reply to discussion |
Results 61 to 75 of 295
- 08-23-2011, 09:05 AM #61SMSGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On 8/23/2011 7:30 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> It's akin to people like Myriam Joire (editor at Engadget) who will
> take a phone that is otherwise a 9 out of 10 and grade it as a 3 out
> of 10 because it (1) doesn't have 900/1800 UMTS support [but does have
> 900/1800 GSM] support and (2) its camera isn't as good as a Nokia N8.
Actually it's totally different than that. Cell phone users have
consistently ranked coverage as one of the most important factors in
selecting a carrier. The top tier carriers have formed cross-roaming
agreements with smaller carriers in order to provide rural coverage.
In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. including 4
million to Yosemite, and 1.6 million to Glacier. Of course some of those
280 million people were counted multiple times because they visited
multiple parks. Probably only 75-100 million individuals. Ditto for
Yosemite where some of those 4 million visitors were double counted. But
still, it's a significant number of people, and AT&T felt it prudent to
install cells in the busiest part of the park, and Verizon and Sprint
felt it prudent to have a cross-roaming agreement with the rural CDMA
carrier, Golden State Cellular.
Besides coverage in the park itself, the adjacent areas to the park also
need to be considered. For example, if you drive to Yosemite from the
San Francisco Bay Area, you'll lose native coverage on Sprint, Verizon,
AT&T, and T-Mobile somewhere outside of Oakdale on CA 120. On Sprint and
Verizon you'll roam at no charge on Golden State Cellular (with spotty
coverage) until Yosemite. AT&T covers Yosemite Valley, but Golden State
Cellular covers some other parts of the park like down by Yosemite West.
With T-Mobile you have no coverage, they do not have a cross-roaming
agreement with AT&T for this area. With Platinumtel, Virgin, or any MVNO
that does not include roaming off of Verizon or Sprint you'll have no
coverage. With CDMA MVNOs that allow roaming, even if it's at extra
cost, you will have coverage. With AT&T's MVNO's you'll have coverage.
› See More: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
- 08-23-2011, 09:05 AM #62SMSGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On 8/23/2011 7:30 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> It's akin to people like Myriam Joire (editor at Engadget) who will
> take a phone that is otherwise a 9 out of 10 and grade it as a 3 out
> of 10 because it (1) doesn't have 900/1800 UMTS support [but does have
> 900/1800 GSM] support and (2) its camera isn't as good as a Nokia N8.
Actually it's totally different than that. Cell phone users have
consistently ranked coverage as one of the most important factors in
selecting a carrier. The top tier carriers have formed cross-roaming
agreements with smaller carriers in order to provide rural coverage.
In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. including 4
million to Yosemite, and 1.6 million to Glacier. Of course some of those
280 million people were counted multiple times because they visited
multiple parks. Probably only 75-100 million individuals. Ditto for
Yosemite where some of those 4 million visitors were double counted. But
still, it's a significant number of people, and AT&T felt it prudent to
install cells in the busiest part of the park, and Verizon and Sprint
felt it prudent to have a cross-roaming agreement with the rural CDMA
carrier, Golden State Cellular.
Besides coverage in the park itself, the adjacent areas to the park also
need to be considered. For example, if you drive to Yosemite from the
San Francisco Bay Area, you'll lose native coverage on Sprint, Verizon,
AT&T, and T-Mobile somewhere outside of Oakdale on CA 120. On Sprint and
Verizon you'll roam at no charge on Golden State Cellular (with spotty
coverage) until Yosemite. AT&T covers Yosemite Valley, but Golden State
Cellular covers some other parts of the park like down by Yosemite West.
With T-Mobile you have no coverage, they do not have a cross-roaming
agreement with AT&T for this area. With Platinumtel, Virgin, or any MVNO
that does not include roaming off of Verizon or Sprint you'll have no
coverage. With CDMA MVNOs that allow roaming, even if it's at extra
cost, you will have coverage. With AT&T's MVNO's you'll have coverage.
- 08-23-2011, 09:53 AM #63Vic SmithGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:29 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 8/23/2011 7:30 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>
>> It's akin to people like Myriam Joire (editor at Engadget) who will
>> take a phone that is otherwise a 9 out of 10 and grade it as a 3 out
>> of 10 because it (1) doesn't have 900/1800 UMTS support [but does have
>> 900/1800 GSM] support and (2) its camera isn't as good as a Nokia N8.
>
>Actually it's totally different than that. Cell phone users have
>consistently ranked coverage as one of the most important factors in
>selecting a carrier. The top tier carriers have formed cross-roaming
>agreements with smaller carriers in order to provide rural coverage.
>
>In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. including 4
>million to Yosemite, and 1.6 million to Glacier. Of course some of those
>280 million people were counted multiple times because they visited
>multiple parks. Probably only 75-100 million individuals.
Delusional. There are 388 national parks. The few you mention are a
minor percentage.
Besides visiting multiple parks, visitors visit the same park multiple
times. Your numbers are vastly inflated.
How many times a year do you go to Yosemite to yak on a cell phone?
Coverage is indeed the most important factor to me, then price.
But if price is too high coverage doesn't matter. I'll do without.
T-Mobile prepaid works fine for my needs.
I'm never out of coverage where I go.
And if I ever visit Yosemite I probably won't be worried about yakking
on my cell phone.
But if Yosemite coverage is important to you, I won't argue with that.
--Vic
- 08-23-2011, 09:53 AM #64Vic SmithGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:29 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 8/23/2011 7:30 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>
>> It's akin to people like Myriam Joire (editor at Engadget) who will
>> take a phone that is otherwise a 9 out of 10 and grade it as a 3 out
>> of 10 because it (1) doesn't have 900/1800 UMTS support [but does have
>> 900/1800 GSM] support and (2) its camera isn't as good as a Nokia N8.
>
>Actually it's totally different than that. Cell phone users have
>consistently ranked coverage as one of the most important factors in
>selecting a carrier. The top tier carriers have formed cross-roaming
>agreements with smaller carriers in order to provide rural coverage.
>
>In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. including 4
>million to Yosemite, and 1.6 million to Glacier. Of course some of those
>280 million people were counted multiple times because they visited
>multiple parks. Probably only 75-100 million individuals.
Delusional. There are 388 national parks. The few you mention are a
minor percentage.
Besides visiting multiple parks, visitors visit the same park multiple
times. Your numbers are vastly inflated.
How many times a year do you go to Yosemite to yak on a cell phone?
Coverage is indeed the most important factor to me, then price.
But if price is too high coverage doesn't matter. I'll do without.
T-Mobile prepaid works fine for my needs.
I'm never out of coverage where I go.
And if I ever visit Yosemite I probably won't be worried about yakking
on my cell phone.
But if Yosemite coverage is important to you, I won't argue with that.
--Vic
- 08-23-2011, 10:02 AM #65SMSGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On 8/23/2011 8:53 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
> And if I ever visit Yosemite I probably won't be worried about yakking
> on my cell phone.
It's not a question of wanting to yak on a phone, it's a question of
needing to do so under certain circumstance. For example two years ago
we went to Yosemite in the winter. I went to get the keys to the place
we were rented which should have been left out, but weren't. Since I had
coverage I could call the night number and someone came with a key. If I
hadn't been able to use the available network I'd have to have driven
about an hour, in a snowstorm, to a pay phone, then back again.
The excuse that since you're in a national park, or especially driving
to a park, you would have no need for a cell phone is very weak.
Especially since so many pay phones have been removed.
My estimates were very conservative. Most people visit not more than one
National Park per year, some visit more than ten per year, or have
repeat visits. It's not a stretch to say that the 280 million visits
represent 75 million separate visitors, but even at 50 million, 25
million, or 10 million, it's still significant.
- 08-23-2011, 10:02 AM #66SMSGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On 8/23/2011 8:53 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
> And if I ever visit Yosemite I probably won't be worried about yakking
> on my cell phone.
It's not a question of wanting to yak on a phone, it's a question of
needing to do so under certain circumstance. For example two years ago
we went to Yosemite in the winter. I went to get the keys to the place
we were rented which should have been left out, but weren't. Since I had
coverage I could call the night number and someone came with a key. If I
hadn't been able to use the available network I'd have to have driven
about an hour, in a snowstorm, to a pay phone, then back again.
The excuse that since you're in a national park, or especially driving
to a park, you would have no need for a cell phone is very weak.
Especially since so many pay phones have been removed.
My estimates were very conservative. Most people visit not more than one
National Park per year, some visit more than ten per year, or have
repeat visits. It's not a stretch to say that the 280 million visits
represent 75 million separate visitors, but even at 50 million, 25
million, or 10 million, it's still significant.
- 08-23-2011, 11:11 AM #67Vic SmithGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:02:24 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 8/23/2011 8:53 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> And if I ever visit Yosemite I probably won't be worried about yakking
>> on my cell phone.
>
>It's not a question of wanting to yak on a phone, it's a question of
>needing to do so under certain circumstance. For example two years ago
>we went to Yosemite in the winter. I went to get the keys to the place
>we were rented which should have been left out, but weren't. Since I had
>coverage I could call the night number and someone came with a key. If I
>hadn't been able to use the available network I'd have to have driven
>about an hour, in a snowstorm, to a pay phone, then back again.
>
>The excuse that since you're in a national park, or especially driving
>to a park, you would have no need for a cell phone is very weak.
>Especially since so many pay phones have been removed.
>
>My estimates were very conservative. Most people visit not more than one
>National Park per year, some visit more than ten per year, or have
>repeat visits. It's not a stretch to say that the 280 million visits
>represent 75 million separate visitors, but even at 50 million, 25
>million, or 10 million, it's still significant.
You're doing right to have coverage at Yosemite in a snowstorm.
I don't live so dangerously.
You're right about scarcity of pay phones too.
75 million is 25% of the U.S. population. Doubtful.
Season and lifetime "senior" passes make for repeat visitors.
Again, that's 388 parks, not the few you mentioned, so that number is
irrelevant to coverage in national parks.
I have relatives in Florida who go to Disney World 6-8 times every
year. Unbelievable.
Anyway, even if the number is many millions visiting national parks,
I'm not one of them, so it's immaterial to my needed coverage.
--Vic
- 08-23-2011, 11:11 AM #68Vic SmithGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:02:24 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 8/23/2011 8:53 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> And if I ever visit Yosemite I probably won't be worried about yakking
>> on my cell phone.
>
>It's not a question of wanting to yak on a phone, it's a question of
>needing to do so under certain circumstance. For example two years ago
>we went to Yosemite in the winter. I went to get the keys to the place
>we were rented which should have been left out, but weren't. Since I had
>coverage I could call the night number and someone came with a key. If I
>hadn't been able to use the available network I'd have to have driven
>about an hour, in a snowstorm, to a pay phone, then back again.
>
>The excuse that since you're in a national park, or especially driving
>to a park, you would have no need for a cell phone is very weak.
>Especially since so many pay phones have been removed.
>
>My estimates were very conservative. Most people visit not more than one
>National Park per year, some visit more than ten per year, or have
>repeat visits. It's not a stretch to say that the 280 million visits
>represent 75 million separate visitors, but even at 50 million, 25
>million, or 10 million, it's still significant.
You're doing right to have coverage at Yosemite in a snowstorm.
I don't live so dangerously.
You're right about scarcity of pay phones too.
75 million is 25% of the U.S. population. Doubtful.
Season and lifetime "senior" passes make for repeat visitors.
Again, that's 388 parks, not the few you mentioned, so that number is
irrelevant to coverage in national parks.
I have relatives in Florida who go to Disney World 6-8 times every
year. Unbelievable.
Anyway, even if the number is many millions visiting national parks,
I'm not one of them, so it's immaterial to my needed coverage.
--Vic
- 08-23-2011, 01:04 PM #69jcdillGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On 23/08/11 12:35 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, jcdill
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
>>> messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
>>> and text for *free).
>>
>> This is completely worthless for people to text YOU for the first time.
>
> not at all. it works just fine.
>
>> I frequently use text messaging to reach someone who I am trying to
>> call (not anyone I know) who has a voicemail box that has not be set up
>> yet, or is full. I figure if they don't have a working voicemail box
>> odds are good that they prefer text messages to voicemail. But if they
>> don't have a text messaging plan and rely solely on some non-standard
>> text ap, I can't reach them by sending a text message to their cell
>> phone number.
>
> there's nothing non-standard and you can send a text message to their
> cellphone number.
Can you explain how the cell company's equipment knows to deliver a text
sent to their cell phone number to this free text messaging app when the
customer doesn't have text enabled with the cell company? Because I'm
having a hard time imaging why or how the cell company would allow a
text sent into their system to be delivered to the app without the
customer paying some fee to the cell company for text messaging on that
number.
jc
- 08-23-2011, 01:04 PM #70jcdillGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
On 23/08/11 12:35 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, jcdill
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
>>> messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
>>> and text for *free).
>>
>> This is completely worthless for people to text YOU for the first time.
>
> not at all. it works just fine.
>
>> I frequently use text messaging to reach someone who I am trying to
>> call (not anyone I know) who has a voicemail box that has not be set up
>> yet, or is full. I figure if they don't have a working voicemail box
>> odds are good that they prefer text messages to voicemail. But if they
>> don't have a text messaging plan and rely solely on some non-standard
>> text ap, I can't reach them by sending a text message to their cell
>> phone number.
>
> there's nothing non-standard and you can send a text message to their
> cellphone number.
Can you explain how the cell company's equipment knows to deliver a text
sent to their cell phone number to this free text messaging app when the
customer doesn't have text enabled with the cell company? Because I'm
having a hard time imaging why or how the cell company would allow a
text sent into their system to be delivered to the app without the
customer paying some fee to the cell company for text messaging on that
number.
jc
- 08-23-2011, 01:18 PM #71nospamGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
In article <[email protected]>, jcdill
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Can you explain how the cell company's equipment knows to deliver a text
> sent to their cell phone number to this free text messaging app when the
> customer doesn't have text enabled with the cell company? Because I'm
> having a hard time imaging why or how the cell company would allow a
> text sent into their system to be delivered to the app without the
> customer paying some fee to the cell company for text messaging on that
> number.
the text messaging apps create a real phone number which can send and
receive text messages. using the app is free, but the other person may
incur normal texting charges.
some of the apps also support voip for a few cents a minute, so you
could move both text and voice to the new number.
- 08-23-2011, 01:18 PM #72nospamGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
In article <[email protected]>, jcdill
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Can you explain how the cell company's equipment knows to deliver a text
> sent to their cell phone number to this free text messaging app when the
> customer doesn't have text enabled with the cell company? Because I'm
> having a hard time imaging why or how the cell company would allow a
> text sent into their system to be delivered to the app without the
> customer paying some fee to the cell company for text messaging on that
> number.
the text messaging apps create a real phone number which can send and
receive text messages. using the app is free, but the other person may
incur normal texting charges.
some of the apps also support voip for a few cents a minute, so you
could move both text and voice to the new number.
- 08-23-2011, 02:52 PM #73Rod SpeedGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
Justin wrote:
> nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
>> In article <[email protected]>, SMS
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places
>>>>> have no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The
>>>>> T-Mobile acquisition would be good for coverage since with a
>>>>> combined network, only one of those areas would have no coverage
>>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's
>>>> not much coverage there.
>>>
>>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of
>>> people drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I
>>> chose Hamburg, MN, only because some friends of mine live there
>>> (they are on T-Mobile) and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast
>>> with us in July. It was very annoying to be calling them and often
>>> having the call go to voice mail because of the lack of T-Mobile
>>> coverage.
>>
>> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
>> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
>> and t-mobile to care.
>
> Glacier: 2216109 last year
> Yosemite: 3.5 million a year
But not enough of those even want to make a phone call for at&t and t-mobile to care.
- 08-23-2011, 02:52 PM #74Rod SpeedGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
Justin wrote:
> nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
>> In article <[email protected]>, SMS
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places
>>>>> have no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The
>>>>> T-Mobile acquisition would be good for coverage since with a
>>>>> combined network, only one of those areas would have no coverage
>>>>> at all.
>>>>
>>>> those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's
>>>> not much coverage there.
>>>
>>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of
>>> people drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I
>>> chose Hamburg, MN, only because some friends of mine live there
>>> (they are on T-Mobile) and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast
>>> with us in July. It was very annoying to be calling them and often
>>> having the call go to voice mail because of the lack of T-Mobile
>>> coverage.
>>
>> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
>> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
>> and t-mobile to care.
>
> Glacier: 2216109 last year
> Yosemite: 3.5 million a year
But not enough of those even want to make a phone call for at&t and t-mobile to care.
- 08-23-2011, 03:45 PM #75JustinGuest
Re: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
Vic Smith wrote on [Tue, 23 Aug 2011 10:53:40 -0500]:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:29 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On 8/23/2011 7:30 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>
>>> It's akin to people like Myriam Joire (editor at Engadget) who will
>>> take a phone that is otherwise a 9 out of 10 and grade it as a 3 out
>>> of 10 because it (1) doesn't have 900/1800 UMTS support [but does have
>>> 900/1800 GSM] support and (2) its camera isn't as good as a Nokia N8.
>>
>>Actually it's totally different than that. Cell phone users have
>>consistently ranked coverage as one of the most important factors in
>>selecting a carrier. The top tier carriers have formed cross-roaming
>>agreements with smaller carriers in order to provide rural coverage.
>>
>>In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. including 4
>>million to Yosemite, and 1.6 million to Glacier. Of course some of those
>>280 million people were counted multiple times because they visited
>>multiple parks. Probably only 75-100 million individuals.
>
> Delusional. There are 388 national parks. The few you mention are a
> minor percentage.
> Besides visiting multiple parks, visitors visit the same park multiple
> times. Your numbers are vastly inflated.
> How many times a year do you go to Yosemite to yak on a cell phone?
> Coverage is indeed the most important factor to me, then price.
Coverage sure came in handy to the few who had it on the Going to the Sun
road in Glacier when there was a rock slide right in front of us blocking
the road and destroying a few cars...
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- Chit Chat
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat