Re: AT&T flings network wide open- don't have to sign a contract

At 09 Dec 2007 14:25:48 +0000 Larry wrote:

> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....
>
> Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more than
> one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for
> years about.


While TECHNICALLY you always could, the current billing and authorization
systems used by the major carriers simply don't allow for it, so they're
telling a half-truth- they can't do it because it's not worth it to them to
overhaul their systems to allow it. Using a two-phone family plan with
forwarding set from one to the other is a cheap way to accomplish the same
thing.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:9i_6j.7264$061.5664@fe117.usenetserver.com:

> At 09 Dec 2007 14:25:48 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>> Same ol' sleazy SELLphone carriers....
>>
>> Next thing you know they'll finally admit you CAN put more
than
>> one phone on a number, something they've been lying to us for
>> years about.
>
>
> While TECHNICALLY you always could, the current billing and
> authorization systems used by the major carriers simply don't
allow
> for it, so they're telling a half-truth- they can't do it
because it's
> not worth it to them to overhaul their systems to allow it.
Using a
> two-phone family plan with forwarding set from one to the other
is a
> cheap way to accomplish the same thing.

Nonsense. It's not done to SELL you more SELLphone
product...another number, another account, another charge.

The phones aren't tied to your cell number. They each have a MAC
address, just like your Ethernet card. They can each be
addressed, all at once, unless we can force you to pay more
money.

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

At 10 Dec 2007 00:15:11 +0000 Larry wrote:

> Nonsense. It's not done to SELL you more SELLphone
> product...another number, another account, another charge.


Back in the analog days, Cingular used to let you add extra phones to your
number- at $20/month/phone. All phones rang simultaneously and which ever
you answered first, took the call. They couldn't offer this service with
digital due to the way the authorization system worked. (This was in the
days before family plans.)


> The phones aren't tied to your cell number. They each have a MAC
> address, just like your Ethernet card. They can each be
> addressed, all at once, unless we can force you to pay more
> money.

Except the systems only allow one addressable device per number, ostensibly
to limit fraud.

I agree that if carriers WANTED to, they could create a system to address
multiple phones per number, as Cingular once did. You don't think they'd
do it for FREE though, do you? And why, in an age when you can have a
whole 2nd phone with unique number for $10/extra a month, would you pay $x
for an "extension" that was limited in functionality (i.e. couldn't call
the other handsets sharing the number?)
Again, you want an extension? Pay $10 for a family line, conditionally
forward one number to the other, or a Grandcentral.com number to auto-ring
both simultaneously (first to answer wins.)

Cellphone companies' services are not obligated to work like you think
they should work (which is apparently "like Skype works.")

If you have a better way to do it, feel free to bid at the upcoming 700MHz
auction! ;-)