I can't imagine going to a plan that charged me more to call a different state or had additional fees for using my phone on the highways between cities. Pros and cons.
I think that makes more sense than the system we currently have. People who use the system more should pay more. That means not just bandwidth usage, but geographic usage. People who travel a lot and pass hundreds of towers on a regular basis should pay more than someone who only uses the same two dozen towers every day.
I think that makes more sense than the system we currently have. People who use the system more should pay more. That means not just bandwidth usage, but geographic usage. People who travel a lot and pass hundreds of towers on a regular basis should pay more than someone who only uses the same two dozen towers every day.
I can't imagine how that could setup to make customers any happier (or less unhappy) than they are now. It seems like a complex accounting model that user has no control over.
You don't even see most towers so I can imagine getting a 100 tower limit per month before getting "tower usage overage fees" hitting my account because I checked my email or listened to a VM on a different tower than I'm used to.
There are MVNOs that operate regionally and ones that charge you when calling out of state and/or from another. These may work for those that want to save a few bucks a month, but I've found that the service to usage simply doesn't work for most Americans who typically do have family spread out across multiple states and who do travel quite a bit by car. If this was a viable option for carriers to increase revenue it seems to me that they likely wouldn't have moved away from this type of service.
Comments
I can't imagine going to a plan that charged me more to call a different state or had additional fees for using my phone on the highways between cities. Pros and cons.
I think that makes more sense than the system we currently have. People who use the system more should pay more. That means not just bandwidth usage, but geographic usage. People who travel a lot and pass hundreds of towers on a regular basis should pay more than someone who only uses the same two dozen towers every day.
I think that makes more sense than the system we currently have. People who use the system more should pay more. That means not just bandwidth usage, but geographic usage. People who travel a lot and pass hundreds of towers on a regular basis should pay more than someone who only uses the same two dozen towers every day.
I can't imagine how that could setup to make customers any happier (or less unhappy) than they are now. It seems like a complex accounting model that user has no control over.
You don't even see most towers so I can imagine getting a 100 tower limit per month before getting "tower usage overage fees" hitting my account because I checked my email or listened to a VM on a different tower than I'm used to.
There are MVNOs that operate regionally and ones that charge you when calling out of state and/or from another. These may work for those that want to save a few bucks a month, but I've found that the service to usage simply doesn't work for most Americans who typically do have family spread out across multiple states and who do travel quite a bit by car. If this was a viable option for carriers to increase revenue it seems to me that they likely wouldn't have moved away from this type of service.