AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
SMS
subscribers) on August 21st. New customers (or existing customers that
sign up for a texting plan) will have to pay $20 for unlimited texting
or use pay-as-you-go texting at 20¢ per text.
Earlier this year, AT&T dropped their $5/200 text plan and their
$15/1500 text plan. So in one year, the minimum texting plan has gone
from $5 to $20.
Just a sign of what kind of exciting things they have in store for
T-Mobile's subscribers if the acquisition goes through!
BTW, Verizon is still offering 250, 500, and unlimited texting for $5,
$10, and $20 respectively.
In comparison, if you go with a service like Pageplus, on their Talk n
Text 1200 plan, you get 3000 texts included in your $29.95 monthly fee
(with 1200 voice minutes and 100MB of data).
On AT&T, 1200 minutes (assume 900 peak/300 off peak), 200MB of data, and
3000 texts would cost you about $101 per month including taxes and fees
(estimate $6).
On PagePlus, 1200 minutes, 200MB of data, and 3000 texts would cost you
$39.95/month, plus you get much better U.S. coverage.
Douglas C. Niedermeyer
Yeah, and imagine what they'll do if the FTC allows them to swallow up
T-Mobile!!
--
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas C. Niedermeyer,
Sergeant at Arms
Shawn Hirn
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> AT&T will be eliminating their popular $10/1000 text plan (for new
> subscribers) on August 21st. New customers (or existing customers that
> sign up for a texting plan) will have to pay $20 for unlimited texting
> or use pay-as-you-go texting at 20¢ per text.
When I first subscribed to AT&T cell phone service, the unlimited
texting plan was in the range of $60 per month, this new unlimited
texting plan is a bargain. Right now, I am paying $15 a month for 1500
text messages. I have never exceeded that number, even with two teenaged
girls (my god daughters) who text me frequently. For another $5, I
gladly upgrade to unlimited texting. The girls know not to text me too
much because I don't want to go over my limit, so if I had unlimited, I
wouldn't have a concern about texting too much.
SMS
> In article<4e4e7397$0$2152$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> 3000 texts would cost you about $101 per month including taxes and fees
>> (estimate $6).
>
>
> Just sayin'.
Yes, that's true, so you might get by with the 450 peak minute AT&T plan
for $20 less, bringing the cost down to around $80, which is only twice
as much as it would cost you on PP for something similar.
One other big advantage on PP is if you do go a little over on data, you
buy more MB by the MB, not in 200MB blocks.
Clearly PP is not for someone that uses a lot of data, but with so much
wi-fi around it's relatively easy to control data usage for most people.
Anonymous
wrote:
>In article <4e4e7397$0$2152$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> AT&T will be eliminating their popular $10/1000 text plan (for new
>> subscribers) on August 21st. New customers (or existing customers that
>> sign up for a texting plan) will have to pay $20 for unlimited texting
>> or use pay-as-you-go texting at 20� per text.
>
>When I first subscribed to AT&T cell phone service, the unlimited
>texting plan was in the range of $60 per month, this new unlimited
>texting plan is a bargain. Right now, I am paying $15 a month for 1500
>text messages. I have never exceeded that number, even with two teenaged
>girls (my god daughters) who text me frequently. For another $5, I
>gladly upgrade to unlimited texting.
Are you an AT&T shill?
Before you could do this (get unlimited for $20 or stick with $15/1500
SMS/MMS or pay $10 for 1000 SMS/SMSes); now all you got is unlimited @
$20 or nothing. How is removing choice good?
SMS
> In article<4e4e7397$0$2152$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> AT&T will be eliminating their popular $10/1000 text plan (for new
>> subscribers) on August 21st. New customers (or existing customers that
>> sign up for a texting plan) will have to pay $20 for unlimited texting
>> or use pay-as-you-go texting at 20¢ per text.
>
> When I first subscribed to AT&T cell phone service, the unlimited
> texting plan was in the range of $60 per month, this new unlimited
> texting plan is a bargain.
Yes compared to the texting cost 10-15 years ago, I suppose you're right!
But the point is that AT&T is eliminating _every_ texting plan other
than unlimited. So those people that do a moderate amount of texting
that sign up for AT&T will be paying $20 per month rather than $5 or $10
per month, for unlimited texting, even though they only need a few
hundred texts per month.
AT&T Sprint T-Mobile Verizon
-------------------------------------------------
$5 X 300 X 250
$10 X 1000 Unlimited 500
$20 Unlimited Unlimited X Unlimited
Of course there is more to all of this than just the pricing. Just as
with the end of unlimited data, existing users of the lower cost texting
plans are grandfathered in, so they will be more reluctant to leave for
other carriers and lose their lower cost texting plans.
Of course if you have unlimited data there is really no need to have any
texting plan at all, with all the other options like Beluga, Kik,
PingChat or even Google Voice.
Justin
> On 8/19/2011 7:03 PM, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> In article<4e4e7397$0$2152$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>
> texting plan at all, with all the other options like Beluga, Kik,
> PingChat or even Google Voice.
Do any of these offer an email to SMS gateway?
Since a lot of corporate users have moved from a traditional pager
to an email to SMS gateway method.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Of course if you have unlimited data there is really no need to have any
> texting plan at all, with all the other options like Beluga, Kik,
> PingChat or even Google Voice.
there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
matter.
SMS
<snip>
> there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
> messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
> matter.
Yes, that's true. Text messaging costs the carrier so little in network
capacity but they charge so much for it. Well except Pageplus, which
recently lowered their per text charge for pay as you go to 5в each
(from 8в), and increased the number of texts on the TnT 1200 plan from
2000 to 3000.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
> > messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
> > matter.
>
> Yes, that's true. Text messaging costs the carrier so little in network
> capacity but they charge so much for it.
it's true that text messages are ridiculously overpriced, but that's
not the point.
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). they do use data but since text messages are
small, it will have minimal impact.
> Well except Pageplus, which
> recently lowered their per text charge for pay as you go to 5в each
> (from 8в), and increased the number of texts on the TnT 1200 plan from
> 2000 to 3000.
can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.
SMS
> can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
> good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
> text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.
Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.
> Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
> roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
> they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.
on-network roaming is outside your home city but on their towers (in
this case, sprint since it's an mvno). off-network is for other towers.
SMS
> In article<4e52e2c7$0$2170$742e...@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
>> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
>
> sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.
Not according to Sprint's and Platinumtel's own maps.
Some of my test zips when evaluating carriers are (with Platinumtel
coverage listed):
Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
Yosemite NP, 95389: None
Glacier NP, 59434: None
Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
Every one of those locations has coverage on Sprint postpaid because of
included roaming onto Verizon, Golden State Cellular, or U.S. Cellular.
But on Platinumtel or Virgin you can't roam, even at extra cost. That's
always been the issue with Sprint MVNOs, they are okay in urban areas
where Sprint has a network, but useless in most rural areas (other than
for 911 calls), where Sprint coverage is roaming coverage.
Everyone of those locations also has coverage on Pageplus, albeit at
extra cost if it's on U.S. Cellular or Golden State Cellular. I got
dinged on that last month in Oregon, but only for 29ข. I was coming into
Medford on Crater Lake Highway and was roaming onto U.S. Cellular.
Sprint can be a very good deal because of roaming, other than the
problem that the phone won't roam if it detects a Sprint signal too weak
to make or receive calls on. This is a big problem with Sprint in my
area, where they have coverage, but it's marginal in may areas. You can
no longer force the handset to roam onto Verizon.
SMS
> Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
> Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
> Yosemite NP, 95389: None
> Glacier NP, 59434: None
> Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
> Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
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.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
much coverage there.
SMS
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.
But yes, if you never leave urban areas, you can get by with a carrier
that has poor rural coverage, and I know there are people that never go
on trips outside cities. A while back I recall one person stating that
because of Cingular's lack of coverage in many parts of northern
California he had to plan his vacation travels around where they had
coverage! Personally I can't imagine doing this sort of thing. Even if I
had a carrier with poor rural coverage for $30 a year I'd keep a phone
active on Pageplus just as a safety net.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> 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.
Justin
Glacier: 2216109 last year
Yosemite: 3.5 million a year
nospam
wrote:
> Glacier: 2216109 last year
> Yosemite: 3.5 million a year
so at best, a little more than 1% of the population.
Steve Sobol
> 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.
No, it would *not.*
Yes, some rural areas would be covered under the merged company that
weren't previously covered by one carrier or the other.
The benefit wouldn't be all that great. Certainly not as awesome as AT&T
wants to claim.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjs...@JustThe.net
Steve Sobol
> Glacier: 2216109 last year
> Yosemite: 3.5 million a year
The question is whether PagePlus has hired Mr. Scharf yet. He'd make a
good shill.
Seriously, Steven, we all know you're happy with PagePlus. We're aware
that there are areas covered by Verizon that aren't covered by the other
carriers. But could you do all of us a favor and stop crowing about how
PagePlus is God's gift to the American cellular consumer? Because it
isn't. It's not the perfect solution for everyone.
Paul Miner
Would it be safe to assume that those are visitor totals?
If so, how many are US citizens? I know when I go to a National Park
I'm much more likely to hear people speaking languages other than
English.
Second, of the visitors who live in this country, how many are at&t
customers, or T-Mo customers, or even Sprint customers? A few
thousand? A hundred thousand? Not nearly enough for the carriers to
worry about.
--
Paul Miner
SMS
> 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.
In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. In 2010, over 4
million people visited Yosemite, and 1.6 million visited Glacier
National Park.
It's clearly enough for AT&T to have put in a cell in Yosemite Valley.
Verizon and Sprint rely on a roaming partner. T-Mobile has no coverage
at all (other than 911).
Justin
Why do you have to live in the US to have a cell phone?
I know when I travel abroad I buy a burner and a local SIM
EVery time I have been to Glacier, and it's 7 or 8 times as we used to
have close by relatives, the visitors were very white and mostly american.
Todd Allcock
> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
>
> Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
> roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
> they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.
It's not that strange.
If you recall, the original definition of "roaming" was simply using your
phone outside your home market. Until (the old) AT&T offered the "One
Rate" plan in the late 90s ushering in the current era of "nationwide
coverage", you paid roaming charges when traveling outside your home area
even in areas covered by your own carrier. T-Mobile and Alltel still
offered low-cost regional plans that charged for in-network roaming up
until just a few years ago. (When I lived in Missouri back at the turn
of the century, I had a $50/month T-Mo plan that included 3000minutes for
calls placed from and to Kansas and Missouri. Roaming outside those two
states cost $0.49/min, and calling outside those states cost $0.10/min
long-distance!)
Paul Miner
<nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
I assume you meant to ask, why do you have to live in the US to be a
customer of one of our wireless providers? I suppose the answer is
that it mostly depends on their respective billing policies. Maybe
they want their customers to have a billing address in this country to
make collections easier. *shrug*
>I know when I travel abroad I buy a burner and a local SIM
>
>EVery time I have been to Glacier, and it's 7 or 8 times as we used to
>have close by relatives, the visitors were very white and mostly american.
I visited Glacier about 25-30 times between 1991 and 1997 and I
definitely heard non-English far more than not. I suppose both of our
experiences are valid.
--
Paul Miner
Todd Allcock
Verizon uses a roaming partner because they have no license to operate in
that area.
There are opposite examples, of course. Large swaths of New Mexico
(including a good chunk of highway between Santa Fe and Roswell) have no
Verizon service but both AT&T and T-Mo have coverage because the sole
carrier there (Plateau Wireless) happens to be GSM rather than CDMA, so
Verizon can't roam on them.
My own neighborhood, a twenty year-old subdivision in suburban Denver had
no Verizon or AT&T service when I moved here in 2003, but had decent
Sprint, T-Mo and Nextel service. Verizon finally had coverage by 2005 or
so, and AT&T a year or so after that. (That situation shook my faith in
the supposed superiority of 800MHz carriers!)
AJL
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>If you recall, the original definition of "roaming" was simply using your
>phone outside your home market... you paid roaming charges when
> traveling outside your home area even in areas covered
>by your own carrier.
Yep, I'm still on one of those Verizon voice plans. It's called a
Legacy plan because it hasn't been offered to new customers in several
years. If I'm anywhere outside my home metro area I'm charged roaming
for voice calls, even if I'm on a Verizon network. Interestingly, I
also have unlimited data on the same phone and there are no extra data
charges no matter where I am (in the US) or whose network I'm on...
jcdill
> 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.
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.
jc
nospam
<jcdill...@gmail.com> 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.
NotMe
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:220820112032502273%nos...@nospam.invalid...
I have no dog in this fight but I've used both Sprint and PP. And
interestingly enough I do go to rural and some not so rural areas where PP
works and Sprint does not.
Anonymous
wrote:
>Of course if you have unlimited data there is really no need to have any
>texting plan at all, with all the other options like Beluga, Kik,
>PingChat or even Google Voice.
The "need" for a texting plan comes down to (1) needing to communicate
with people that have dumb ("feature") phones and (2) GoogleVoice not
supporting MMS.
SMS
> On 22/08/11 4:02 PM, nospam 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.
That's true, unless you give out your Google Voice number to people
rather than your cell phone number. I now give out my Google Voice
number because a) I'd rather pick up the call on a landline if I'm at
home or work than on the cell phone because of the voice quality, and b)
I prefer the voice mail on Google since it e-mails a transcription of
the call to me.
> 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.
Few people turn off pay-as-you-go texting even if they have no texting
plan, though they are often annoyed at receiving junk texts. And of
course for sending text messages, you can do it via the web to their
cell phone number using Google Voice, or via e-mail using one of the
e-mail to text e-mail addresses:
Sprint: phone...@messaging.sprintpcs.com
Verizon/Pageplus: phone...@vtext.com
T-Mobile: phone...@tmomail.net
AT&T: phone...@txt.att.net
Virgin: phone...@vmobl.com
Boost: phone...@myboostmobile.com
Nextel: phone...@messaging.nextel.com
MetroPCS: phone...@mymetropcs.com
The bottom line is that if you have unlimited data already, you can
structure things to use very few text messages.
Anonymous
wrote:
>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.
Exactly.
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.
Most people don't travel out of the country, and if they do they don't
care about whether it can get overseas 3G or even bringing their phone
with them and (1) get dinged on roaming charges or (2) unlock their
phone and use a foreign SIM. And most people don't flip out if their
phone's camera isn't a good as a DSLR.
SMS
> 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.
Vic Smith
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
SMS
> 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.
Vic Smith
wrote:
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
jcdill
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
nospam
<jcdill...@gmail.com> 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.
Rod Speed
But not enough of those even want to make a phone call for at&t and t-mobile to care.
Justin
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:29 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> 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...
Justi
Sort of. None of the text apps I have come across for android offer
reliable email to text message gateways.
Try getting pages sent to an email address to deliver to google voice.
SMS
> 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?
It's pretty rare that a subscriber will have the cell company disable
text messaging completely, and it's not by default. Many subscribers
don't even know that it's an option to have the carrier disable text
messaging.
But yes, you're right that if the customer has disabled texting, rather
than just not signing up for a texting plan, they won't receive a text
message no matter which portal it is sent from. I had a relative tell me
to not text her any more because it cost her 20¢ each to receive them. I
had sent the text to avoid disturbing her at work. Now I just use the
backdoor voice mail number to leave her a voice mail without having her
phone ring. I had stopped even thinking about texting costs because I
had 2000 of them (now 3000) included in my monthly $29.95 plan, of which
I probably have never used more than 25 in a month.
SMS
> Sort of. None of the text apps I have come across for android offer
> reliable email to text message gateways.
If I were trying to minimize text messages because I had unlimited data
but no texting plan I would, in my contact list, include the e-mail to
text e-mail address for the contact, so I was not dependent on any other
application. Responses would come bacto my e-mail. But you would have to
know which carrier the recipient uses. Google Voice messaging also
works, and you don't need to know the carrier that the recipient is using.
Justi
Wrong direction.
The messages are to me and my text app from who knows what external email
address.
SMS
True, there's no way to fix that, other than using a Google Voice number
rather than your own cell phone number, and have your cell phone as one
of the numbers that Google voice rings. I've been giving out my Google
Voice number as my cell phone number (not for texting reasons though,
because of other advantages).
Justi
I do give out my google voice number.
The problem is that we have all our paging alerts for work going to
email addresses to SMS email gateways. Google voice doesn't offer this
functionality. I haven't found a reliable solution for the couple hundred
pages a month that I don't really want to pay the extra
$10 a month to receive.
jcdill
Besides yourself, how many people do you know who give out a VOIP number
as the primary number for others to call to reach them? I know a LOT of
technical people, many early adopters, and I can only think of one
person who uses a VOIP number as their primary number. Most just use
one phone and just give out their cell numbers, some give out landlines
(for home and/or office) in addition to their cell numbers.
If someone is using VOIP, they aren't really using a cell phone, they
are using a hand-held computer. You can't easily call out using a VOIP
number, it's a much more complicated process, and TTBOMK it doesn't lend
itself to easy use from most other smartphone applications (e.g.
pressing on a phone number in email and having it handed off to the
phone app for dialing).
It's a lot like using GIMP - no matter how much the GIMP fans say it's
"just as good as photoshop", in reality it falls far short in the UI
department, and without an easy to use UI a product isn't going to work
for most people.
jc
nospam
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.
>
> Besides yourself, how many people do you know who give out a VOIP number
> as the primary number for others to call to reach them? I know a LOT of
> technical people, many early adopters, and I can only think of one
> person who uses a VOIP number as their primary number. Most just use
> one phone and just give out their cell numbers, some give out landlines
> (for home and/or office) in addition to their cell numbers.
first of all, i never said i use voip (i don't). it's an option for
those who want it.
second, as far as texting goes, use google voice and people can call or
text that number and gv will take care of sending the texts to the app
and forward calls to any number of phones including the actual cell
number, a landline or a voip app (was easier with gizmo5 but that's
history now). the caller won't know which one you answer.
google voice is well integrated on an android phone, which isn't too
surprising, but works fine on an iphone too.
the fact is that it's easy to use a free texting app and not pay for a
texting plan from the carrier, and people can send and receive to/fro a
standard phone number without any need of an app of their own. they can
do it with a free dumbphone for all it matters.
> If someone is using VOIP, they aren't really using a cell phone, they
> are using a hand-held computer.
all cell phones these days are hand held computers.
> You can't easily call out using a VOIP
> number, it's a much more complicated process,
nonsense. it's just as easy as calling normally. your address book is
accessible or you can tap out the phone number.
> and TTBOMK it doesn't lend
> itself to easy use from most other smartphone applications (e.g.
> pressing on a phone number in email and having it handed off to the
> phone app for dialing).
that part is true on an iphone, but that's about the only limitation.
> It's a lot like using GIMP - no matter how much the GIMP fans say it's
> "just as good as photoshop", in reality it falls far short in the UI
> department, and without an easy to use UI a product isn't going to work
> for most people.
it's nothing at all like it.
jcdill
>> If someone is using VOIP, they aren't really using a cell phone, they
>> are using a hand-held computer.
>
> all cell phones these days are hand held computers.
There's a significant difference between receiving a voice call over the
cell network, and receiving a VOIP call over the data channel of a cell
network. The former has a higher priority in the cell phone network's
design and operations.
>> You can't easily call out using a VOIP
>> number, it's a much more complicated process,
>
> nonsense. it's just as easy as calling normally. your address book is
> accessible or you can tap out the phone number.
And have the recipient see the call as coming from your *VOIP* number?
>> and TTBOMK it doesn't lend
>> itself to easy use from most other smartphone applications (e.g.
>> pressing on a phone number in email and having it handed off to the
>> phone app for dialing).
>
> that part is true on an iphone, but that's about the only limitation.
It's a *big* limitation. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you
like the play?
>> It's a lot like using GIMP - no matter how much the GIMP fans say it's
>> "just as good as photoshop", in reality it falls far short in the UI
>> department, and without an easy to use UI a product isn't going to work
>> for most people.
>
> it's nothing at all like it.
Says you. If it were as easy as you claim, more people would be doing
it your way.
jc
Anonymous
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.
Right, but I think (no evidence to support this besides just talking
to friends) that coverage *in the area they are in 99% of the time* is
what they care about.
They seem to prefer spending, say $10 less a month, for TMobile
service that works great where they are 99% of the time and doesn't
work when they are in Yosemite once a year for a week than spend $10 a
month for Verizon.
Justin
With google voice and an android phone it is a piece of cake
It's pretty easy with Skype, as well
Yes, the caller sees the correct number
Justin
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:29 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
> 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.
>
> Right, but I think (no evidence to support this besides just talking
> to friends) that coverage *in the area they are in 99% of the time* is
> what they care about.
I wonder why that would be. I would be OK without coverage in 5 % of the
area I spend 99% of my time in if it were available 100% of the time
in areas I don't go to often but would need to be able to call
if I get lost, break down, etc.
Perhaps they don't know that the T-Mobile service doesn't work well in an
area like Yosemite until they get there
SMS
> They seem to prefer spending, say $10 less a month, for TMobile
> service that works great where they are 99% of the time and doesn't
> work when they are in Yosemite once a year for a week than spend $10 a
> month for Verizon.
Considering the relative churn numbers and subscriber additions,
obviously they prefer spending that $10 extra.
Of course it's relative. T-Mobile had a net loss of only 50,000
customers in Q2 2011, versus 99,000 lost in Q1 2011. Churn increased
from 2.2% in Q2 2010 to 2.4% in Q2 2011.
Verizon had postpaid churn of 0.89% in Q2, and had net additions of 2.2
million subscribers. Verizon's high numbers were obviously helped by new
iPhone customers, and the low churn was helped by the end of unlimited
data, so few customers would want to leave and lose that forever.
AT&T added 1.1 million subscribers and had postpaid churn of 1.06%.
Their churn is also helped by so many people with grandfathered
unlimited data being unwilling to leave.
It should be noted though that T-Mobile is actively trying to lose
customers because they know it will help the case for the AT&T
acquisition being approved. They've implemented pricing changes that
make their plans much less competitive, something only a carrier that
wanted to lose customers would do.
Paul Miner
I think it makes a lot of sense to want coverage in areas where I
spend nearly all of my time in exchange for no coverage where I very
rarely spend any time. That just seems like common sense.
These days, getting lost and/or breaking down are very far down on my
list of concerns. I haven't been lost in over 50 years and my last
vehicle breakdown was in 1979. A much bigger danger, but still highly
improbably, would be wild animal attack. As extremely unlikely as that
is, I only mention it to show how getting lost and breaking down are
even more unlikely.
>Perhaps they don't know that the T-Mobile service doesn't work well in an
>area like Yosemite until they get there
In my case, I probably wouldn't notice, and if I did notice, I
probably wouldn't care. Of all the times I've been to 'remote'
National Parks like Yosemite, Zion, Glacier, and Yellowstone, I don't
remember even taking my phone out of my pocket, let alone trying to
make a call. Checking to see if I have coverage there is not something
that I've done, ever.
--
Paul Miner
nospam
<jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If someone is using VOIP, they aren't really using a cell phone, they
> >> are using a hand-held computer.
> >
> > all cell phones these days are hand held computers.
>
> There's a significant difference between receiving a voice call over the
> cell network, and receiving a VOIP call over the data channel of a cell
> network. The former has a higher priority in the cell phone network's
> design and operations.
there's virtually no difference to the user. the phone rings, you
answer it.
> >> You can't easily call out using a VOIP
> >> number, it's a much more complicated process,
> >
> > nonsense. it's just as easy as calling normally. your address book is
> > accessible or you can tap out the phone number.
>
> And have the recipient see the call as coming from your *VOIP* number?
sure. what's wrong with it showing as coming from a voip number? then
they'll call you back on it. or, you use google voice.
> >> and TTBOMK it doesn't lend
> >> itself to easy use from most other smartphone applications (e.g.
> >> pressing on a phone number in email and having it handed off to the
> >> phone app for dialing).
> >
> > that part is true on an iphone, but that's about the only limitation.
>
> It's a *big* limitation. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you
> like the play?
it's not a big limitation at all. most people call out of the address
book or tap out a number, and it makes *no* difference for incoming
calls. it also might not be a limitation at all on android, where i
think you can change the default dialer.
> >> It's a lot like using GIMP - no matter how much the GIMP fans say it's
> >> "just as good as photoshop", in reality it falls far short in the UI
> >> department, and without an easy to use UI a product isn't going to work
> >> for most people.
> >
> > it's nothing at all like it.
>
> Says you. If it were as easy as you claim, more people would be doing
> it your way.
the texting apps are quite popular.
Justin
> It should be noted though that T-Mobile is actively trying to lose
> customers because they know it will help the case for the AT&T
> acquisition being approved. They've implemented pricing changes that
> make their plans much less competitive, something only a carrier that
> wanted to lose customers would do.
How is $49 unlimited talk, text and data less competitive?
Justin
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:43:51 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>Anonymous wrote on [Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:19:50 -0700]:
>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:05:29 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Right, but I think (no evidence to support this besides just talking
>>> to friends) that coverage *in the area they are in 99% of the time* is
>>> what they care about.
>>
>>I wonder why that would be. I would be OK without coverage in 5 % of the
>>area I spend 99% of my time in if it were available 100% of the time
>>in areas I don't go to often but would need to be able to call
>>if I get lost, break down, etc.
>
> I think it makes a lot of sense to want coverage in areas where I
> spend nearly all of my time in exchange for no coverage where I very
> rarely spend any time. That just seems like common sense.
Perhaps, I find that I need my phone more often in areas where I don't
spend all my time.
> These days, getting lost and/or breaking down are very far down on my
> list of concerns. I haven't been lost in over 50 years and my last
> vehicle breakdown was in 1979. A much bigger danger, but still highly
> improbably, would be wild animal attack. As extremely unlikely as that
> is, I only mention it to show how getting lost and breaking down are
> even more unlikely.
I have to assume you are referring to this:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8286927/mother-hears-bear-cubs-eat-daughter
A teenager who was eaten alive by a brown bear and her cubs in Russia called her mother and gave a horrific running commentary of the attack, telling her "the bear is eating me!"
> In my case, I probably wouldn't notice, and if I did notice, I
> probably wouldn't care. Of all the times I've been to 'remote'
> National Parks like Yosemite, Zion, Glacier, and Yellowstone, I don't
> remember even taking my phone out of my pocket, let alone trying to
> make a call. Checking to see if I have coverage there is not something
> that I've done, ever.
No, you may not notice until you need it
Steve Sobol
>
> On 23/08/11 12:18 PM, nospam wrote:
> > In article<j30tk0$u15$2...@dont-email.me>, jcdill
> > <jcdill...@gmail.com> 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.
>
> Besides yourself, how many people do you know who give out a VOIP number
> as the primary number for others to call to reach them?
I do. Right now the calls just forward to my cell phone, but I have a
SIP client installed on my phone, and may decide to use it in the
future. That way, the office line's caller ID shows up on outgoing
calls. (I don't want everyone to have my cell phone number.)
> If someone is using VOIP, they aren't really using a cell phone, they
> are using a hand-held computer. You can't easily call out using a VOIP
> number, it's a much more complicated process, and TTBOMK it doesn't lend
> itself to easy use from most other smartphone applications (e.g.
> pressing on a phone number in email and having it handed off to the
> phone app for dialing).
With Android, you can write an app that can be used as the default
dialer. I use 3CX's SIP client and it does exactly that. It's easy to
override that default if you need to do so.
--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjs...@JustThe.net
Steve Sobol
> And have the recipient see the call as coming from your *VOIP* number?
In my case, I can do exactly that.
Steve Sobol
It isn't. Steven needs to pull up his pants and stop talking out of his
ass.
Vic Smith
<pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>In my case, I probably wouldn't notice, and if I did notice, I
>probably wouldn't care. Of all the times I've been to 'remote'
>National Parks like Yosemite, Zion, Glacier, and Yellowstone, I don't
>remember even taking my phone out of my pocket, let alone trying to
>make a call. Checking to see if I have coverage there is not something
>that I've done, ever.
I never checked either, but with Steve around that's taken care of.
--Vic
SMS
> And have the recipient see the call as coming from your *VOIP* number?
Yes. Not sure what you're saying here. Are you asking if the caller sees
your VOIP number (they do) or are you implying that it's bad that the
caller sees your VOIP phone number rather than your cell phone number?
With Google Voice you can set it up so the phone asks each time if you
want to complete the call via Google Voice or the cell network, or you
can set it for all calls to go over Google Voice, or for no calls, or
only for international calls. It's not complicated.
I don't know about AT&T, but on Verizon's 3G network the difference
between a VOIP call and a cell call is hard to distinguish one way or
the other. I could see how that given AT&T's network congestion that
VOIP could be an issue.
Personally, since I'm on Verizon's MVNO Pageplus, with lots of minutes
and lots of texts, but only 100MB of included data, I would not want to
use VOIP for calls or texts, but for those on Verizon with a low number
of minutes and no texting plan, but unlimited data it makes sense to
those that want to save a couple of hundred dollars per year.
For home use, it's almost like having a micro cell in your house, you
can use Wi-Fi with your cell phone and not use up minutes.
The end of unlimited data, not only on cellular, but also on broadband
and DSL, is less because of network congestion, and more because the
providers realized that so many services were piggybacking on unlimited
data that they were losing control of being able to sell users extra
services, whether it's music, video, texting services, or even simple
calls. This is bad news for audio services like Pandora and especially
video services like Slingbox.
SMS
> It isn't. Steven needs to pull up his pants and stop talking out of his
> ass.
Very classy response. Wrong of course, but your vocabulary certainly
helps your believability.
First of all, the price for unlimited voice, unlimited text, and 2GB of
3G data (unlimited throttled data) is $60, not $49. If you have a family
plan with two or more users then it falls to $50/month/person.
<http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/Cell-Phone-Plans.aspx?catgroup=Individual&WT.z_shop_plansLP=individual>
Second, "no digital roaming charges across the US" is highly misleading;
a) how is "digital roaming" different than "roaming" (T-Mobile has not
offered analog roaming in the U.S. since it was Voicestream, and that
was only with the funky Nokia NRM-1 analog adapter), and b) roaming
coverage has been shrinking as roaming agreements with AT&T have
expired. If I were cynical, I'd say that one of the reasons these
agreements were not renewed was to help cause the loss of T-Mobile
customers we're now seeing in order to make T-Mobile appear less viable
as a stand-alone U.S. carrier, and hence help win regulatory approval
for the acquisition by AT&T. But no company/companies could be that devious.
Third, "unlimited" is too often a gimmick used to get customers on a
plan that's too big for them (except when you're eliminating unlimited
because customers actually took "unlimited" too literally). A 2010
Nielsen study showed average monthly minutes of cell phone usage to be
762 (including both peak and off-peak). Average number of texts was 524
(but heavy teenage texting pulled that average way up).
<http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-25/tech/nielsen.phone.use_1_mobile-phones-mobile-devices-text-messages?_s=PM:TECH>.
As to data, that's been discussed a lot here. For T-Mobile, the median
smartphone data consumption was 51.4MB/month in 2010 and the average was
303.9. About 59% of T-Mobile customers used less than 200MB/month.
<http://blog.validas.com/index.php/2011/08/are-you-leaving-data-on-the-table-with-your-smartphone-plan/>
In any case, consumers clearly believe that T-Mobile's value proposition
is no longer compelling, based on their increasing churn and their loss
of subscribers. For those with grandfathered plans on T-Mobile (and
those using iPhones on 2G with unlimited data), T-Mobile has some value.
But their coverage issues, their handset selection, and their lack of a
roadmap to 4G LTE indicates that they have lost the desire to continue
as a company in the U.S.. I don't like the idea of lessening competition
by AT&T buying them, but that is occurring anyway. Grandfathered
customers on T-Mobile may benefit by the acquisition if AT&T doesn't
boot them off all the sweet deals they have.
SMS
And of you've never needed or wanted to make a call while enroute to
those parks either. It's great that non-urban coverage is of such minor
importance to you. Most people like having coverage when on road trips
into rural areas. To each their own.
jcdill
> With google voice and an android phone it is a piece of cake
> Yes, the caller sees the correct number
HOW do you do this?
jc
Richard B. Gilbert
It seems to me that a good travel agent should be aware of which
carriers provide service in the area(s) that you plan to visit. If he
doesn't know, he should certainly know how to find out! It certainly
will not hurt to ASK before you go!
Rod Speed
> Paul Miner wrote>>>> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Right, but I think (no evidence to support this besides just
>>>> talking to friends) that coverage *in the area they are in 99% of
>>>> the time* is what they care about.
>>> I wonder why that would be. I would be OK without coverage in 5 %
>>> of the area I spend 99% of my time in if it were available 100% of
>>> the time in areas I don't go to often but would need to be able to call
>>> if I get lost, break down, etc.
>> I think it makes a lot of sense to want coverage in areas where
>> I spend nearly all of my time in exchange for no coverage where
>> I very rarely spend any time. That just seems like common sense.
> Perhaps, I find that I need my phone more often in areas where I don't
> spend all my time.
I dont.
>> These days, getting lost and/or breaking down are very far down on my
>> list of concerns. I haven't been lost in over 50 years and my last
>> vehicle breakdown was in 1979. A much bigger danger, but still highly
>> improbably, would be wild animal attack. As extremely unlikely as
>> that is, I only mention it to show how getting lost and breaking
>> down are even more unlikely.
> I have to assume you are referring to this:
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8286927/mother-hears-bear-cubs-eat-daughter
> A teenager who was eaten alive by a brown bear and her cubs in Russia
> called her mother and gave a horrific running commentary of the
> attack, telling her "the bear is eating me!"
But thats much less common than someone calling to say
they are being assaulted by a person rather than a bear.
And a fat lot of use it is to tell someone a bear is eating you anyway.
They arent likely to be close enough to be able to do anything about
that. At least with an assault by a person, you can call 911 and they
can do something about it.
>> In my case, I probably wouldn't notice, and if I did notice, I
>> probably wouldn't care. Of all the times I've been to 'remote'
>> National Parks like Yosemite, Zion, Glacier, and Yellowstone,
>> I don't remember even taking my phone out of my pocket, let
>> alone trying to make a call. Checking to see if I have coverage
>> there is not something that I've done, ever.
> No, you may not notice until you need it
Sure, but I did that sort of thing before cellphones
were even invented and managed to survive that fine.
And I currently do prefer to walk in places like that, just beause
its more interesting than walking around the streets for exercise
and I have ensured that I have a GPS capable phone so that if
I do something stupid like break my leg I can just whistle up some
assistence and get someone to come and get me. But I dont need
my carrier to have a base there for that, just anyone to have a base
that my phone can use for the 911 call.
Justin
Who uses a travel agent anymore?
Also, if I have great service locally, why would I even think to ask
if I can get a call in the middle of Jellystone park?
Justin
Download voice onto your phone
go into the settings via the menu key
there is an option called "Making Calls"
Check "Use google voice to make all calls"
Justin
> Justin wrote
>
> And I currently do prefer to walk in places like that, just beause
> its more interesting than walking around the streets for exercise
> and I have ensured that I have a GPS capable phone so that if
> I do something stupid like break my leg I can just whistle up some
> assistence and get someone to come and get me. But I dont need
> my carrier to have a base there for that, just anyone to have a base
> that my phone can use for the 911 call.
Interesting? If I have a CDMA only phone and there's only a GSM
tower anywhere near in range, it can take a 911 call?
jcdill
Is the call being made as a cell phone call (minutes usage), or as a
VOIP (data usage) call?
Rod Speed
> Justin wrote>>>> 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.
>>> Right, but I think (no evidence to support this besides just talking
>>> to friends) that coverage *in the area they are in 99% of the time*
>>> is what they care about.
>> I wonder why that would be. I would be OK without coverage in 5 % of
>> the area I spend 99% of my time in if it were available 100% of the
>> time in areas I don't go to often but would need to be able to call
>> if I get lost, break down, etc.
>> Perhaps they don't know that the T-Mobile service doesn't work well
>> in an area like Yosemite until they get there
> It seems to me that a good travel agent should be aware of which
> carriers provide service in the area(s) that you plan to visit.
I doubt most use a travel agent for that sort of thing.
> If he doesn't know, he should certainly know how to find out!
And if he knows how to find out, so does the individual doing the travel!!
> It certainly will not hurt to ASK before you go!
No point if you arent likely to use the phone there.
Rod Speed
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>> Justin wrote
>>> Anonymous wrote
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Right, but I think (no evidence to support this besides just
>>>> talking to friends) that coverage *in the area they are in 99% of
>>>> the time* is what they care about.
>>> I wonder why that would be. I would be OK without coverage in 5 %
>>> of the area I spend 99% of my time in if it were available 100% of
>>> the time in areas I don't go to often but would need to be able to call
>>> if I get lost, break down, etc.
>>> Perhaps they don't know that the T-Mobile service doesn't work well
>>> in an area like Yosemite until they get there
>> It seems to me that a good travel agent should be aware of which
>> carriers provide service in the area(s) that you plan to visit. If
>> he doesn't know, he should certainly know how to find out! It
>> certainly will not hurt to ASK before you go!
> Who uses a travel agent anymore?
Particularly for that sort of thing.
> Also, if I have great service locally, why would I even think to ask
> if I can get a call in the middle of Jellystone park?
Because many are aware that places like that dont have the same coverage as normal suburban areas.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Justin wrote
Nope, thats what I meant with the last sentence.
Justin
That's a good question, I think it's a cell phone call to a voip access
number that then routes the call to the destination
jcdill
>> Also, if I have great service locally, why would I even think to ask
>> if I can get a call in the middle of Jellystone park?
>
> Because many are aware that places like that dont have the same coverage as normal suburban areas.
Aware in general (that many parks have coverage holes), maybe. But
aware of the particulars, such as which parks have coverage from which
cell services? I highly doubt that travel agents have any special
knowledge of this topic.
jc
jcdill
>> Besides yourself, how many people do you know who give out a VOIP number
>> as the primary number for others to call to reach them?
>
> I do.
*besides yourself*, how many....?
jc
tycho
"jcdill" <jcdill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j33q2i$dcj$2...@dont-email.me...
One more here... :-P
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Justin wrote
>>> Also, if I have great service locally, why would I even think to ask if I can get a call in the middle of Jellystone
>>> park?
>> Because many are aware that places like that dont have the same coverage as normal suburban areas.
> Aware in general (that many parks have coverage holes), maybe.
No maybe about it.
> But aware of the particulars, such as which parks have coverage from which cell services? I highly doubt that travel
> agents have any special knowledge of this topic.
I bet they do. Not that many would use them for destinations like that.
Rod Speed
> Steve Sobol wrote
>> I do.
> *besides yourself*, how many....?
Plenty I know do, and deliberately have a variety of voip indial numbers
so that those that call them much can call them for the cost of a local call.
Thats always been one of the very big advantages of voip services.
Richard B. Gilbert
AFAIK CDMA and GSM are two completely different and incompatible
technologies. There are no exceptions for 911 calls!
There is nothing to prevent more than one carrier to install antennas
on a single tower.
In fact, if you study the towers you see, you may find that many are
shared; e.g. you might find two or more different carriers sharing a
single tower. Or you might find antennas for two or more different
services.
Richard B. Gilbert
I don't know. The last time I traveled by commercial air a travel agent
issued the ticket, scheduled the airport limousine, etc, etc.
If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff for
yourself. The infrequent traveler should probably seek professional help!
YMMV!
Steve Sobol
>
> On 8/24/2011 6:01 AM, jcdill wrote:
>
> > And have the recipient see the call as coming from your *VOIP* number?
>
> Yes. Not sure what you're saying here. Are you asking if the caller sees
> your VOIP number (they do) or are you implying that it's bad that the
> caller sees your VOIP phone number rather than your cell phone number?
>
> With Google Voice you can set it up so the phone asks each time if you
> want to complete the call via Google Voice or the cell network, or you
> can set it for all calls to go over Google Voice, or for no calls, or
> only for international calls. It's not complicated.
Same with the 3CX VoIP client I use.
That applies to Android. Don't know if iPhone SIP clients work the same.
SMS
Well I don't know many besides myself, but it's definitely more than
one. With Google Voice being more widely deployed it's increasing. The
thing is you don't really know if it's a VOIP number you've been given
since there is nothing that would indicate it. So "how many people do
you know?" is really not the right question to ask.
Steve Sobol
>
> On 8/24/2011 9:28 AM, Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> > It isn't. Steven needs to pull up his pants and stop talking out of his
> > ass.
>
> Very classy response. Wrong of course, but your vocabulary certainly
> helps your believability.
You know, maybe I'm just tired of hearing the same old thing out of you,
over and over, ad nauseum. PagePlus is undoubtedly a good deal for a lot
of people, but it's not one-size-fits-all, yet every chance you get, you
crow about how awesome it is.
And I've tried saying the same thing before, without being vulgar, but
you just ignore me. At least I got your attention this time.
> as a company in the U.S.. I don't like the idea of lessening
competition
> by AT&T buying them, but that is occurring anyway. Grandfathered
> customers on T-Mobile may benefit by the acquisition if AT&T doesn't
> boot them off all the sweet deals they have.
But it most likely won't. AT&T has been touting the cost savings that
will result from this. They don't need spectrum although they claim they
do (they are lying - they don't make good use of what they already
have). They already have more spectrum than they know what to do with.
They want to eliminate a competitor and raise prices.
There are two reasons I don't want to use PagePlus:
(1) I use an average of about 1200-1500 minutes per month. My son sends
several THOUSAND texts every month. Prepaid IS NOT cost-effective for
me.
(2) Verizon screwed me. For six months, I was dropping calls IN FRONT OF
ONE OF THEIR RETAIL STORES, in one of the busiest, most heavily-
populated sections of the Victor Valley. For almost that long, they
insisted that the problem was my phone even though I NEVER had a problem
making or receiving calls elswhere. They finally admitted that the
problem was on their end, but by then, it was too late, I was one month
away from the end of my contract and planning to jump ship.
So, I'm not inclined to give VZW my money, either directly, or
indirectly by becoming a PagePlus customer.
Rod Speed
> Justin wrote
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
No need when going to the sort of place being discussed.
Richard B. Gilbert
Oh! Right! Just jump in your car and drive a thousand or two miles.
Hope that you don't get lost. Stay in a motel each night if you can
find one with a vacancy.
Or climb aboard some random Airliner and hope you can parachute into
Yellowstone Park.
Or maybe you could bite the bullet and consult a travel agent. Or, if
it's something you have done every year for the last ten years, you
*know* which airline you want to fly, which hotel/motel you want to stay
in. . . . Pick up the phone and arrange hotel rooms as needed. Call
Hertz to arrange a rental car. . . .
I think that, in most cases, you will be better off using a good travel
agent.
Paul Miner
wrote:
I see what you did there. I spoke for myself while you spoke for "most
people."
--
Paul Miner
Paul Miner
<rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>It seems to me that a good travel agent should be aware of which
>carriers provide service in the area(s) that you plan to visit. If he
>doesn't know, he should certainly know how to find out! It certainly
>will not hurt to ASK before you go!
Travel agent? Do those still exist?
--
Paul Miner
Paul Miner
Yes, but what year was that? 1982? :-)
>If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff for
>yourself. The infrequent traveler should probably seek professional help!
SMS says WiFi is nearly ubiquitous. With all of that Internet access
floating around, what excuse would a person use to seek out a travel
agent, if they still exist, versus simply arranging their own travel?
--
Paul Miner
Paul Miner
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:01:28 -0500, Paul Miner
><pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>In my case, I probably wouldn't notice, and if I did notice, I
>>probably wouldn't care. Of all the times I've been to 'remote'
>>National Parks like Yosemite, Zion, Glacier, and Yellowstone, I don't
>>remember even taking my phone out of my pocket, let alone trying to
>>make a call. Checking to see if I have coverage there is not something
>>that I've done, ever.
>
>I never checked either, but with Steve around that's taken care of.
Ah, so that's why we keep him around. ;-)
--
Paul Miner
SMS
> They seem to prefer spending, say $10 less a month, for TMobile
> service that works great where they are 99% of the time and doesn't
> work when they are in Yosemite once a year for a week than spend $10 a
> month for Verizon.
Fortunately those are not the only two choices.
nospam
Gilbert <rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Oh! Right! Just jump in your car and drive a thousand or two miles.
> Hope that you don't get lost. Stay in a motel each night if you can
> find one with a vacancy.
get a gps or paper maps, and plan ahead on which hotels to use.
> Or climb aboard some random Airliner and hope you can parachute into
> Yellowstone Park.
no need, there are several airports nearby.
> Or maybe you could bite the bullet and consult a travel agent. Or, if
> it's something you have done every year for the last ten years, you
> *know* which airline you want to fly, which hotel/motel you want to stay
> in. . . . Pick up the phone and arrange hotel rooms as needed. Call
> Hertz to arrange a rental car. . . .
or just use one of numerous web sites that search for deals on air
fares, hotels, and car rentals. many have online deals not available to
a travel agent.
> I think that, in most cases, you will be better off using a good travel
> agent.
not at all.
Richard B. Gilbert
WiFi is not going to help you select a hotel in a strange city. If you
pick a hotel at random you may find that it rents rooms by the hour!
Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.
A travel agent may not be essential to the experienced traveler. For
the infrequent traveler such as I, a travel agent is a necessity!
SMS
> And I've tried saying the same thing before, without being vulgar, but
> you just ignore me. At least I got your attention this time.
It is not required that anyone respond to every post. I'll try not to
ignore you in the future. You are not filtered.
> But it most likely won't. AT&T has been touting the cost savings that
> will result from this. They don't need spectrum although they claim they
> do (they are lying - they don't make good use of what they already
> have). They already have more spectrum than they know what to do with.
> They want to eliminate a competitor and raise prices.
They want to be bigger than Verizon. They managed briefly, by buying
AT&T Wireless, then Verizon went and acquired Alltel. If the
Cingular/AT&T deal is any indication, T-Mobile customers will not keep
their grandfathered plans for very long after the acquisition.
Richard B. Gilbert
Have you looked in the Yellow Pages of your phone book? I counted
thirty travel agents before I got tired of the game. So yes, travel
agents still exist!
Paul Miner
<rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/24/2011 10:48 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:38:54 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
>> <rgilb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/24/2011 3:32 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who uses a travel agent anymore?
>>>
>>> I don't know. The last time I traveled by commercial air a travel agent
>>> issued the ticket, scheduled the airport limousine, etc, etc.
>>
>> Yes, but what year was that? 1982? :-)
>>
>>> If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff for
>>> yourself. The infrequent traveler should probably seek professional help!
>>
>> SMS says WiFi is nearly ubiquitous. With all of that Internet access
>> floating around, what excuse would a person use to seek out a travel
>> agent, if they still exist, versus simply arranging their own travel?
>>
>
>WiFi is not going to help you select a hotel in a strange city. If you
>pick a hotel at random you may find that it rents rooms by the hour!
Not at all. If you have Internet access you have access to everything
that travel agents used to have access to. There's no reason to seek
out a travel agent* versus doing it yourself, unless you're lazy or
wish to spend more than necessary.
*I honestly don't know if there are still travel agents around. I
would think they are very few and very far between, these days.
>Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.
>A travel agent may not be essential to the experienced traveler. For
>the infrequent traveler such as I, a travel agent is a necessity!
A travel agent is absolutely not required. Again, if you have Internet
access you have access to everything you need to know, including the
terminal and gate information for your flight. To someone with
Internet access, I can't imagine what value a travel agent would be
able to offer in exchange for his/her fee.
--
Paul Miner