week... same time as the iPhone. It allows for customers to use their wi-fi connection at home to get FREE calls. No Long Distance, just free calls. And if you are out and about and come home, the phone automatically switches you to the wi-fi network so the remainder of your call is free. Now that is a box and a monthly fee worth paying for. While I'm sure the first few devices had their shard of dropped calls and mistakes, I've heard nothing but good things about the device. It could potentially allow you to drop your land line considering you are only paying 10 bucks a month... even if you don't have t-mobile service at your house, this still works.
AT&T charges you for a box to fix their shoddy network, and that's deemed more acceptable in this article. Let's take the apple blinders off for a second, and look at this rationally.
Yeah this site is a bit of a joke, they don't even pretend to try to be objective, they're just cheer leaders for Apple and any product they push out the door and now, AT&T. Fanboys (or maybe just shills) like melgross just add to the mix. Criticism of their beloved products or companies does not go down well.
Ah, no. If the phone is placing a call over the internet it has to be connecting to something, and people's normal phones do not have IP addresses. So the call must connect to a server which connects to the phone system and to the phone being called.
Using something like Sykpe to call another Skype user is a different matter, but what we are talking about here is making normal phone calls.
Apparently not, as they can't monitor them from what's being said. If they could, it would be different.
What's you missed in the original post, and my reply, is that we were talking about WiFi. WiFi calls are VOIP.
UMA is different as well. Normally, the phone company can't track those calls either, which is why they need that battery gulping software on the phone, so that they can monitor the call from the PHONE, as it can't be monitored from the network.
These devices from Sprint, Verizon, and possibly AT&T, are using 3G, not WiFi. They act just like a regular 3G service. I'm not referring to that.
Yeah this site is a bit of a joke, they don't even pretend to try to be objective, they're just cheer leaders for Apple and any product they push out the door and now, AT&T. Fanboys (or maybe just shills) like melgross just add to the mix. Criticism of their beloved products or companies does not go down well.
Please, don't act any jerkier than you normally do. You aren't all that knowledgeable so that you can afford to make statements like that.
Please, don't act any jerkier than you normally do. You aren't all that knowledgeable so that you can afford to make statements like that.
Not knowledgeable? You're the guy who thinks VOIP calls go "into the cloud" and just get connected. You don't have a clue, instead you just attack me.
Go on, argue your point. Any point. Well you can't because you just don't have the understanding or the skill, all you can do is hang around this forum, where most people don't have a clue and make all sorts of statements knowing that no-one will call you on it, and when someone does you use ad-hominem attacks. Pitiful.