Re: offtopic: Experience with Yaggi antenna for GSM-900Mhz

This is not bait for a debate, infact, I will only speak once on the =20
matter.

Inside the tinyurl article is this paragraph:

"That=92s right, you lose minutes despite the fact you=92d be reducing =20
strain on local towers and routing calls (largely) over infrastructure =20
Verizon doesn=92t own. That=92s either technical incompetence or =20
maliciousness on the part of Verizon, and is the primary reason that =20
consumers should stay far, far away."

Is this really enough reason for consumers stay "far, far away"?  So =20
what if it deducts minutes or you pay a service fee in lieu of minute =20
deduction?  The carrier is terminating your traffic and providing you =20
a service.  It still costs money to take incoming traffic, operate the =20
millions of VPN tunnels, and switch it in and out of the PSTN.  And =20
since the carrier is in the business of, well, providing phone =20
service, why should they not make money off the deal?

This may be a completely arrogant statement, and forgive me, but does =20
anyone really care anymore about minutes these days?   Cheap unlimited =20
minute plans, unlimited mobile to mobile, unlimited 5 favorite =20
numbers, generous unlimited night and weekend plans (for most of us =20
who work during the day, we'd be using night and weekends anyway on =20
our femtocells) ... we are all spoiled brats.

Even though you may have to front a little bit of hardware cost =20
(either cash, 2 year commitment, or a unit rental), this is a big win =20
for consumers.  There are many unprofitable areas and service holes =20
that will simply never be filled.  Its not cost effective.  And =20
believe me, if they did, we'd all be paying a boat load for it.  =20
Network operational costs are passed directly onto consumers.  If a =20
cellular carrier dropped a half million on each of these holes =20
(probably millions of coverage holes out there), in terms of securing =20
tower location, fighting NIMBY's, buying hardware, etc. we'd probably =20
all be paying over a dollar a minute.  After all, its not a charity, =20
they are in the business to make money.


On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:25 PM, Gary wrote:

> Casey wrote:
> A lot of carriers are working on "femtocell" technology, and smarter
> active repeaters, so maybe .. eventually ... you might have hope.
>
> I'm impressed by the femtocell tech but unsound policy and billing =20
> decisions may sink them if the carriers can't get it right; http://tiny.p=
l/v4q3=20
> . q.v. thinkfemtocell.com.
>
> -Gary
>
> >
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the SeattleWireless=
 Talk list, hosted by Google Groups
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/swn-talk?hl=3Den

For more about the SeattleWireless.NET project, see http://seattlewireless.=
net/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---