How many users actually benefit from $99 unlimited?

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price increase--beyond
>>> even what they've done over the past two years, which is large.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>>> But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month,
>>> and will instead move to prepaid.
>>
>> You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago
>> that "basic cable" would start at $50/month?
>
> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
> but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
> how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
> expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.

Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
$99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
package of services including HBO and others.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-02-23, bruceR <no.one@home.com> wrote:

> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.

Plus, satellite requires line-of-sight to the "bird"... and many people
don't have that. For example, satellite would never have worked at the
last place I lived in Ohio... trees to the southwest pretty much guaranteed
that...


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

At 23 Feb 2008 10:42:44 -0800 SMS wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:

> Yes, I use a very good 850/1900 Motorola model handset for GSM
> testing on AT&T Wireless, I just tried the SIM in the 1900 MHz models
> because I wanted to see if T-Mobile had added coverage to my area.


Are you sure SpeakOut still roams on T-Mo in your area? I think the
network transition is over (or darn near.) The network IDs were recently
changed, IIRC.


Can't you just do a network search and see who comes up? Or does Cingular
lock that menu out?

(Although last year when I was in the Bay Area a network search on my T-Mo
phone and SIM showed "Cingular" and "Cingular") ;-)

>> According to some Sprint users, if you set your handset to roaming
>> only then Sprint does allow roaming onto Verizon even in areas where
>> Sprint has a network.
>
> Neat feature, but I've never tried Sprint so I can't confirm or deny.
>
>

This feature is included on all Sprint "digital only" phones that have been
released in the past several years.
>

> Someday I'll find a Sprint subscriber in my area and be able to confirm or
> deny this, but I've not yet met one. Everyone I know uses either AT&T or
> Verizon (or T-Mobile prepaid). I do know one Sprint subscriber in Florida
> and one in L.A., so maybe the next time I see them I'll try it. The Sprint
> coverage in most of California is nearly as bad as T-Mobile's coverage.

You are very uninformed and are probably operating from out-of-date facts or
are simply repeating something that you read or something that one of your
buddies said while in a bar. Sprint coverage in Southern California is as
good or better than Verizon. Sprint will also allow you to force your
digital Sprint Phone to Roaming Only mode anytime that you desire. This
gives you the best of Verizon and Sprint together anytime that you want to
use this capability. Therefore, Sprint is better than Verizon because it is
the only cell phone service that offers this option. I have the best of
Verizon and Sprint in one phone on a low cost plan.

"bruceR" <no.one@home.com> wrote in message
news:Q8udnVzWlfR77l3anZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com. ..

>> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
>> but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
>> how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
>> expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.
>
> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.

Wow. I've seen the $99 package on 6- and 12-month deals, but never for two
years. Quite a coup.

bruceR wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>> At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price increase--beyond
>>>> even what they've done over the past two years, which is large.
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month,
>>>> and will instead move to prepaid.
>>> You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago
>>> that "basic cable" would start at $50/month?
>> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
>> but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
>> how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
>> expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.
>
> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone for
> $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one included
> digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get after analog
> shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another $29/mo will get me a
> package of services including HBO and others.
>
>
They do it because they know it is an excellent strategy. They know most
people (no comment about you implied) don't care for change. So when the
rate goes way up after the promo period few will call for disconnection.

Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> "bruceR" <no.one@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Q8udnVzWlfR77l3anZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few years,
>>> but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was amazed to see
>>> how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain, but it's far less
>>> expensive than the equivalent programming from Comcast.
>>
>> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and Telephone
>> for $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want the one
>> included digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will continue to get
>> after analog shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box at all. Another
>> $29/mo will get me a package of services including HBO and others.
>
> Wow. I've seen the $99 package on 6- and 12-month deals, but never for
> two years. Quite a coup.
>

At least in my market they are offering a year as evidenced by the
glossy flyer that shows up in the mailbox every week.

> bruceR wrote:
>>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>>> At 22 Feb 2008 13:33:14 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I do agree that it will be a disguised price
>>>>> increase--beyond even what they've done over the past two years,
>>>>> which is large. Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But it just means that more people won't pay the $50 to $75/month,
>>>>> and will instead move to prepaid.
>>>> You give people too much credit! ;-) Who'd have thought years ago
>>>> that "basic cable" would start at $50/month?
>>> I've been out of the loop having had satellite for quite a few
>>> years, but I recently looked at the Comcast web site and I was
>>> amazed to see how much cable costs now. Satellite is no bargain,
>>> but it's far less expensive than the equivalent programming from
>>> Comcast.
>>
>> Depends on your needs. Comcast just gave me TV, Internet and
>> Telephone for $99/mo on a 2 year contract. Although I only need/want
>> the one included digital box, the other 8 TV's get, and will
>> continue to get after analog shuts down, channels 1-78 with no box
>> at all. Another $29/mo will get me a package of services including
>> HBO and others.
> They do it because they know it is an excellent strategy. They know
> most people (no comment about you implied) don't care for change. So
> when the rate goes way up after the promo period few will call for
> disconnection.

True. I responded to the one year offer but the CS person offered me two
years so I grabbed it. When the two years is up, I will likely call and read
them ATT's latest offer and get them to match it. They'll usually do it for
6 months at a time.

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> M.L. wrote:
>
>>> Also, in natural disasters, often the wireless networks are overloaded
>>> or go down, but landlines still work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, just the opposite is true. Granted, as usual you showed an
>> exception to the rule in order to pass it along as the rule. However,
>> during most natural disasters it's the landlines that go down first.
>
>
> Don't cell phones eventually connect via landlines? It seems to me that
> it's cell phone to tower by air, tower to central office by wire,
> Central office to central office by wire, central office to tower by
> wire and tower to cell by air. For wire, you may substitute fiber
> optics, if the local phone company is REALLY up-to-date.

Rural sites (like the one I just posted links to pictures of) used
microwave to connect to another cell site or to the main switch's tower
with all kinds of microwave dishes on it.

Think of the days of AT&T running Radio Relay, from the mid-'50s to the
mid-'90s. with all those feed horns and L-2 and L-3 circuits passing
phone calls and televison network feeds.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still
Email not munged, SpamAssassin [tm] in effect.
http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com
mailto:gleepy@gleepy.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen