- 09-10-2010, 08:37 AM #126
- 09-10-2010, 09:05 AM #127
- 09-10-2010, 11:04 AM #128
- 09-10-2010, 11:17 AM #129
Let me expound upon this:
Sitting side by side.
Both using iPhone 4 handsets.
Both downloading 190 megs of data.
Both on the same frequency.
One user has a Canadian billing address.
One user has a US billing address.
One user gets RAPED with a $3000 bill because he/she has a US billing address.
Same phone, same tower, same frequency, same GSM system, same handset, same amount of data...
See where I'm going with this?
- 09-10-2010, 12:23 PM #130
- 09-17-2010, 03:44 PM #132
That said, I would like to see the GSM carriers negotiate more competitive agreements. The network is really pretty flat; it does not cost Rogers a lot more to service an AT&T customer than one of its own. Moreover, there is little motive for Rogers to discourage AT&T users roaming on its network. Indeed, a lot of AT&T users are AT&T users in part to be GSM users, to be able to use their phones any place in the World, something that CDMA users cannot do and that Verizon cannot offer them. To attract people by providing the capability and then pricing such that no one dare use it, is self-defeating. If one cannot afford to use one's GSM phone, then one might as well be a CDMA user. not value to somehing that one dare not use.
- 09-18-2010, 05:27 AM #133
- 09-18-2010, 12:21 PM #134
Rogers has to expend more capital per user to provide the same coverage and capacity in their franchise than does AT&T. Moreover, they provide more service to AT&T customers than AT&T does to Rogers's customers. They are entitled to net revenue from AT&T for doing that. Thus, it costs AT&T more to provide service to their customers when they are in Canada.
You are correct that AT&T could choose to spread that extra cost evenly over all it's customers; it probably would not change the average bill by a dollar a month. The issue would be much more complicated when one includes India where costs are much higher.
I come down very much more on your side when we talk about domestic, rather than international, roaming. While AT&T publishes a map that shows where they do and do not provide service, they make a choice. Usually they do that based upon whether it is more profitable to cover by building or by buying. They should not penalize their customers for such a choice. They should not decide not to build and then charge their customer extra because of that decision.
The difference is that AT&T does not have the choice to build in Canada or India while it's customer does have the choice to use and how much in those countries.
- 09-18-2010, 03:00 PM #135
Sorry, but 190 megs of data is not a "load." Hypothetically, there could 500 people downloading 190 megs of data who live there, and one person from another country downloading 190 megs of data. Now where's the load coming from? The 500 people or the one?
Like I said, it boils down to the billing address and nothing more. It costs the same amount of money to modulate a carrier frequency no matter where your billing address is.
- 09-18-2010, 07:16 PM #136
- 09-18-2010, 09:28 PM #137iPhone Newbie
- 10 Posts
- 09-27-2010, 04:50 AM #138
- 10-14-2010, 05:11 PM #140
- 10-15-2010, 07:50 AM #141
- 10-15-2010, 06:27 PM #143
- 11-04-2010, 01:12 AM #145
When the government sticks their big fat noses in to peoples business. Like peoples eating habits. Now I agree people should eat more healthy, but come on, if John Doe wants to have an unhealthy life style, its HIS problem. Not the governments.
Oh and I also hate posers, and stupid people.
- 11-12-2010, 03:44 AM #147
- 11-16-2010, 08:50 PM #150