FInally, a cell phone for the BITOG crowd

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: nthach
- back when they made all their gear in America.


and cost 10x each, and has a sales volume of 1/100 of today.
 
To be fair, carrier subsidies make up a lot of the "low-cost" since they know they have you for a couple of years. And except for the ability to text, I'm not sure there's much advantage to today's phones. I've hated AT&T from the moment they went GSM.
 
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
To be fair, carrier subsidies make up a lot of the "low-cost" since they know they have you for a couple of years. And except for the ability to text, I'm not sure there's much advantage to today's phones. I've hated AT&T from the moment they went GSM.


There are some, but it may not be significant to many users:

1) lower power -> use of smaller battery -> lower cost and lighter
2) multiple antenna (MIMO) -> extended range and higher bandwidth -> lower transmission cost and better signal quality (newer generation of signals / tower only)
3) better signal processors -> better range, better signal quality, less dropped calls, lower transmission power, smaller battery, smaller size, etc


Then you have all these fashion statements like flip phone, touch screen, texting, video, camera, etc. Most of the time a phone is a phone but it is getting much cheaper to operate the network with newer technologies (i.e. support more users without raising more towers) than before.

I wouldn't have imagine a plan with 5 lines with 350 mins per month, unlimited mobile to mobile, unlimited nights and weekends, for only $90/month 10 years ago.
 
Ah, yes but that's the thing, all my GSM experiences with AT&T/Cingular/AT&T have been bad. On my old pre-GSM (CDMA or TDMA) ATT phone, I could be in a lead-lined underground bunker and still get a call out. Now if someone stands between my phone and the tower, it drops calls. It's ridiculous that I can't make a call from places that I could easily do so 10 years ago. But at least I have cool ring tones and email!
 
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Ah, yes but that's the thing, all my GSM experiences with AT&T/Cingular/AT&T have been bad. On my old pre-GSM (CDMA or TDMA) ATT phone, I could be in a lead-lined underground bunker and still get a call out. Now if someone stands between my phone and the tower, it drops calls. It's ridiculous that I can't make a call from places that I could easily do so 10 years ago. But at least I have cool ring tones and email!


If it is because of recent change, sure, but now you can probably get a different provider and see if it makes your call better. I've heard that Nextel has the best coverage because they have some off spec transmission power that is much higher than the limit imposed by those of GSM (i.e. 2W max from what I remember years ago).

Coverage in US in general is inferior to other non 3rd world nations, because we use phone to keep customers rather than signal qualities and rate plan. At least you get a cool new phone every 2 years, oh well.
 
Yeah, I could switch, sure. What I don't understand, though, is why a company can have perfectly great service and then switch technologies and expect customers to put up with far inferior service. Now I really AM stuck with them since the wifey had to get herself an iPhone.

If I'd wanted awesome service with limited service area, I would have stayed with Sprint.
 
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
What I don't understand, though, is why a company can have perfectly great service and then switch technologies and expect customers to put up with far inferior service.


It happens all the time. Most companies have no problem getting the cost lower while reducing a small amount of customers, while making the rest of the customers happier or unnoticed.

To me, for example, the service / connection of ATT has been better over the years, so it really depends on the area, coverage, and it changes over time when their lease agreement of the tower was extended or expired.
 
Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Yeah, I could switch, sure. What I don't understand, though, is why a company can have perfectly great service and then switch technologies and expect customers to put up with far inferior service.


Companies are in business to make money, not to provide service. If they can reduce the quality of their service to save money and not lose enough customers to cancel the savings, then it's a viable option. It's the preferred option for some short sighted CEOs

When we travel in the US we carry a GMS phone that uses ATT's network and a CDMA phone that uses Verizon's. Between the two we get pretty good coverage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top